From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Sep 20 13:12:41 PDT 1993
Article: 27571 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 09/15/93
Message-ID: <417-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 20 Sep 93 4:53:9 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 670


   - ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

    The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
    Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
    The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
    To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
    Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
    Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

    Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W          
    Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC                
    3:1 Companding, Flat           

      or      

    Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
    Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
    Wide Band Video Subcarrier    
The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service.  To 
get  an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche 
mailing list.  To do this, send a message to listserv@ccs.covici.com 
with a line saying
subscribe lar-lst

After that, to get an index, say
index lar-lst


    September 15, 1993 
    ``EIR Talks'' 
    Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 
    Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

    MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {``Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with
Lyndon LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 
    Welcome, Mr. LaRouche. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Good morning. 

        The Israeli-PLO Peace Plan: Who Are the Enemies of
     Peace? 

    Q: We have a Middle East accord which is shaping up
between Peres and Arafat. The whole world is looking at it
with great hope. What do you think are the danger points for
Peres and Arafat for implementing their accord in a
successful way? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, you've got two kinds of dangers. One
danger is the danger of the overt enemies of this, which is
enemies who are centered around the friends of Kissinger. 
    I don't wish to imply that Kissinger is more important
than he is. He is only and has been for the past 40 years,
merely a tool of a certain faction of British Intelligence
with which he has been associated all this time, Chatham
House and Lord Carrington and people like that. 
    But remember that Kissinger and these fellows are also
friends of Sharon in Israel and that faction. 
    So it's the Kissinger-British Intelligence faction, his
owners in British Intelligence, and Sharon as typical of the
same faction, who are the main external source of danger. 
    There is an {internal} source of danger, and a grave
one. The danger is this--and it seems to be the trend of
opinion in policy shapers in Europe and in Washington;
Washington and Europe seem to be insisting, that {at this
time,} that all economic development in this region {be
limited in practice} to penny-ante housing, sewage, and
maquiladora-type employment projects. If that penny-ante
approach is taken, then this grand opportunity for durable
peace--and it's much more than that--will be shot. Without
{immediate action} on the kinds of large-scale,
infrastructural projects which the Prime Minister's office in
Israel has ready to go on its side (that includes a Gaza
port, a canal to the Dead Sea; it includes knowledge which
we've pushed of this canal from the Gulf of Aqaba all through
the Dead Sea), this plan would fail. 
    In other words, without water projects, without power
projects, and without the plan to develop new cities and new
agricultural regions through water development, this plan
would fail. And therefore, those who are pushing penny-ante
limitations on the program, are enemies of peace in the
Middle East--even when they pretend to be supportive. 
    It's like, you've got a fellow who's starving to death,
and you say, ``Well, if you come to my house, we'll help you
live. But we'll limit your diet to 300 calories a day.'' So
that's the kind of support that will kill the beneficiary.
And we must be aware of this grave danger, of the people who
will love it to death by starving it to death. 

     ``Pillars of Peace in the Middle East'': Overcoming the
     Land and Water Shortages 
    
    Q: Certainly we need roads, and certainly we need
sewage, and we need these types of things. Why do the kinds
of projects you're talking about, the canals, let's say, from
the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, put the economic
development on an entirely different basis? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: The problem, in part, in the American
citizen, for example today's college graduate in economics or
business management, is that he knows nothing about the
reality of economics. And so some of these people, out of
just pure ignorance, could view these penny-ante projects as
being somehow beneficial, just because they provide a little
temporary band-aid type of help to a few, or to a small
minority, of the population of Palestinians, for example. 
    You {cannot} create a modern economy without a very
large preparatory investment in transportation, water
management, and power. That is, to maintain any level of
technology requires a certain amount of kilowatt hours per
person and per capita, and per square kilometer. It requires
so many ton-mile hours for freight capacity, for the same
criteria. It requires so much water per capita and per square
kilometer. 
    Without these prerequisites, including sanitation, and
also including social measures such as schools and medical
care, you cannot maintain a productive modern economy. And if
you put an industry down in the middle of the desert or in a
slum without this infrastructural support, that industry must
generally fail. It certainly will fail to benefit the
community, because it does not have the {foundation} to make
it work. 
    The problem is today, most people don't understand--this
includes largely college graduates in economics and business
education, who have absolutely no understanding of how the
industrial economies of Europe and America were built. They
don't believe in that any more, and think that there must be
a way in which you can prosper by sitting down at a personal
computer and making options programs for your personal
account. 
    So that's our problem. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have called for agro-industrial
complexes for the Middle East, using nuclear power. And you
placed a special importance on nuclear power for this region.
Why is nuclear power so important for this region? Isn't
there a great deal of fear of using it by some of the
participants in the area, and how would you overcome that
fear? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well the fear is largely political, and
the fear comes chiefly from the Palestinian side. Some of the
Palestinians, of course, have had support for years, or
expressed sympathy, from leftist channels in Europe and the
United States; and as we know, leftists usually--not all of
them, but most of them--are fairly ignorant of the ABCs of
economy, and also are very ignorant of science, as we see by
the spread of these environmental crazes or fads or cults
among the ranks of these leftists especially, who believe
that sand will cause cancer--which it might, in a sense; so
therefore we should eliminate all dirt from the planet Earth,
in order to avoid cancer. 
    So the Palestinians--and some of them, remember, are
highly professional people, engineers and doctors and
whatnot--are afraid that if they advocate nuclear power for
the Middle East, they will offend some of their long-term
leftist sympathizers in Europe and the United States. 
    The unfortunate fact on that count is, that without
nuclear power, you {cannot develop the Middle East at all.}
Therefore, if you say no nuclear power for the Middle East,
you are saying to the Palestinians and many other poor Arabs:
``Die.'' 
    There is, admittedly, petroleum power, but petroleum
products, if you want to talk about environmental dirt--what
is more polluting than burning hydrocarbons? It's the
filthiest thing you can do! We can do it more cleanly, but
that's high-tech. The cleanest and safest energy we have, and
the most economical, is nuclear power. We don't have fusion
yet, but we will. 
    We have also perfectly safe and perfectly weapons-free
nuclear power in the form of a thorium-cycle high-temperature
gas-cooled reactor of German design and its offshoots. And
that's what I've advocated be used. It involves no particular
problems. There are engineers in the area capable of running
a nuclear establishment of that type. India is a major source
of thorium, which is the fuel for that cycle. And this gives
us the economic efficiency of power. That is, the higher the
temperature at which power is produced, the more efficient it
is; not only the more efficient, but the more suitable it is,
for chemical applications such as desalination. 
    And we have a mass desalination need in that region,
particularly with using of hydropower which is not used for
industrial or agricultural applications. And that
desalination requirement requires nuclear power. 
    We have a desert to tame, specifically the Negev, which
is one of Israel's greatest opportunities and greatest
challenges: to make the Negev habitable. That means they
require nuclear power and desalinization to create
agricultural, industrial centers of habitation (which
obviously will require some air conditioning, among other
things). 
    So one of the pillars of peace is the overcoming of the
land and water crisis in the Middle East. Also, remember:
that if the world continues to develop and does not go into a
Dark Age, in that case, the Suez Canal will be a real
bottleneck, not only as an undersized canal for world
purposes as it is right now; but there are simply too many
kinds of traffic for it to handle. The development of a
system of these water-bearing canals from the Red Sea, from
the Gulf of Aqaba in the Mediterranean into the Dead Sea,
which is a nice downhill run from the ocean, will also create
canals for transportation--barge traffic. And that will be a
great asset, since these barge traffic operations from inside
that region in the Middle East will go into Egyptian,
Israeli, Palestinian, and Jordanian seaports, where of course
the barge traffic, by the roll on/roll off methods, will
easily go into ocean traffic. And that will be a great boon
to developing the Middle East as an economically profitable
crossroads for much of Eurasia. And that's the kind of thing
which we're looking forward to, and nuclear power is one of
the essential foundations of building that kind of a region. 

    Q: Arafat has called for $11-12 billion, $1.3 billion
per year over 10 years. The World Bank is proposing $3
billion, and who knows when they'll give it. Are these
projections of financial aid the right kind of size for the
projects you're talking about? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: If you take together the Israeli internal
budget, which is going into capital investments anyway; and
you take the potential of developing more capital through the
Israeli economy for this kind of investment program, and you
add that to what Arafat is proposing for the joint
development, or for the development of this
Palestianian-Israeli interface, then you begin to get into
the order of magnitude of about $1 and a half to $2 billion a
year. That begins to look like serious work. At that level,
I'd say, yes, we are beginning to get into reality, whereas
if you're talking about $100 million a year, you are really
talking about a welfare handout which will leave the people
poorer each year than when you started. 
    [commercial break] 

        ``Kissinger is Not Only Dead Wrong, He's Evil'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, Henry Kissinger has nominally approved
of the Middle East peace plan, but he's said a number of
things. He said that the fall of the Berlin Wall was an
irreversible affair, but this situation in the Middle East is
not; and one of his co-thinkers, Jeane Kirkpatrick, has said
that Israel has made a mistake by putting all of their apples
in Arafat, he's the wrong partner to choose for this; he's
weak; fundamentalism is on the rise. 
    How do you answer these nay-sayers, in terms of the
Middle East accord? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Of course, Kissinger as usual is being
duplicitous. The kind thing to say is he's a liar; he does
{not} support the Middle East treaty. He supports getting his
big mouth into the middle of the business. 
    When he says Arafat's the wrong partner, he's not
serious, obviously. That's a giveaway. As the Israelis, who
understand the situation, particular Rabin, Peres, and so
forth, and a majority of Israelis in the military who
understand it, would say, if you don't have Arafat in it,
it's not going to work. 
    Arafat has twofold significance from this standpoint. In
order to have an agreement, you must have a discussion
partner who's capable of delivering. The problem is, that no
one except Arafat--that is, the PLO as typified by his
leadership--is capable of delivering what must be delivered
by a treaty partner. The whole thing would descend into a
bunch of squabbling little sects, none of which would agree,
and none of which would actually be able to sign a treaty. 
    So the Israelis showed good intelligence--much better
intelligence than Kissinger purportedly would show--in
choosing Arafat as the discussion partner. They have
discussed with Arafat indirectly for years, they know who he
is. They don't believe their own propaganda, which they know
is war propaganda from the past, and they want a result. The
time has come to get peace and development now, or the whole
region will go up in smoke. That's the informed Israeli
viewpoint of the matter, and with that, despite my
disagreement with them on many other points, I agree with
them on this policy. They are right in taking this course of
action. And Kissinger is not only dead wrong, but he's evil. 
    At every point at which the United States has sought to
put its economic and diplomatic weight in support of an
Israeli-Palestinian agreement, and a broader Arab-Israeli
agremeent in the Middle East, Kissinger personally, since he
became adviser to Nixon 25 years ago approximately, has
worked to sabotage every possibility of a Middle East
agreement. 
    Kissinger sabotaged the Rogers Plan initiative, when
Rogers was Secretary of State, and Kissinger was over at NSC;
that's a matter of record. He sabotaged these efforts in
1975-76, when I was involved in this personally. He sabotaged
it again in 1977, in terms of the Rambouillet complex. And I
saw him {personally involved} in sabotaging it. In 1982, he
worked with Sharon to sabotage peace; and I tracked him
personally on that. 
    {Kissinger has always been against peace in the Middle
East,} and he's not changed now; and that's the best way to
understand him. 
    Kirkpatrick is a different kettle of fish. She's openly
opposed to it, but that's from a neo-conservative standpoint. 

   ``The World's Economies Are Operating At Below Breakeven'' 
    
    Q: Your point is well taken. Just a clarification: It
was Kirkpatrick who said Arafat is the wrong partner. 
    You have said that it is important to couple this Oasis
Plan with your European Productive Triangle plan. Why is that
so important? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Logistics, and economy. The world economy
presently, from a physical standpoint, is operating {way
below the breakeven point.} And what's happening in the
United States, for example, is this budget-cutting nonsense,
which Mr. Ross Perot, unfortunately, displays the ignorance
of supporting--I wonder how Ross Perot runs a business, if he
supports this downsizing for the United States. Obviously, he
didn't use the downsizing principle for his business. Look at
the record of Perot enterprises: they've {grown!} They've
grown massively from nothing, from practically a tiny service
bureau operation using old punchcard machines into what he is
today. 
    So Ross Perot is not applying to the U.S. economy
whatever wisdom he applied successfully to his own business
enterprises. 
    The problem is this. If you downsize the world as we
have done, so the world is operating below breakeven, every
major economy in the world is presently operating below
breakeven-- 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing the importance
of applying your approach as you have developed in your
European Triangle, and you were comparing it to the
downsizing aspects of Perot's approach to the U.S. economy. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: To make this clear. 
    Forget the money side of this thing, because money is
paper, and as one can see, most of the world's money economy
is running into a meaningless bubble which is about to
collapse, as the {Neue Zuercher Zeitung,} the leading Swiss
publication, has been warning repeatedly, that we're on the
verge of the greatest financial collapse in history. 
    The total costs of running an economy--look at it from a
physical standpoint. 
    The cost of maintaining a nation's production is, first
of all, infrastructure: rail, water, power, schools, and so
forth; sewage systems, that sort of thing. The second cost of
course is food production; the third cost is manufactured
goods production. Those are the primary costs of maintaining
a national economy. And you compare that cost of production
per capita and per square kilometer, with the cost of the
market basket of households, and the market basket of
industries. 
    When I say the world is operating below breakeven, I
mean that the cost of maintaining these economies as if they
were unified business economies, as compared with their
necessary output level, is that they are operating at a
physical output which is way below the cost of doing
business; and therefore all these economies are going
bankrupt, including the United States economy. We are now
operating on import deficit. 
    So, as long as these economies are operating on an
import deficit basis, their help for the Middle East, their
political stability--and there is no major country in this
world on this planet, which has a stable government,
including the United States government. We're a few months
away, or a couple of years away at most, from a major
collapse of U.S. government itself, despite all the talk in
Washington. 
    So under these conditions, with the whole world
collapsing, a Middle East peace, while a useful contribution
to the political and economic process, will not be able to
endure; and therefore, we must get back to a rebuilding
program, a recovery program, of the type which the United
States is not even considering today, domestically. 
    And the only recovery program which exists for the
industrialized nations {and} developing nations implicitly,
is the Triangle program which I presented back in 1989. 
    So without that Triangle program for Europe, and other
countries cooperating with Europe, there is no possibility of
sustaining a peace effort in the Middle East. 

        The Balkans: ``The U.S. Government Has Been an
     Accomplice to Genocide'' 

    Q: One of the areas which is connected to the Middle
East, is the Balkans. It is part of the Mediterranean
complex, and we're seeing fighting re-emerging at this point,
very severe fighting between Croatia and Serbia. 
    Will this affect the Middle East peace process? Is this
part of the destabilization operation in the Balkans, and how
can this situation be corrected? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, just plain and simple. 
    As a result of the efforts of the British influence in
the UN Security Council and the British and related
influence--I'm talking about Thatcher's and then the Major
government's influences on European continental policy, and
U.S. policy--the Serbians have been constantly encouraged and
backed to launch aggressive warfare including war crimes and
crimes against humanity, against their neighbors. 
    As a result of Lord Owen's encouragement, and as a
result of the United States Clinton administration's
{capitulation} to British and to some degree French pressure,
but primarily British, the Serbians have been unloosed, and
they are now launching a new aggressive war against Croatia;
and unless they're stopped, this is going to engulf all of
South Central Europe and other parts of the world by
implication, in a general spreading war. 
    So the failure of the United States to use armed
force--i.e., specifically, air attacks and lifting the
embargo on weapons to the Bosnians--the failure to do that on
the part of the United States government in defiance of any
British or like-thinking allies, is the cause for this
particular problem. 
    Because we knew the British started it in the first
place, they started the Serbian warfare, presumably against
the so-called unified Germany, to destabilize Europe. 
    The United States knew it, did nothing about it,
condoned it. When you don't do something about
something--when somebody's being raped, and you walk by and
don't help them, you're condoning the rape. When somebody is
committing mass murder and genocide in the Balkans, and you
have the means to do something about it and don't, you're
condoning genocide. You are an accomplice to crimes against
humanity. And unfortunately, the United States government has
been an accomplice to the crimes of genocide, of holocaust,
if you want to call it that, in the Balkans. 
    That is breaking out now; and that certainly will affect
everything, including the prospects for the Middle East. 

        Luis Mercado's Attacks on LaRouche: ``The New York
     Fed's Swindlers Are Afraid 
                   I Will Expose Their Hoax'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, I want to move on to another area. Luis
Mercado is a reporter for a Mexican newspaper. He's a
financial reporter, and he's just recently written about the
NAFTA deal, and criticized the opponents of NAFTA, saying
that NAFTA is going to be very, very good for the Mexican
economy. You have engaged in a bit of a controversial debate
with him at this point, because you have said that he's
covering up on certain matters involved in the NAFTA deal,
especially from the standpoint of the Federal Reserve. 
    Can you please indicate some aspects of this debate? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: He attacked me by name, week before last,
in his column. And this was echoed in other Mexican press,
his coverage of me, his attack on me, saying that I
personally from the United States was the hand behind a very
dangerous resistance to some of the NAFTA financial policies,
the debt policies, within Mexico; that I was the hand behind
some of the opposition to NAFTA within Mexico; and that
politically repressive measures should be taken against my
friends in Mexico. 
    Now, as you know, there were some hearings that same
week in Washington, toward the end of the week, before
Chairman Gonzalez of the House of Representatives Banking
Committee hearing on NAFTA; and chairman Gonzalez asked the
representative from Citibank to please cough up the truth
about who's hiding this secret financial agreement between
somebody in the United States and Mexico, the point being
that the NAFTA agreement, as far as business deals are
concerned, is all in place. There's nothing to vote up or
down. 
    The question is: What is the importance which somebody
is putting on this NAFTA agreement? What are the financial
agreements in NAFTA? And the chairman asked the
representative from Citibank to answer. And the fellow evaded
the question. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing Luis Mercado and
NAFTA. Please continue. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: So what the fellow from Citibank said in
answer to the question from Henry Gonzalez, the chairman of
the committee, was, ``Well, there were some meetings over at
the Federal Reserve office (that is, the New York Fed), with
interested parties there.'' And he wouldn't say anything
more. But that's the whole show. 
    And then, of course, my associate, John Hoefle, who also
later testified on these questions, was also asked relevant
questions by the chairman, and of course, we're in the middle
of it. 
    The point is this. Paul Warburg, when he founded the
Federal Reserve system back early in this century, with the
backing of Teddy Roosevelt {and} Woodrow Wilson (the three of
them were really in cahoots together at that point), said
that the Federal Reserve system was intended to take over the
entire Western Hemisphere as a British-style private central
bank chartered by the U.S. government. 
    That's what's in progress in Mexico, that is what Mr.
Mercado is so nervous about. That's why he's attacking me
publicly, and that's what the Citibank people are nervous
about. 
    Now the New York banks, the seven big banks, are no
longer real banks. Over the past several years, they have
undergone a transmogrification. They are simply conduits for
passing Federal Reserve printing press money through the
mutual funds and thse banks into the biggest financial bubble
in the world. 
    This financial bubble, according to sources such as the
repeated reports in the {Neue Zuercher Zeitung}, the leading
financial paper of Switzerland, is about to blow. It may blow
in September, it might blow in October, it might wait until
the spring; those things are not necessarily easily decided.
But it's ready to blow. And everything in the New York
banking system, is tied to this derivatives bubble. It's
ready to blow. 
    So what are the New York bankers so desperate about? 
    They intend to go down to Mexico, and to get the Bank of
Mexico to engage in the following swindle. The Fed will pump
through the New York banks tens of billions of dollars into a
Mexican bond issue which will give the Mexican bank nominal
control of these dollars. The Mexican economy will go into
debt for these bonds. The money which is deposited will not
necessarily go into Mexico. It will go as loans in the world
market. 
    So what is afoot here, is pumping U.S.
dollars--inflationary dollars--into various other parts of
the world, predicating these dollar issues upon new bonded
debt of countries such as Mexico, which already have a
{crushing} foreign bonded indebtedness. 
    That means the Mexican economy will be looted
Auschwitz-style by this kind of indebtedness, while the
United States people will be looted by virtue of this overrun
of dollars into foreign countries, as is already beginning to
occur, of course. Only one-third of U.S. dollars are in the
United States, the rest are circulating outside. And the U.S.
business and employment will collapse. The New York banks,
presumably, will get rich--until the bubble pops, that
is--and the Mexicans will go down another notch, in the
direction of turning all of Mexico into something like the
slave-labor Auschwitz projects of the World War II period. 
    Now that's the swindle which my friends and I are
seeking to expose; which chairman Gonzalez of the House
Banking Committee is seeking to expose or to bring to light
the facts of the matter; and Mr. Mercado's backers in the
circles of the Banco de Mexico who are in these operations
with the New York Federal Reserve swindlers, are very much
afraid that I, even from my reduced circumstances, will
expose this great hoax, and also expose the fact that the
whole blasted swindle, the international financial
derivatives bubble, is about to collapse; and somebody's
going to say ``Whoa, buddy. This NAFTA is not simply a great
sucking sound. It's something much worse than that''; and
that's what got Mr. Mercado all upset. 

     Les Aspin's Defense Bill: 
                       Fatal Assumptions 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, at this point, I'd like to move on to
another area. Les Aspin is proposing a defense bill, it's
called his ``Bottoms Up'' bill, and he is talking about a
reorgnization of the U.S. defense capability which is based
upon no longer dealing with the superpower Russia, or the
former Soviet Union, as an enemy, and restructuring the
defense to deal with Third World conflicts or hot spots. 
    What do you think of this defense bill, and what are the
implications for the future safety of the United States? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: I'm going to say some terrible things
about the bill, but let me say first that I consider Les
Aspin an intelligent fellow, and, under ordinary
circumstances, if I were a President, I would probably find a
place for a fellow such as Les Aspin. But what he's come up
with, is terrible. It's awful. 
    When he says that the Russian problem is now reduced to
a {regional} power problem, not a global one, he's blowing
smoke--or somebody's blowing smoke through him. 
    First of all, as the {Neue Zuercher Zeitung} has said,
and as others say, we're on the verge of the greatest
financial collapse in history; and when that financial
collapse occurs--and there's nothing in U.S. policy or
present European policy visible which would do anything to
stop it from occurring--it is now, in terms of present
policies of European governments, and U.S. government, is now
inevitable. Unless my policies were suddenly to be adopted
instead. I could stop it; I could stop it from being a
catastrophe. The present government, the Clinton
administration with its present policy, could not; the
Congress could not; Ross Perot could not; the Republicans,
including the amiable Senator Dole, could not. 
    So it's coming. 
    When that comes, the Western part of this world, Western
Europe and North America, and to some degree Japan, will be
in as terrible shape as Russia was over the period beginning
1989 through the present. It will be a mess. And under those
conditions, and together with the kind of downsizing of the
U.S. military, which Les Aspin is proposing in his first step
of that now, United States will be reduced as a power to
parity essentially with the admittedly reduced power of the
former Soviet Union. 
    In the meantime, under the conditions of this crisis,
Russia will reconsolidate itself as a kind of authoritarian,
Great Russian imperial regime, not under the hammer and
sickle, but under the double eagle--the old Russian double
eagle; and Russia will be a world power, a world
thermonuclear power. It's still maintaining its global
thermonuclear strategic exercises: submarine warfare,
intercontinental missiles, space defense, antimissile
defense, all of these things, are all there. They're not much
impaired; they're reduced in scale, but they're not much
imparied. 
    What we are going to become, is a much weaker power
relative to the former Soviet Union. 
    So the basic assumption, first of all, of Les Aspin's
program, is entirely false. We, by our policies of the past
Bush-Thatcher period, and by failing to reverse those
policies under Clinton, have turned a probable partner in
Russia, into a formidable adversary, at the same time we are
continuing policies which are going to collapse the military
as well as economic power of the United States and our former
pre-1989 NATO and related allies. 
    So, Mr. Aspin's assumptions are all bad. They are
assumptions which suffer the fatality of sharing some of the
views expressed by Mr. Luis Mercado in the Mexican press. 
    
    Q: Would you say that the restructuring policy is a
further elaboration of what McNamara did to the military in
the United States going back to the 1960s? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: It certainly is. 
    Of course, don't blame Les Aspin for that. The McNamara
policy has been imbedded in U.S. policy ever since Kennedy
was shot. 
    That is, Kennedy was the last President really to
resist, although Reagan attempted, with his promulgation of
the Strategic Defense Initiative, to reverse the McNamara
policy, but failed to do so. 
    What you build up, is a civilian bureaucracy in the
Pentagon, which has cleaned out the flag officers generally,
who believe in military science, and has produced the kind of
desk operatives, the cabinet warfare operatives, wearing
stars for some unknown reason, maybe just for prestige
reasons, but not for practical reasons, who support that kind
of McNamara policy. 
    The systems analysis policy, the cabinet warfare policy
of Robert McNamara, the butcher of Vietnam incidentally
(that's the kind of peacenik he is); this policy has been
imbedded in the Pentagon bureaucracy and related sections of
the Congressional bureacuracy, ever since Kennedy was shot,
with only this intervening opposition from Reagan on the
issue of the SDI. 
    And so Aspin, going into the Pentagon, and going into
the Congressional Pentagon bureaucracy, which managed these
budgets, has simply projected, by reflex--he's come up with a
policy which fits the axiomatic assumptions in those
premises, and the axiomatic assumptions are those which we
associated, back in the 1960s, with Robert ``Very Strange''
McNamara. 
    His middle name, by the way, is Strange; so when some
people refer to him as Robert Strange McNamara, we are simply
emphasizing a biological fact of his birth record. 
    
    Q: Well, Mr. LaRouche, we've come up to our time limit.
I'd like to thank you very much for being with us, and I'd
like to tell our listeners, that if they want to send in
questions, they can write: ``EIR Talks,'' c/o EIR News
Service, Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390,
Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
    We will see you next week, Mr. LaRouche. 

                           - 30 -


----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor