From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!uunet!ccs!covici Sat Apr 10 20:29:35 PDT 1993 Article: 19231 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!uunet!ccs!covici From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 4/8/93 Message-ID: <283-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 11 Apr 93 0:7:4 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 763 EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky April 8, 1993 April 8, 1993 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche'' Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. - SDI Offer Reported in {Izvestia} - Mr. LaRouche, before we begin discussing Bill Clinton's battles with Phil Gramm, I would like to get into a very interesting development that has occurred in terms of the SDI [Strategic Defense Initiative]: An {Izvestia} piece which appeared on April 2, 1993, indicated that Boris Yeltsin would make an offer to President Clinton to have an SDI-sharing program. Can you give us some information on that, if you are aware of it? MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, this was a half-page, front-page feature in {Izvestia.} The background on it is, to my knowledge, as follows. Through our follow-up investigations inside Moscow, the following story emerges. The writer of the story, which appeared in {Izvestia,} which is the Russian government newspaper, on Friday, April 2, had been previously instructed to go to a representative of {very high level} military intelligence research centers, to receive a briefing and to write the story essentially as given to him, by this high-level source. And that is what appeared. What the source indicated, is that at the Vancouver summit, the Russians would offer to Clinton technology-sharing in a joint effort to develop a strategic ballistic missile defense system. From my technical knowledge of these matters and my past technical knowledge of what the Russians are doing, the following facts emerge from that newspaper article and from some follow-up which was done on it afterward. First of all, this is what we would call in SDI language a {terminal defense system} based on plasma techniques which I have known the Russians to be working on at high levels for a very long period of time. It technically would work; of course, the field testing for all the glitches that lapse between a laboratory test and a field test have to be made. What this would mean, is that the Russians are now reversing field; that is whereas in February 1983 in the Soviet government's back channel message to me (I was conducting a negotiation, of course, for the Reagan administration), they indicated that the project was feasible, that is, the use of modern technologies to develop a strategic ballistic missile defense and to benefit the economies by use of the new technologies in the economy. They would reject it, because the United States and its allies would beat the Russians in an economics race as opposed to the military race. And Andropov, of course, when Reagan, on March 23, 1983 announced exactly what I told the Russians was in the works, blew his stack; and of course I became {persona non grata,} to the point that in 1986, the Gorbachov government specifically demanded that the U.S. government imprison me in a demonstrative way as a condition for continuing the summit. That occurred in the context of the preparations for the Reykjavik summit. But today, they have apparently reversed their field, and they have now, 10 years later approximately, accepted the offer which I tentatively broached and which Reagan actually made, back in 1983. It is an {extremely significant development} which can change the course of history. Q: This new technology is described in the {Izvestia} piece by Viktor Litovkin as something that would use ground-based lasers and would create a kind of background to a weapons system. It would ionize the area surrounding an incoming ballistic missile. Is this the kind of new technology that you referred to in your proposal as ``new physical principles''? MR. LAROUCHE. Precisely; and the Russians, of course, make some reference to that, the fact that in the language of the ABM Treaty, which Kissinger negotiated with Brezhnev back in 1972, an exception was stuck in, that the ABM Treaty would not ban the use of weapons of defense based on ``new physical principles.'' As I said, this is a terminal defense system. It involves the use of phased array microwave capabilities, which is the type the Russians are {experts} in, and other things, to generate in the pathway of an oncoming projectile, whether it's an aircraft or a missile, a plasmoid condition, such that the missile or aircraft entering that particular area of, shall we say, pre-structured space, would be in terrible difficulties at the time it entered. Essentially, it is a waylaying of incoming objects, with a plasma, a very high-energy, ionized plasma, which would cause all kinds of unpleasantness to an aircraft or to a missile. Q: What is the difference between new physical systems and the kind of kinetic approach that was adopted by the SDI program? MR. LAROUCHE: To the layman, this becomes clearest when you start talking about dollars. If you take the building and the launching of a missile with its warhead against a target, that represents a certain amount of total energy invested in producing {a} missile, and a certain amount of money invested in producing that missile and targeting and launching it and so forth. If you use a rocket to try to intercept that missile, you run into some very embarrassing cost features. First of all, you must build a high-speed rocket, that is, one which is very specially accelerated to intercept the incoming missile. And that rocket must have a certain degree of accuracy in intercepting this incoming missile, which is a fairly difficult object to hit in some respects at that kind of distance and those speeds. So what you end up with is, the cost of bringing down, say, a Russian missile from the U.S. side, using high-speed rockets of the type that were tested out with such dismal results against SCUDs, in the recent Iraq confrontation; that is a very high-priced operation, and it really does not work. With technologies of the type we are talking about, lasers, plasmoids, etc., what are called new physical principles relative to military technology, we are getting the cost of sinking a dollar's worth of Russian missile down in the direction of, potentially, about 10 cents. The issue here, is that by using new technologies, not only is it {possible,} through development, to eliminate most of an incoming strike; but at the same time, the cost of destroying the strike is less than the cost of the strike itself. So we say that economically, physically, and otherwise, the defense begins to gain a strategic advantage over the offense. That was the crucial feature in the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative itself. - My Fight for Strategic Defense Since the 1970s - Q: Mr. LaRouche, most people associate you with politics, with running for office, for President, many, many times. They do not associate you with having been involved in back-channel discussions for President Reagan. Can you give us some background on that? What was involved? What were you doing? MR. LAROUCHE. Of course, this is all news media nonsense. As a matter of fact, very rarely--{almost never}--has the major U.S. media reported a single thing I have done in politics or anything else. So they simply have these little slugging matches, these dirty words, dirty messages, which are featured. But almost no reportage of anything I have done. First of all, I have been concerned with this process since the middle of the 1970s. I was concerned, as a broadcast I made in November 1976 indicates, that we were headed toward the danger of thermonuclear war, simply by continuing to try to develop offensive and defensive systems or strategies, under what was called the Mutually Assured Destruction policy of people such as Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara; and I warned that the incoming Carter administration was bringing us into a very dangerous area in this. So from 1976-77 I was very much concerned with developing a strategic defense to eliminate the insanity which was brought on the world by the Kissinger-McNamara policy, or the so-called Pugwash policy, of prohibiting a strategic defense against thermonuclear missiles. I worked on that; we encountered many efforts in that direction. We put a package together in the early summer of 1979 which was part of my 1980 Democratic Party presidential primary campaign. Some of the Reagan people were interested in that during the transition period and later; this led to a relationship with the government on this issue, and a few others related to it, probably a couple of score or so of issues on which I was working with the Reagan National Security Council. An element of the intelligence community asked me to set up this back channel on behalf of the United States with Russia, to set up a new back channel, and to explore some of these questions, which I did beginning February of 1982; and that continued until the President's announcement of the SDI on March 23, 1983, at which point Yuri Andropov blew his stack. I became {persona non grata.} They began calling me a ``{casus belli,}'' a cause for war, all that sort of thing. But the technological background, of course, was that I worked with the Fusion Energy Foundation, which nationally and internationally, represented directly, or through association, many of the leading scientists in various parts of the world who were working closely with us on a number of projects. And it was their knowledge and their competence in many respects, which enabled me to put together a package which was rather unique. [commercial break.] - The Implications of the Russian SDI Offer - Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing this very, very unique proposal that was made by Yeltsin, or we think was made by Yeltsin to President Clinton at the summit; at least it was indicated in a newspaper article that such an offer would be made, for mutual development of a Strategic Defense Initiative. You were discussing some of your work in this area with President Reagan back in the early 1980s, in terms of opening up discussions on this. Why did the Soviet Union reject it in 1983, and why are they making this offer at this time? What are the implications of this offer? MR. LAROUCHE: The implications are the fact that I did it, back then. What this signals to the Clinton administration--and also signals to the old anti-Bush Reagan people whom most people have forgotten about, and to a lot of other people around the world--is that the present strategic arrangements, are breaking down. There is no hope for any part of the world, including the United States, if we continue to make policies under the influence of prevailing assumptions of the IMF, the Federal Reserve faction in the United States, and so forth. The Russians are on the point of recognizing that; they know they cannot go on the way they are going. They wish to maintain a cooperative relationship with the United States for many reasons; and what they did, was to take the fact that they are ahead of the United States in a couple of scientific areas, to make an offer whose implication is to start this kind of cooperation in the direction of technological and scientific progress as the basis for relations, in direct opposition to Andropov's policy back ten years ago. Andropov's hatred against me, as well as that of his protege, Gorbachov, which became very bitter--was partly connected to the friends of Kissinger. That is, there were factions of the Democratic Party, there were people among Bush Republicans, such as James Baker III and so forth, who were wittingly working with Moscow, to try to prevent policies like this from being adopted. Walter Mondale, for example, after a direct approach to his group in May 1983 in Minnesota, by a Soviet delegation headed by a KGB man who was a personal representative of Andropov, adopted the policy which the Russians demanded of Mondale. As a matter of fact, the Democratic National Committee adopted the same policy in 1983 and 1984. So there were many forces on both sides which believed that they could work out a new deal, a New Yalta agreement between the United States and Britain on the one side, and the Soviets on the other side, which would be successful and would orchestrate the course of events for the next decades or so to come. What we warned, and I particularly warned--and I believe the Reagan people of course were aware of this, because I was working partly on their behalf--was that if Andropov were to reject the offer that President Reagan made, that the Soviet and Warsaw Pact economies would collapse within about five years or so. They did actually collapse, of course, in 1989, exactly as I warned them they would. That was a great opportunity for peace. The Bush administration and Thatcher in England ruined it; have put us on the track toward a new thermonuclear confrontation--not necessarily a thermonuclear war but a thermonuclear confrontation--with Russians who are extremely angry about the betrayal they sense they have suffered because of the murderous and stupid, ruinous policies of people like [Harvard professor] Jeffrey Sachs and the cruel and stupid policies of the International Monetary Fund. Under these conditions, the Russians recognize that I was right and the Soviets were wrong in rejecting Reagan's policy back then. And they want to get back in, from a Russian standpoint, on the kind of arrangement with the Clinton White House, which Reagan offered in 1983 in his speech and follow-ups on that. The Russians are signalling very much that they want that kind of deal now, that a great mistake has been made in the past 10 years, and we have to correct that mistake. Q: The Jeffrey Sachs and [Yegor] Gaidar policy is a de-industrialization policy. I think it would be correct to describe it that way, and if you think differently, please come in and correct it, but if it is so, as a deindustrialization policy, does that mean that this approach is a rejection of the Gaidar/Sachs policy? MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense it is. It reflects a reproach. Remember, this did not come from Yeltsin as such; it came from the highest levels of the Russian scientific and military-scientific community. Yeltsin carried the ball, and, to the best of our knowledge, this was actually discussed at Vancouver. There was an umbrella, which involves Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin as well as Vice President Gore, for talks to continue in this area. There are probably other channels of discussion. But remember: Since 1989, under the influence of the policies of people like Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF, the former Warsaw Pact region--eastern Europe, Poland, and so forth--{have gone through the greatest catastrophe since World War II.} The Polish economy, for example, has dropped to about 30 percent {or less} of its agricultural and industrial output of 1989; and similar effects exist throughout the eastern European region, the former Warsaw Pact states of eastern Europe, and similar effects are being experienced in Russia, in Belarus, in Ukraine, in the Baltic states--{everywhere.} So this IMF package, these policies, we might say, of people like Sen. Phil Gramm, have proven to be the greatest disaster imaginable in the former Warsaw Pact nations, just as they are showing, if people would pay attention to it, to have been the greatest disaster imaginable inside the United States and Britain too. - Why the KGB Considered me to be a ``{Casus Belli}'' - Q: You indicated something earlier on the show, which is extraordinary in its implication, that Gorbachov and Andropov were both interested in putting you in jail, or at least Gorbachov was interested in putting you in jail, and was instrumental in doing so. What evidence is there to this effect? MR. LAROUCHE: Oh, lots of it. But primarily, just take the Soviet official press. Remember that Fyodor Burlatsky, the man who spearheaded this attack on me in 1983, who called me a ``{casus belli}'' in print, in the Russian official press, was not only a former high-ranking KGB official, but he was a personal representative of Gorbachov. Sometimes people call him an adviser to Andropov. He was not an ``adviser'' to Andropov; he was a personal errand boy, a representative, a mouthpiece, for Andropov. Then, in the Soviet press, again, of course, {repeatedly,} the Soviet press would demand of the Reagan administration, as in 1984, {specifically} demand that President Reagan {personally} distance himself from me as a condition of negotiations with Moscow. Then at the beginning of 1986, Soviet intelligence worked together with several people in the United States, including the Anti-Defamation League, to spread the hoax alleging that I had been behind the assassination of [Swedish Prime Minister] Olof Palme; and that was a KGB dirty trick, as has now been exposed, as we knew at the time. But in the same year, there was a saturation campaign from all of the leading Soviet press demanding that the Reagan administration commit itself to imprisoning me as a demonstration of good faith for the upcoming summit negotiations. Then, when we got to the summit--remember, on Oct. 6, 1986, a 450-man raid was done demonstratively in Leesburg, Virginia, against firms associated with me to demonstrate {to the Russians} that there was a commitment to put me in prison. Around the time that raid was coming off, the Reykjavik summit was being held in Iceland [Oct. 10-12, 1986]. We knew the SDI was the hot issue of the summit. The international press and all the advisers--the {sherpas,} so-called, said, ``No, the SDI is dead.'' Then George Shultz came out at the end of the extended meetings between Gorbachov and Reagan, and announced that the negotiation agenda had collapsed, because Reagan refused to accept the Gorbachov demand that the SDI be given up. The center of the Soviet hatred against me, essentially involved these SDI negotiations and the pre-SDI negotiations which I had been conducting from February 1982 through February 1983. So that was the issue, and it was all over the Soviet press. No single person who was not a head of state in modern history has ever been subjected to the intensity, virulence, and extent of the Soviet attacks that were extended against me as an individual during that period. [commercial break] - The SDI Offer Is An Alternative - - to the Deindustrialization of Russia and the U.S. - Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing your particular negotiations on the SDI that took place back in the 1980s. We have been discussing the new Yeltsin offer on the SDI. Why should Bill Clinton accept this offer? What does it do for the United States? MR. LAROUCHE: Let's take a look at something, skip ahead to big breaking news in the United States this week. We have an old adversary of mine, I must say a very dangerous idiot--and I used the term idiot in a qualified sense--Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. Phil Gramm started out as a university professor in, shall we call it, ``Brand X'' economics, the type that he preaches at the top of his voice to this day. He became a Democratic representative in the House of Representatives, and then he became a ``boll weevil'' Democrat; and then he completed his transformation into a Republican and became a Senator as a reward for jumping ship to the Republican Party. Gramm is obsessed with the triumphant sound of his own incompetence. He insists that deregulation, radical free trade, radical monetarism, and so forth and so on, is the cure for everything: It is real snake medicine. Now, the problem for the United States, and for our allies as well, is that if we continue to apply Dr.-Professor-Senator Gramm's snake-oil medicine to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the form of IMF conditionalities, in the form of Jeffrey Sachs' snake-oil medicine from Harvard, and so forth, we are very soon going to come to the point, that the former Soviet Union will emerge in the form of a Russian empire--not a communist system but a Russian system. It will not be making direct thermonuclear war against us, though it will have the capability virtually to do so. It will have all those thermonuclear warheads and boomer submarines and so forth, all that kind of stuff. There will be an adversary relationship again, like that which existed, say, back in the 1970s, and back in the early 1980s. Then the world will be torn apart by this conflict, by extensions of wars like those in the Balkans or Transcaucasus or in Central Asia, Africa, South America, and so forth, together with a general economic collapse of the U.S. economy and the British economies, which is already going on. There is no economic recovery. There is an ongoing {collapse,} a physical collapse. There is a recovery in terms of some financial aggregates, but not in terms of economy. In Washington, as Secretary of State Warren Christopher has indicated, this Russian conflict is at the center of a whole host of conflicts globally, including our domestic economy policy. {If} we can reverse, hopefully, the disaster which was brought upon us by the idiocy of Margaret Thatcher and the lunacy of George Bush, who took the greatest opportunity for peace and gave us a crisis instead, we can get out of this mess. To do that, we have to utilize scientific and technological progress, an investment boom based on that, to get the U.S. economy and other economies moving again. This economic policy, which is being used to wreck Russia and eastern Europe, has already wrecked the United States economy; and people like Phil Gramm, who are opposing even the petty, token policy of job stimulation which President Clinton has put forward, are the flies in the ointment. We have to get this crowd out of the way; we have to get the Thatcherites out of the way, and get back to traditional American emphasis on scientific and technological progress and investment along those lines. This Russian offer can be a kind of stimulant, a catalyst, which {eliminates} the danger of a renewed conflict between West and East, and which, at the same time, as an intellectual and scientific stimulant, will help to push us in the direction that Phil Gramm wants to prevent us from going. But Phil Gramm is, believe me, a fanatical nut, and we have had too much of that sort of stuff all along. Now the price to pay, would be too great. We cannot afford Phil Gramm any more. - How Economic Prosperity Comes Out Of - - Scientific and Technological Progress - Q: When you spoke of the SDI program in the early 1980s, there were two features to it that you emphasized. One was the war-avoidance aspect of it, and we can understand that this technology would create a nuclear shield against ballistic missile weapons; but the second was economic development, economic spinoffs. What are the types of economic spinoffs that we can expect, and would they be fundamental in terms of turning around the economic depression that we see in this country? MR. LAROUCHE: Of course they would be fundamental. Remember that all true, sustainable profit in the long run comes {only} from scientific and technological progress. It is very simple. We go out and we work, we produce things with our labor; and the number of people who work per household, of course, is actuarially limited. So that labor sustains society. If we can produce more with that labor, than it costs us to produce that labor--that is, paying for the families, the infrastructure, everything that goes into producing a new individual who goes to work--if we can produce a lot more in terms of physical wealth, than the physical wealth and so forth consumed in producing in net effect a family and its labor component, then that difference becomes profit. If we continue to proceed without technological progress, we use up those categories of natural and improved resources, on which that technology depends; and thus you have a marginal depletion and a decline in profit and then you get into a negative profit situation, where there is a collapse of the economy. So therefore, all profit ultimately comes from increases in physical productivity of labor arising from what we call today scientific and technological progress. If you make a leap by taking new scientific developments and turning them into machine-tool designs and putting them into production, you will have a leap in physical productivity which will result in a leap in productivity and profitability; and that is the way you get growth. It is on that principle that the United States was founded, as some of the writings of George Washington's Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, indicate. That is the principle: that the SDI contains, in terms of technologies used, the most advanced scientific technologies now coming into feasible use. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the economic spinoffs of an SDI offer and the implications for the Clinton administration should President Clinton adopt such a proposal. The President is in the middle of a battle now with Phil Gramm and others. What can the SDI do for him? MR. LAROUCHE. As I said, scientific and technological progress is the only ultimate source of real physical profitability of an economy. If you do not have it, you are going to die; if you do not invest in it when you do have it, you are going to die. And the only intelligent policy for a nation, as has been American policy from the time of the American Revolution and earlier, up until most recent times, say, 20 or 25 years ago, has been an unquestioned commitment to investment in energy-intensive, technology-intensive, capital-intensive investments. That is what kept the United States economy growing, that is what gave us a high standard of living, that is what gave us our economic power. We have thrown that away. The SDI contains new technologies, which, as I said, if they are turned into machine-tool principles, become the greatest catalyst for increase of the productive powers of labor in the forms of qualitatively new products, a much lower cost of doing things that are necessary, and so forth, and a better standard of living for the United States. They become also the basis for a worldwide economic boom, a real, physical-economic boom, not a paper speculation boom. So that is what the SDI offered; the Soviets recognized that back in 1983, but said, we [the U.S.] would win that race, which probably we would have. But nonetheless, that is the fact. We could do that now; we need it desperately. Without that kind of program, it is probable that the United States will begin to disintegrate during the latter part of this decade, as a result of the economic and social effects of piling on the kinds of austerity which fanatics and incompetents like Phil Gramm--as I say, he is a professor of economics, but there is nothing worse than a professor of incompetence, because he is really good at it [laughs]--have proposed. If we do not get what Phil Gramm represents, and what Jeffrey Sachs represents, out of our economic policy-making, and get back into this kind of traditional American policy, this country will disintegrate as a result of the impoverishment and social effects of that, and the inability to meet cultural demands and so forth. So that is where we stand. Q: Clinton is in a big fight now with Phil Gramm over the $16 billion job stimulus program. What would you say in terms of that policy? Is it adequate? Is more needed? Clinton at this point is running into massive opposition. MR. LAROUCHE: It is only a token program. But it is a foot in the door, which utilizes heavy pressure from constituency groups to get some jobs going. We had Robert Reich, who is now Secretary of Labor, who has indicated that if we do not see some job increases to match the fairy tale of recovery which has been coming out of Wall Street, then we are going to have to take some action. And Clinton is taking very modest, token action, putting his toe in the water, so to speak, to get {a} kind of jobs program going. That is all right. By no means is it enough. We are {way, way, far from} anything that will actually turn the situation around. But the interesting thing is to look at how pitiful the Clinton program is, in terms of a need, and to see that {at this point} fanatics like Phil Gramm realize that this {is} a toe in the water, and that if they do not stop it now, that this is going to build up and we are going to have an actual major job-creating program--real jobs--not the kind of phony sandwich-flipping jobs at minimum wages, on which some people are trying to support families and can't. But a real recovery will be in the works, and that Gramm does not want. I don't think Gramm even cares about the United States economy; I think he cares about the credibility of the kind of hogwash which he preaches as a professor of economics formerly at a university, and now from the halls of Congress. - Italian Parliamentarians Call For Investigation - - Into Jailing of LaRouche - Q: You had indicated earlier in this show, that Gorbachov was behind the effort to put you in prison, to get you out of the way. There are a number of very prominent statesmen, Flaminio Piccoli from the Christian Democracy in Italy and the secretary of the Radical Party in Italy, who are calling for an investigation and calling for your freedom. Why are these individuals and other parliamentarians who have signed on to this effort, doing this? MR. LAROUCHE: It should be obvious if people had had an honest newspaper to read over the recent years, that over particularly the past 15-20 years, especially the past 15, I have been a very significant influence internationally, in some leading circles around the world. Flaminio Piccoli, a leading senator of the Democracia Cristiana in Italy, was one of those, for example, I met back in 1976. We have known him, he has known my policies since that time. There are people throughout Central and South America and various parts of Asia, who have respect for and have worked with my policies--scientific policies, some technical policies, economic policies. Many of these people were supporters of the Strategic Defense Initiative back in 1982, before Reagan formally adopted it. I was recruiting people at the top of the French and German military, and the Italians and so forth to this. So I am well known; and it is now well recognized that all the policies of my opponents, those who joined with Gorbachov in saying ``Stick him away in jail,'' that all of these people who wanted me out of the way, have failed catastrophically and are ruining the world. [commercial break] - The World Is Looking to See Whether President Clinton - - Can Provide a New Kind of Leadership - Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing a very interesting development in Italy and other parts of the world where parliamentarians have been calling for your political freedom. You were discussing this and telling us a little bit more of the background. Can you continue? MR. LAROUCHE: It is now apparent to these people, that I was right, and that my opponents, not only on the Soviet side but also in Europe and the United States, were wrong. There is also throughout the world a rising abhorrence against the collapse of politics and justice inside the United States, and a horror about the collapse, particularly under Bush in the last year or two of the Reagan administration and under Bush, and then of course under Thatcher in Britain in the same period, of all effective leadership from the United States and the United Kingdom. At the same time, there has been a terrible erosion into weakness of the governments of continental Europe and other parts of the world. So here is a world sliding into catastrophe; no one is manning the ship's bridge, except lunatics like George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, who are putting us on the rocks; and leading people around the world, are looking for help in getting the world out of this mess. Naturally, they look to Washington, where there is a new President, who is not that lunatic George Bush. And they know the President is pragmatic; they do not see him as a great innovator, but they see him as a man who would like probably to be re-elected and would like to find some real answers to some of the problems which are plaguing the world. And they hope they can convince the United States to take the right turn in providing some leadership to help get this world turned around. They see what is done to me by Bush under Gorbachov's orders, and things of that sort; they see that as an example of {what must be eliminated} from the United States if the United States is going to {even begin} to become a sane nation again, providing viable leadership, even of the quality of leadership they had under Reagan back in the early 1980s. So while these people know me, respect me, consider me a person who has proven my case, know that the jailing of me was a complete frame-up--they know that; but the reason they do this, was not only out of consideration or kindness or fairness or justice to me; but they know that if Clinton, or the Clinton administration, eliminates the travesty that was done against me, that will signal a turn in the United States back to the kind of policy-making which could mean that the United States might once again begin to provide some of the leadership which they know the world as a whole needs at this time. - Serbs Sued in the World Court for Genocide by Bosnia - Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If people want to send questions in for Mr. LaRouche, they can reach us at ``{EIR} Talks with Lyndon LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. Mr. LaRouche, one of the recent developments we are looking at at this point, is a case of genocide that has been taken up at The Hague in Holland on the issue of Serbia and its attack on Bosnia. What can you tell us about that, what is the significance of these developments in that case? MR. LAROUCHE: We have known, it has been understood, that as long as the winter was going on, in the former Yugoslavia, that the United States and some others were not going to intervene in the situation actually, and therefore certain forces--the holdovers from Bush, such as Eagleburger, Scowcroft, that kind of policy, together with the Carrington-Thatcher policy from London--would allow that to continue. It is pragmatic, it is evil and so forth, but that represented what became known as the Vance-Owen effort, which really was buying time, letting the Serbs run loose with their maniacal murders and whatnot. But we knew that the Serbs were going to do something in April, once the snows began to clear and military operations on the ground became more feasible, the weather cleared. And that is now happening. Among the things that happened, is that The Hague, which is the World Court, now the World Court for the United Nations Organization, has accepted a brief by a Professor [Francis] Boyle, a leading humanitarian attorney, on behalf of the government of Bosnia for war crimes committed by the former or the rump government of Yugoslavia, against the Serbs. This is mass rapes, mass murders, the whole business. The Serbian government tried to prevent that; The Hague has rejected that delay, and is proceeding. If a finding of genocide or something like that comes out of The Hague very soon, this will be a material part of a process of some allied intervention to give relief in part to the Bosnians, but also to bring to an end this dangerous and spreading Balkan war in that region. And the month of April is the month in which we expected that this sort of thing would begin to happen. And, happily, something is beginning to happen, finally. Q: Will this create political conditions that will allow the lifting of the embargo? I know that we do not have much time left, but maybe you can just finish up with that. MR. LAROUCHE: If you are going to do an operation on the ground against the Serbian fascists, who are worse than Nazis--and this is a Holocaust that is going on there. ``Ethnic cleansing'' is nothing but genocide, it is a holocaust. We have to fight it now. You would have to get some arms to the people on the ground who want to defend themselves. You cannot start sending in foreign troops and solve every problem in the world by sending in foreign troops on passive populations. These people are prepared to fight for their own dignity, their own freedom. They have a right to defend themselves; they {are} governments; we recognize them as {governments}; they have the right of self-defense. This has been interfered with much too long. We {have to} lift the embargo on these countries, the victims of Slobodan Milosevic's fascists. Then we will probably have to take some form of intervention to supplement the self-defense by these forces to bring this holocaust to an end. - 30 - - 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 above transcript 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. For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. ---- John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.