Executive Intelligence Review
This transcript appears in the September 23, 2011 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LAROUCHE PAC-TV WEEKLY REPORT:

The Remedy: U.S.-Russia-China
Agreement for Global Recovery

Lyndon LaRouche was the featured guest on the Sept. 14 LaRouche PAC-TV Weekly Report, [hosted by John Hoefle; joining the disucssion were LaRouche PAC-TV editor Alicia Cerretani and Sky Shields of the LPAC Basement team. This transcript has been edited for EIR.

[PDF version of this transcript]

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, we have an interesting situation. We covered this in some internal discussion, and we thought we could make some of it public, as well. We are now approaching the point that the general crash of the entire financial system is coming about. And how it will work out—that's still in debate; but the fact is, we're coming to the limiting condition of a breakdown crisis, which does have remedies.

Now, the remedy largely will consist of an agreement reached, as we presented this internally, an agreement reached among the United States, Russia, and China. This will be a preliminary step, if enacted, which will be the unique solution for preventing the world from going into the deepest depression you ever saw. And we're talking about early times; we're talking about the remainder of this year, at the most, in which it has to go.

What it means is this: First of all, the current President of the United States must be thrown out of office. There are two principal grounds for doing so right now: One, he is mentally incompetent, according to the standards of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. He also has violated the Constitution in terms which demand his expulsion, as in his involvement in the Libya operation that was conducted in violation of our Constitution.

We have to get him out, and that has to be soon. He's eligible for it. As a matter of fact, he's presently in a mode of crack-up. This man is no longer going to conceal the fact, to anybody, that he's clinically disqualified for being President, and he's going to crack up, worse and worse, as time goes on. He's finished. The point is, will the United States be finished first?

Now, presuming that we are going to get him out—and don't talk about negotiating this—this bum has to be thrown out of office. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to save the United States. And you're going to choose between throwing the bum out, on a perfectly legal basis with no fakery involved: He's violated the Constitution. And secondly, he's mentally incapable. On both of these grounds, very specifically, he's out of office under any reasonable government procedure.

Once that happens, then that means we are now in a position to re-enact the original, Franklin Roosevelt Glass-Steagall law. Now, that law's enactment, again, will not be sufficient to save the nation, but it's a necessary step without which you can not save the nation. In other words, it is not in itself a guaranteed solution for our problem; but if you don't do it, there is a guaranteed collapse of the United States, probably the existence of the United States as an entity as it exists today. So that has to happen.

A Three-Power Agreement

Once that happens, then I have proposed two other measures: First of all, that the United States enter into a treaty agreement with Russia, the relevant type of treaty agreement, which I will explain. Secondly, that that agreement with Russia has to be extended immediately to China.

The reason I've done that, and made that kind of draft proposal for diplomatic processes, or preparatory to diplomatic processes, is because, in the case of the United States, Russia, and China, there is a basis for a rather quick agreement, relatively speaking. In other words, if we tried to bring in more nations at the same time, it wouldn't work; it would be jammed up in the negotiations.

But, Russia's situation is moving in readiness. For example, we have an active Putin as a Presidential candidate again, coming up. So therefore, we're in that context now. In the case of China, if the world system were to collapse, then China would also go through a collapse, because China now depends upon its foreign market for goods, produced goods and things of that sort. And therefore, a crash of the world system as a whole, would have a tragic effect in the long term, even the medium term, for China.

So China doesn't need much more than that. Among the things it needs, in the case of Russia, the northern part of Russia, Siberia, and so forth, is a source of riches in terms of mineral riches, which China as a developing nation needs. There's an advanced development process in China; we want to extend that. But you need the mineral resources available in the northern part of Asia. The United States, of course, needs the market too. So for Russia, that is also a solution.

So therefore, the three nations, once they agree on setting up a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system among the three—the kind of thing that Franklin Roosevelt had intended for the immediate postwar period, was to set up with Russia and China, among other countries, an agreement which would in effect create an international fixed-exchange-rate credit-system among these nations.

So the world needs that. And that will go.

Now, at that point, once three nations have reached an agreement, it would be very easy to get the same conditions accepted by other nations, a large number of other nations, because they're all in a desperate state of affairs. They all need this.

So that's where we're going; that's where we have to go. It's a dramatic change, it has to occur as a dramatic change. It's the reason I've listed other nations to join the three as an initial process; because the other nations, like India, which certainly is qualified otherwise, would have to go through a negotiation of their own internal processes, which would jam up the reaching of an agreement in a timely fashion. But I know that once we had an agreement among the United States, Russia, and China, we would be able to get a global agreement, or large global agreement among other nations.

This is going to be a tough fight. I shall be involved in things which are not yet on the table, but which will pertain to my role in this process. And I think it's obvious that the time has come, that the general public in the United States ought to know what I'm up to, on this account. So we'll give them, I think, a discussion which will indicate what direction we're going in, and help make this clear to people, exactly what we're up to.

It's the only solution: There is, as far as I know—and I'm an expert in this thing—there's no other option. The United States: Get rid of this President. Throw him out for perfectly legal reasons. You've got two options: He's violated the Constitution, flagrantly; and he's also not exactly mentally sound. And that will become obvious, more and more obvious. He's cracking up right now. So he's not really much respected, shall we say, among circles that used to be intimidated by his presence. That's cracked now; he's cracking up; he's gone.

So this has to be done. It's the only available solution. It will have immediate effects.

One thing that should be added: Even if the United States were to enact Glass-Steagall, minus any agreement with Russia or China, it would still be necessary: The problem is, we've gone so long. Remember, it was 2007, when I first proposed the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, which was about to be voted up by a lot of people, a lot of states. It wasn't done. Since that time, especially since the beginning of 2008, when the bailout process started, the United States has been so wrecked by the looting, by the British and by others, and especially under this Obama Presidency, that we could no longer save the United States from Hell, even by Glass-Steagall, because we wouldn't have enough margin of credit in a monetary system, left over from the looting, to cover all the things that have to be fixed, real fast.

Only by going to a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system, could we just generate the credit, specifically earmarked, under Roosevelt kind of intentions, to get a large enough volume of credit, going into large-scale processes.

Now, for example, in the medium to long term, we can not save the United States, presently, without a process of putting into effect not only Glass-Steagall, but also NAWAPA.

Without NAWAPA, there is no long-term solution, for the United States. The establishment of the NAWAPA program could be done immediately, because the thing has all been drafted; there are some changes that have been made, technically, over the years, since the original drafting, but the very fact of putting it into effect, will give such a massive injection of productivity into the U.S. economy, that the existence of Glass-Steagall, as well as this NAWAPA program, combined, and with a credit-system, means we can, immediately, pull the United States back into a rapid, accelerating recovery. And that's an integral part of the same thing that goes together with a Russia-China-U.S. arrangement.

That's where we are. There's a lot more to say about it, but that's the outline of what it is.

NAWAPA and the Eurasian Land-Bridge

Sky Shields: It's good. To underscore three things that you've said: One is the need for NAWAPA; two, is the willingness for Russia, particularly Russia, to come along with us, if we were to make a major change here in the U.S.; and then three, the fact that this won't get done unless we remove Obama and install a credit-system.

People can take a look at the recent developments over the last few months in Russia: I think some viewers of this website are familiar with our Eurasian Land-Bridge map. And I think some people looking at that, you realize that this is an amazing project, but it seems almost outside the realm of the imagination of most people who would look at this sort of thing. There's a map (Figure 1), essentially with rail lines and corridors of development, including various other types of transportation, communication lines, different routes for resource transportation, that would link up everything from the southern tip of Africa, up through the Middle East, through Europe, through Asia, across the Bering Strait, down through North America, into South America.

Now, obviously, on the North American side, a large chunk of that is covered by NAWAPA (Figure 2), the developments we're talking about with the NAWAPA project. But now, if you take a look—and this is what we're pushing here, on the U.S. end—at what's happening on the Russia side of things, just over the recent period: You've seen an incredible push, both in terms of stated intent, but then also in terms of actual development, to move into the Far East region of Russia, for development.

One of the major events, for which I think they're going to plan to get "shovels in the ground" either this month or next month, is on the new Vostochny Cosmodrome, which is going to be, really, Russia's first launch facility. The Soviet Union's launch facility was located in what is now Kazakstan. Up until now, they've been renting time to use that facility there. Russia's now pushing to make their own domestic launch capability. This is going to be the Vostochny Cosmodrome. By itself, that's simply exciting. But if you look at what that means from the standpoint of a development map, and you get an idea of what some of the thinking is inside Russia, right now, and then also, circles around Putin in particular, the Vostochny Cosmodrome is going to end up here, in the Amur region (Figures 3 and 3a)).

Now, this is currently in a rather underdeveloped area of the Far East of Russia. It is, though, right on one of the main routes of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM), which is sort of the second route—it's a route of the Eurasian Land-Bridge that exists so that Russia has a second route, aside from the one that borders China, to reach its Far East region. Now, our plans for development have called for upgrading it: taking the rail line there, and double-tracking it. There's plenty of space to double-track it, and make that a major trunk line for communications, power, and other kinds of development along that route. With the development of the Vostochny Cosmodrome there, suddenly the ability to dump the needed resources there, exists.

I think this is a nice case study (Figure 4). What they're talking about is not simply building a launch facility, or whatever people normally think a launch facility is. It's not simply a place to launch rockets from. It was already, in Soviet times, something that was used for missile launches, and had been retooled briefly, in order to launch certain, smaller, civilian space capabilities, from the same launch site.

Now, they're talking about upgrading this, making it a full-on space facility, capable of its own domestic production of rockets, capable of the production of rocket fuel, the development of essentially a large city there, to employ and educate the people who are going to be working there: This is really city-building in the Far East of Russia, the same sort of thing we want to talk about along the whole route of NAWAPA.

Part of that, of course, is going to be building an airport, but then refurbishing this whole route, to connect this region of Russia with everything, with the rest of the nation, and then the rest of Europe, along what was formally called the Trans-Siberian Railroad, and then connecting things to the Silk Road into Europe.

If you connect that with the fact that construction is already under way, on the rail line up to Yakutsk, you've got a major branch of this development route, leading up to the Bering Strait and the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which is planned right now.

LaRouche: Yes.

Shields: Now, you were invited, this past month—you weren't able to attend—to a conference that occurred in Yakutsk, addressing exactly this kind of development, addressing the fact that this city right here, which is now tiny, has no overland connection with the rest of Russia, currently, is going to be transformed under these economic plans into a major trade city, on the major trade route for the world.

To give people an idea of how this transforms something that's in the middle of almost "Nowhere," Siberia, right now, once you begin this connection—again, the southern portion of it is already under way—once you develop that, you've completely transformed the geometry and you transform the significance of the value of all these locations. This is the intent already coming out of Russia.

Now, some of the problems, the major problem is exactly what you've been addressing: which is, there are huge battles right now, on the ground, about questions of funding. Because it doesn't exist. You're not just going to pull funding out of nowhere for this project. Certain aspects of this are being launched now. The rest of it is not going to be done, unless you've got a global credit-system in place. Unless you've got an ability, a real collaboration among nations—you know, China is one of the major investors in this region right now, for Russia; the U.S. also, when you talk about the development around the Sakhalin Islands, we've got some minor involvement there, but not on the scale we could have it we could dump Obama, not on the scale you're talking about.

Japan's Potential

LaRouche: Look at, for example, what Japan's potential is in this area; Japan's destiny and potential coincide with having neighbors, China and Russia, both together; and Japan always likes to have two big powers, rather than one, on its border—this sort of thing, it's very complicated. So this would work quite well. And this is what I've been working on for some time; and I think what I've said on how to do this, in terms of economic policy, has been circulated widely in relevant Russian circles, so they're not ignorant of what I'm talking about.

I've looked very carefully at some of the Russia-China discussions which have gone on in past years—and there's a lot of discussion about this. But if you look at this whole area: You've got China, Japan—key; Korea is key. For example, you've got a railroad system which does exist, which is divided in northern Korea (Figure 2): One line goes into China, the other line goes into Siberia. So this was also a well-developed line in former times.

Which means, we've really got rail, water, air and so forth, all in this one area. Mongolia is also a key part of this process. It's practically untapped in relative terms.

So this is where we are. And therefore, this combination, and our determination: to link U.S. West Coast lines to the Siberian and China and Japan operations combined, going from the Arctic Ocean down (Figure 1).

We have to look at this: Take the Arctic Ocean as your center point of reference. Your strategic lines are defined, based on radiating from the Arctic downward. When you look at things that way, on that kind of map, rather than from the Equator or something, you get a completely different picture of what the options are here.

And we have a similar thing we have developed in terms of Mexico-South America, we have a similar challenge there, which we can get to once we get this thing started.

But the key thing I would say, is: Look, this has to be done first, because it's feasible, it's ready. You look at the development of rails in China; watch that very carefully: They're preparing for this kind of development; what Russia's doing, preparing for this development, because it's strategically essential. And we're riding a winning horse there. All we have to do is get the first step in there: We get this treaty agreement among the United States, Russia, and China, and the world is going to come right to the gate, and we're going to reach an international agreement, which ends the threat of war and similar conflicts throughout this planet.

Shields: That's significant. You see they're hungry for this.

LaRouche: Yes! Anyone who is sensible is thinking in these terms.

Obama: America's Qaddafi

Alicia Cerretani: Well, I think it's also significant to think about what we published on this website this past weekend: We published a feature called "9/11: Ten Years Later," and it went through what has functioned really as a blocking mechanism, a system, a really barbaric system, that has kept this development hostage. These proposals have been on the books for many, many decades, but what has held this development hostage is this little nest, which involves the development of the poppy fields in Afghanistan over the last 20 years; that money laundered into many of the insolvent banks owned by the British, the Inter-Alpha Group banks, and how the British Empire has deployed terrorism to stop the development of much of our undeveloped territories on the continent, Africa and Eurasia included.

And we put this feature out this weekend, and it brings together, in no uncertain terms, what the enemy is of all nations who wish to have a future, and all developing nations. Which also implicates our President, because he is really just a patsy for this barbaric, oligarchical nest, located in and around London, in and around Wall Street. They've had deployments, as in Afghanistan, around the world.

And it's failing, but we run the risk of that system bringing everything down with it.

LaRouche: You're referring to our President as the "Qaddafi of the United States"!

Cerratani: Yes! Yes, exactly! That's exactly how his controllers see him. That's exactly how the people who give him his orders see him—as the "Qaddafi of the United States." That's how many people in the United States look at him as well!

And so, it's very interesting, because we have published, in the last segment on this website the last week, "The New Presidency," and that is—it's a very exciting perspective, because it is the only thing that will work. This isn't a matter of opinion; this is a very viable option, and we can take what is considered the 9/11 generation, and turn them into a NAWAPA generation, a development generation.

LaRouche: Well, speaking of your function here, specifically, this is exactly what we must get out, effectively, to the American population now. We must add the things that I presented today, and that are presented today as included features of that. We should have a real strategic thrust from here, on this, to get this out, to get it into circulation more widely, and in depth. This is crucial, because we've got to sell this to the American people, now. We have to do it with our limited resources, we have to get it out to the American people: "This is the news! Here's the good news, friends!" And that's what we have to do.

Shields: I think people know they're only hearing this from us. They get an idea, there's no other organization in the world right now, that has the overview that we do! Even just reviewing the developments in Russia, the developments in Europe, the developments here in the U.S., this is clearly a mission for our movement, and the people who are going to support us and you.

LaRouche: We've got to get this idea, of the new system, across to the American people, now. We've got to explain this to them, now, what we're doing, why we're doing it. Even most economists have no idea of what an economic system is, really. They have assumptions, they accept the doctrine, they really don't know what they're talking about. And this is made very clear by the forecasting we see done by most so-called economists! They have been intrinsically incompetent.

For example, my forecasting record goes back to 1956—well, it goes back quite a bit more than that. But anyway, that's been my problem with economists, and even economists who are in many respects competent, when it comes to forecasting, and particularly long-range forecasting, the record of most economists, even leading economists, is incompetent; they may be competent in certain details, certain other things, certain specialties, but on this thing, the general point is, the typical American or European economist has failed. And will probably continue to fail.

So we've got to give the American population at least some jolt, an indication of what it is that is competent economics, because they don't know today.

A Scientific Question

Shields: Right. The most fundamental principle is just what you got at, Alicia, just a second ago, saying, there's not some other option. This is not some kind of political "option." This is the next step in the evolutionary development of the species; this is a scientific question. It's not a question of what side of the map are you on politically. And it seems like that's what we want to communicate to people. You've got to understand what the human individual is, as the singular manifestation of willful creativity in the universe.

LaRouche: And you've got to use the Franklin Roosevelt image in the United States and elsewhere: You've got to bring the image of Franklin Roosevelt back into focus. Because the American people are going to want to know what went wrong. Well, we can give them a total map of what went wrong. What were the mistakes that were made with the death of Franklin Roosevelt, that led into the mess we have today? And that's where the American people—even though most of them my age are already dead, already, unfortunately—but that's the story. And it's that story that's got to be delivered. Because, on that basis, people who remember, maybe not from my generation, but from a somewhat younger one, remember something about Franklin Roosevelt, what they used to hear about Franklin Roosevelt and his policies. That's the weapon, the intellectual weapon, to show the American people, there is an American solution, not only to the U.S. problems, but to the world problems. There is an American solution, not as an empire, but as a leading partner, among the leading nations of the world, which can bring this planet into some kind of order, out of the mess it's in now.


Cerratani: Well, we have the story, and in just a couple of weeks, we'll be presenting the story of Frank Moss, who was one of the original organizers, when the NAWAPA project was first introduced; and the collection of correspondences that he had had, with not just elected officials, but a number of different institutions, I think even abroad, in different countries—in Mexico and in China. And what you see is that, a proposal like NAWAPA was sort of a natural flow of things to do, coming out of the Apollo Project. The American people were ready for it, they had the imagination for it.

Then, with the assassination of Kennedy and his brother, we were set back; a number of things were set back. What we're going to show with this—just a snapshot with this Frank Moss correspondence—is we're going to revive: We're just going to pick up where we left off, and we're going to keep the United States moving forward where we left off. Because what Kennedy was doing, largely with NAWAPA, was continuing the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. So people alive today, have a sense of that.

But, what we can provide for people, as we did in this feature this past weekend, is an overview of what happened, why things were held hostage, what systems were put in place to stop the development, both financial and culturally. And with that system at its end, we can pick up now, where we left off, around when the Kennedys were assassinated. And we're prepared to do that, and so are many other relevant parts of the world prepared to do that, to move with us.

LaRouche: I think so. I think that is one of the essential things we have to do.

Cerratani: Yes, and the American people deserve to be told what has happened to them.

In the unemployment situation, many people—we're doing some preliminary work, interviewing people and getting people's stories—it's 40 years of attrition. It's the imposition of an empire on a great republic, and if people don't have that story, if people don't understand what has happened to them, many people take it personally. They think that it's their own shortcomings. You know, they cannot feed their family, they cannot pay their bills. You don't put a population through that, if you want to build a nation. If you want to destroy a nation, that's what you do. If you want to build the nation, you don't subject your people to that.

A Brand New Nation

LaRouche: This came up in our discussion yesterday, in this manner: That people think that when you have a change in the U.S. government's composition, like a new Presidency coming in, they think you're going to limit yourself to the forces that controlled the previous Presidency. Well, that's not true, never really true. There have been periods like that, mostly from bad Presidents, and they continue from one to the other, like the ones we've had recently: The past two are real miserables!

But, in this case, we have to actually get people to understand what the principles are of real economy, which means, a change in the composition of the voters' roster. Look, how many people really support the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, actively, as party members, today? Well, look at the results! The polls show you: That a tiny minority of the registered Republicans and Democrats, alike!—they really don't have much support from the American people! The American people have contempt for them, because of what they've done!

Now, a new Presidency in the United States, brought in, on this kind of practice—in other words, we would hope to change the composition of the Presidential leadership structure in this Autumn period, with this election coming up, and with the ouster of Obama, which must be earlier than that. Under those conditions, the American people are going to come back in to the roster; they're going to come back into politics, into mainstream politics. Which means there's going to be a revolutionary change in American policymaking, precisely because of this crisis, and precisely because of the change in attitude among the active membership of the electorate.

You'll have a tough time with those under 25, because they're so demoralized by what's happened to them, the lack of jobs—absolute lack of jobs, and so forth. But the older generations, those who are over 25 and so forth, especially, are going to look at this thing with wide-open eyes, if they get a new Presidency, or the prospect of one. And you get a completely new constituency, a popular constituency, organized behind the Presidency, in the nation at that point.

So we're going for, actually, the equivalent of a revolution. It will not be a bloody revolution. It will be a revolution where a section of the American population which has played a limited role, as a minority in politics, will now play a more important role. And those others will be running away with their tails between their legs—at least I hope so.

And we're going for a fundamental change in outlook in the nation, a change, more or less like what happened with Franklin Roosevelt's replacement of Hoover. You're going to have an emotional change, an intellectual change in the outlook of the population. So we're going to have, in a sense, a brand new nation, reborn, the United States, the Franklin Roosevelt United States, in some approximation. And therefore, we will have the means to do what we have to do.

Shields: I think it's worth driving that home: that outside a revolution, there's no way to make a change, right now. Nothing gradual is going to work. Anything gradual is going to be a gradual step downwards. But to get the shift, we need to move forward, you're going to need to leap, like what you had with Roosevelt.

LaRouche: The throwing of this bum out of office, now, will be sufficient to produce that effect. The American people are in a rage fit. The problem is that what's uncertain to them is the alternative: We can define the alternative. We have the program that will work. We have international partners ready to join us.

We've come to the point that warfare among nations is no longer an acceptable option. Therefore, you have to make revolutions without war. And they have to be revolutions which are an enhancement of the human race: And this is it. We've come to that time. This is our option. Let's do it. Get rid of a headache for mankind, send Obama into retirement, where he has the headache instead of us.

Subscribe to EIW