|This transcript appears in the September 11, 2015 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
SEPT. 4 LAROUCHE PAC WEBCAST:
'Our Future Is Hanging by
Now, the opportunity for this kind of flank,of which there are indications President Vladimir Putin is strongly considering something along these linesis the substance of the discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche.
You could also see on the front page of the LaRouche PAC website a statement that was published by Mr. LaRouche on Sept. 3 called, "Putin Can Change the Game with Syria Intervention." Now, I know this is in discussion among very top levels of the United States senior intelligence, and military-strategic community, and this is part of the discussion which Mr. Jeffrey Steinberg has personally been a part of.
So, I'm going to hand the podium over to Jeff, to give him an opportunity to elaborate on this suspenseful situation for you right now.
Jeffrey Steinberg: Thanks, Matt. Some of you may be aware, as of today, that for the past 48 hours, a series of news reports have been published, initially in the Israeli and Syrian media, and then picked up here in the United States, and in Europe, suggesting that Russian President Putin is about to make a strategic intervention into the crisis in Syria.
Just to situate that particular aspect of the global situation more broadly, let's just start with some very clear facts that are well-known to Mr. Putin, are well-known to Chinese President Xi Jinping, and many other world leaders: namely, that the posture of the Obama White Houseand I say Obama White House as distinct from the viewpoints in some sections of the U.S. Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military establishment, and some people in our diplomatic and intelligence communitythe posture of the Obama White House is for a confrontation with Russia, full-scale general war confrontation with Russia, unless Russia were to back down in some kind of embarrassing and very self-destructive way.
You have the situation in Ukraine, which has been one of the frontline situations for provocation against Russia. That's been the case going all the way back to November of 2013, when Color Revolution number 2 in Ukraine was launched, and led ultimately in February of 2014 to the removal of the Yanukovych government. That was followed by the installation of a government in Kiev that is dominated, militarily speaking, by a Right-Sector apparatus that is the direct continuity of the wartime allies of Hitler and the Nazis within Ukraine, namely the movement of Stepan Bandera and others.
So, Ukraine has been a frontline situation in this. You've had two other situations that, during the same timeframe, even going back to 2011, have emerged as critical areas where the ultimate targets have been Russia and China.
The first of these is Libya, where the U.S.-Obama-led, with allied support from France and Britain, overthrow and execution of the Qaddafi government has created a major crisis that has spread out from Libya across all of North Africa, and extending further south, so that the whole African continent has been destabilized as a result of the overthrow of Qaddafi, and the unleashing of jihadist forces with enormous supplies of weapons. You've had an ongoing situation in the case of Libya, where various Saudi- and British-backed jihadist elements have been largely in control of the country. You've got now, at this point, an official branch of the Islamic State operating inside Libya under one of the leading jihadists in the overthrow of Qaddafi, a man named Belhadj. (See article, page 23.)
So the Libya situation is devastating, is precarious, and it's been one of the contributing factors in the massive flood of refugees across the Mediterranean into Europe, which has now become a major crisis for Europe. It's playing out by the hour.
You also have the battlefronts that have been ongoing since 2011 in Syria, which has taken a dramatic turn in recent weeks, to where it's becoming more and more transparently obvious that the government of Turkey is openly supporting the Nusra Front, and de facto supporting the Islamic State, as well. And that the commitment of Turkey, of Saudi Arabia, of Qatar, of Britain, and of the Obama White House is to eliminate the Assad government, even if the result of that is that an Islamic State, or Nusra Front jihadist enclave, is established right on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.
Now, again, remember that Russian President is aware that all of these destabilizations, all of this activity, is ultimately vectored against Putin, and against Russia. Therefore, there is no option for Russian President Putin to simply sit back at this point, and do nothing, and wait for these events to play out. Russia needs to take a decisive flanking initiative, and at this point, the evidence would strongly suggest that the area where that flanking initiative is about to happen, is in Syria.
The situation on the ground in Syria is that the Assad government has been engaged in a four-year war against jihadist rebel forces that have been thoroughly financed and supported from a combination of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, in particular, and with Britain always lurking as a kind of divining rod in the background of this whole process.
Dept. of Defense/Glenn Fawcett
We're at the point right now where, just in the last several days, since the beginning of this week, there have been news reports coming out of Syria that the Islamic State fighters are now openly using chemical weapons. They've used them in the North of Syria, targetting a village north of Aleppo on at least two occasions. There have been chemical weapons used in Iraq by ISIS forces, battling the Kurdish Peshmerga. And now you have ISIS units that are actually fighting against other rebel forces, but now on the eastern and southern outskirts of the Syrian capital of Damascus.
So, with all of these things going on, inaction is not a viable option from the standpoint particularly of Russian President Putin. The Iranians, as we know, have been involved deeply in providing support ostensibly to the Assad government, and to the military forces under the President Assad regime, but the Iranians have their own ulterior motives. Their concern is to absolutely secure the position for their allies in Hezbollah, which means that their priority is maintaining control over the mountain areas along the border between Syria and Lebanon. There are certain Alawite and Shi'ite enclaves in the Northern Mediterranean coastal area of Syria, that are also a priority concern for the Iranians.
This is very different than the Russian strategic approach. For Russia, the preservation of Syria as a single, unified nation, and with a strong central government in Damascus, is absolutely critical. Russia maintains a major naval port at Tartus, and according to reports in the Syrian newspaper al-Watan over the last week, there are plans for Russia to establish a second naval facility in the area nearby Latakia, in the northern coastal area of the country, the reason being that Russia is preparing a potential air intervention into the situation in Syria.
Now some of the early news reporting of this came out of Israel, and there was a certain kind of healthy skepticism about the coverage coming from the Israeli press, for not bad reasons either. But our own EIR investigation, our inquiries with some senior intelligence sources here in Washington, indicates that one of the reasons the Israelis are aware of what's going on with the Russians contemplating a major escalation of intervention on behalf of the Assad government, is that Israel maintains air defense along the Syria border.
Israel has been giving overt military assistance to the al-Nusra front, one of the official branches of al-Qaeda in Syria, because, from the Israeli vantage point, Hezbollah poses a greater threat, Under the idea of "my enemy's enemy is my ally," the Israelis have been providing military-medical assistance, and other support to an al-Qaeda apparatus that's been operating and, in effect, controlling the areas around the Israel-Syria border.
This Nusra front would very likely become a priority target for Russian air operations in support of the Syria air force, and therefore, there has to be discussion quietly behind the scenes, between Russian and Israeli government officials, and military officials, to make sure that what is called "de-confliction arrangements" are made; in other words, that when Russia air force operations are taking place in that border area of southern Syria, nearby Israel, Israel will not react, will not activate air defense systems, radar systems, and will not deploy either anti-aircraft or their own fighter jets into the fray.
You see the complexities of this situation, and the dangers of a major escalation into a much larger war, even if it is a regional, and not a general global war. So, the Israelis have reason to be aware of the fact that Russian President Putin is contemplating this kind of action in Syria.
It's also very clear that, despite all of the claims by President Obama and by Turkish President Erdogan, that they are engaged in a "coalition war" against ISIS inside both Iraq and Syria, the reality on the ground is quite different. A year and a half ago, under a thin pretext of being concerned about Syrian Air Force incursions into Turkish airspace, Turkey convened an emergency meeting of NATO, invoked the collective security clause of the NATO charter, and, as a result of that, Patriot missile batteries from Germany, the United States, and other countries, were sent into southern Turkey along the Syrian border.
As a result of that, for the last several years, the Syrian Air Force has stayed out of that area, so a significant corridor along the northern part of Syria was off-limits for Syrian Air Force operations against ISIS, and al-Qaeda. In effect, Turkey's actions created a no-fly zone and a safe haven for ISIS and Nusra and other jihadist operations all along the region of northern Syria. President Obama fully has gone along with this. There have been frequent complaints filed by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency indicating that the U.S. is misrepresenting the war against the Islamic State, claiming successes when there've been no successes, and, in fact, covering for the fact that de facto, the United States has been backing up ISIS in these operations, particularly in Syria.
Remember that President Obama has never rescinded his commitment to remove Syrian President Bashir Assad from office as a top priority. The Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have a very different view of this, and you may remember that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, in February of this year, was fired by President Obama, or forced to resign, because he was fundamentally opposed to the refusal of the White House to spell out a clear Syria policy.
Now you've got ISIS operating at the gates of Damascus. You have the country facing continuing support for the Islamic State and the Nusra Front coming from the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar; and now the United States is openly operating with the Turkish government in a no-fly zone, safe zone operation in the north of Syria. And President Obama, soon after Congress left Washington for the August recess, issued orders to the Pentagon to take direct military action against the Syrian Air Force if there are any actions against the "good" jihadists whom the United States is backing.
Just this past week, Gen. David Petraeus, who is a senior military advisor to the Obama National Security Council, and to the President himself, has been making the argument that the United States should overtly support the activities of the Nusra Front, which, as I say, is the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda, the very people who carried out the 9/11 attacks.
So, President Obama is carrying out a duplicitous policy, and ultimately, the Obama White House is committed to the idea of strategic confrontation with Russia. And so President Putin is seriously consideringno question about ita flanking military operation by sending Russian Air Force planes and pilots, with teams of logistical support, into Syria, to have them on the ground engaged in directly beefing up the Assad government, and the Assad military forces.
Now, Lyndon LaRouche, in discussions with us this morning and yesterday as well, made the point very clear: This is not a local move by Putin, strictly tied to the situation in Syria. This is a global strategic game-changing, flanking operation by Russia, if Putin goes ahead with it.
And there's every reason to believe, given the nature of the situation, given the profile of Putin himself, given his own experience dealing with the Chechen rebellion and dealing with the Georgian war of several years ago, that he will take this kind of decisive action. He knows, ultimately, that President Obama is a coward and a bully, and that by taking this kind of decisive flanking action in Syria, which is something that is in the vital interests of Russia, and is in the vital interests of anybody looking for stability in the entire Middle East region, he will put Obama in a real pickle. He also knows that this will deliver a dead-serious message to the Turkish military, and to President Erdogan and others in the AKP party in Turkey, that they'd better back off, because suddenly, there is a prospect of a much bigger and much more volatile war, if they persist in the plan to overthrow Assad, and create a Sunni-jihadist beachhead on the eastern Mediterranean.
So, this is the situation. Now, I think there are a few other elements that are worth bearing in mind as well, as we see how these events unfold over the next few days. As I say, there are credible reports in the Syrian media, in the European press, in the Israeli media, and now more recently, in the U.S.
Plus, discussions that I have personally had with some very senior military and intelligence people here in Washington, indicate that Putin is very likely to actin a matter of days or hours, perhaps waiting a bit longer to see what kinds of reactions he gets to the threat of this Syria move. But at some point, it is very strongly possible that he will make this move; and this will dramatically alter the global situation.
Remember that among the cadre and fighters of the Islamic State, are an estimated 1,000 Chechens; these are the same Chechen fighters who fought two wars against Russia. And when Putin came in as President of Russia in the late 1990s, he was confronted with an existential crisis in that Chechen situation. He moved absolutely decisively, and crushed the Chechen rebellion. Many of those Chechen fighters fled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, and are now incorporated into both al-Qaeda and into the ISIS offshoot.
So, those seasoned Chechen fighters are part of the potential for destabilization of Russia; and President Putin knows that very well. They also have longstanding established links with the Right-Sector neo-Nazi networks in Ukraine that are pressing for confrontation; a war between Ukraine and Russia, in which NATO would be drawn in to back up Ukraine and the Chechen rebels.
This is a strategic play that has many implications and consequences; most emphatically, it will put President Obama into a difficult, if not impossible, situation. Does he persist in supporting the overthrow of Assad, using the Islamic State and the Nusra Front? Does he back down? Does he respond with some kind of new flight-forward provocation?
These are all issues that are on the table; we don't have the answers to them at this point because events are playing out very, very rapidly. And they're playing out in a way that has a built-in element of unpredictability. But it's crucial to understand that the Syria situation now represents a strategic war avoidance opportunity that President Putin of Russia is not likely to overlook or ignore.
Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our discussions both yesterday and today that Putin might have some other things up his sleeve that we're not even thinking about. But for now, it's very clear that the Syria situation represents a preemptive flank; and it's also clear that we've come to a point, between the developments in Ukraine, between the crisis that was created by the Obama overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, the crisis that has been ongoing for four years in Syria, and in Iraq as well; that all of these things represent a condition of general warfare. We may not yet be at the point where there is large-scale combat on the kind of global scale that we saw in the two world wars of the Twentieth Century, but we are in an environment of warfare.
Under those circumstances, war avoidance can only be accomplished by certain preemptive actions; surprise flanking actions that force a resolution of a situation that's otherwise unavoidably on a trajectory toward a much larger general war. In this case, as many U.S., European, and Russian military strategists have been warning in recent weeks, that once such a general war begins, the chances are very, very high that it will turn into a thermonuclear war; perhaps a thermonuclear war of extinction.
So, a great deal is riding on what happens in Syria, and Syria is now a global battlefield. And in the coming days, we will see a certain degree of clarity one way or the other. Even if the Russians were not to act there, that itself would have very dramatic strategic consequences. But Mr. LaRouche's view at this point is, barring some other surprise flank, that President Putin is very likely to take some kind of critical action in Syria in the coming days.
Ogden: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, our next question is going to be the institutional question for this week; it actually touches on a related aspect of what Jeff just presented. What we'll do is I know Jeff will give some brief remarks to respond to this question in specific; and then Megan Beets will elaborate another aspect which is related to the answer to this question.
So, let me just read the question. It says: "David Cameron has pledged to hold a referendum on continued EU membership of Great Britain by the end of 2017. However, some of his Tory allies are proposing that the referendum be staged as early as April of next year. So the question for Mr. LaRouche is: What are your assessments of the United Kingdom staying or leaving the European Union?"
Jeff, why don't you present Mr. LaRouche's response?
Steinberg: Well, it's kind of like asking whether it makes sense to hang around on the deck of the Titanic for one more drink before jumping into a lifeboat. The situation in the European Union is one of a real process of disintegration. So, on a certain level, for the British to leave the European Union at this point, probably makes a great deal of sense.
The British are survivors; they tend to think in long-wave terms. They've already made it a point by being the first of the European countries to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; but they have their own recognition that the center of gravity of the world economy has shifted to Asia. They have a lot of stakes on the ground in Europe; and obviously Cameron is trying to negotiate a new set of special relations between Britain and the European Union. What Mr. LaRouche said is, you've got to give a kind of a simple straightforward answer, but at the same time, you've got to be aware that this whole situation is vastly more complex.
We've spoken in recent weeks on this broadcast, about the fact that there's an enormous amount of tumult inside Britain itself. The British monarchy is aging itself not so gracefully out of existence. There is strong resistance to the continuation of the monarchy; there's resistance to the idea of Prince Charles being installed as the next monarch.
You've got the fight inside the British Labour Party; we'll know next week the results of the elections there, where Jeremy Corbyn is expected to win. And he's openly talked about dismantling the structures of the monarchy; starting with bringing an end to the House of Lords. So, there are many unpredictable factors internally in Britain. There are major expose@ees of the House of Windsor's collusion with the Nazis during the Second World War period; both the installation of Hitler, the war period itself and beyond. So, there are no real simple elements of this.
Now you have two major crises that have put the very existence of the European Union in grave doubt and jeopardy.
Obviously, we've seen fissures within the European Monetary Union and the larger European Union over the handling of the Greek debt crisis; which is really a breakdown crisis of the London-centered trans-Atlantic banking system as a whole. And now, Megan will give us a much more in-depth review of the further dismantling and breakdown into real chaos in Europe as the consequence of President Obama's wars of genocide in North Africa and the Middle East.
So, it makes perfect sense that the referendum date would be significantly moved up, because events are moving at such a rapid pace that to even consider what Europe is going to look like towards the end of 2017, is a kind of exercise in futility. Let me turn things over to Megan for further discussion.
Megan Beets: Thanks, Jeff. So, as Jeff referenced, there is a complete crisis of chaos unfolding in Europe with the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from Obama's wars. Since January of this year, over 350,000 people have flooded the borders of Europe; and I say more than 350,000 because that's just the official detected number of refugees who have arrived at the borders. This number is already 25% higher than all of 2014; this is the biggest refugee and humanitarian crisis since the end of World War II. And this has unleashed utter chaos across an already disintegrating Europe, and has only highlighted the crumbling disunity of the European Union.
As we see manifest in the case of Greece, also in the case of Portugal, Spain, and the complete financial upheaval and collapse, wenot only the people of Europe, or the refugeeswe, as mankind, face a complete practical and most importantly a moral, emergency.
The blame for this horror, which I'll outline in a moment for people who haven't closely followed the news reports, is not mysterious; it is placed squarely on the doorstep of President Obama. Where are these refugees coming from? Upwards of 40-50% are fleeing from the wars that Obama began in Syria. Many of them come from Afghanistan, from Eritrea, from Libya, from Sudan, and other places in northern Africa, from Yemen, where the United States' despicable ally Saudi Arabia has been bombing civilian populations. They're coming from Iraq, from the Baltic States, and very significantly, two million people have been displaced from Ukraine. Now, many of those are still in Ukraine, but others are finding ways out; and this is a potential flashpoint for a real emergency and strain on the refugee situation.
To give people a sense of the scale of the floods of human beings coming through the European borders: in July of this year, over the course of one month, 107,500 people officially reached the borders of Europe and entered. Just last week, 23,000 people entered Greece; 23,000 people entered Greece. That's roughly 3,000 people or more per day, which is 50% more than the previous week.
Now, these people are coming any way that they possibly can. They're coming by boat, in what are unseaworthy vessels crammed with people, many of which sink. They're making very risky border crossings, sometimes in the back of container trucks. They're coming by very dangerous land routes; where they're vulnerable to attack and abuse. And all of this is at great, great risk of death.
Thousands of people are rescued daily. Despite this, over 400 people died in shipwrecks in the Mediterranean in the month of August, bringing the number for this year to 2,600. And people may have seen the very gut-wrenching pictures that are now circulating in the news media of the body of a three-year old Syrian boy, who washed up on the shores when he was drowned attempting to flee from the wars in Syria. Just a couple of weeks ago, the bodies of over 70 people were discovered in the back of a container truck near the border of Hungary and Austria, attempting to cross.
Thousands of people, almost 5,000 people are gathering in Brittany in France, at the opening of the Chunnel, the English Channel Tunnel, preparing to make a desperate attempt to cross. And several times in the recent weeks the Chunnel had to be shut down because people were discovered in it, attempting to make the crossing to England.
Now, so far this year, around 25,000 people have either died or gone missing in this process; and the numbers are increasing very rapidly.
The people who do successfully make it alive to Europe are entering through countries such as Greece, Italy; they're going from Greece up into Macedonia, they're entering through Hungary. Now, these are the poorest countries in Europe, and current European law dictates that these people must seek asylum in the country which they entered; but these countries can't possibly handle the strain. So, people are running out of food; people who are volunteering to provide food to the refugees are running out of money or capability to provide that food.
There's a complete crisis also in Budapest, Hungary, as thousands of people are currently camped outside and also underground in the train station in Budapest, having purchased train tickets to mostly Germany and other places north into Europe. The Budapest train station was shut down, with dozens upon dozens of armed police barring the doors for these people to enter. These people were in limbo; this morning they did let some of these people board trains; these trains left Budapest and stopped not too far outside of Budapest, and people were ordered off of the train. Some of these people lay down on the tracks in protest, and got into conflict with the police.
I would just urge people, if you haven't, get on the internet; see the pictures, see the news reports, see the video coverage, to really put yourself in a position to take in the scale of this crisis. This is a completely untenable situation; the numbers are expected to increase drastically over the second half of 2015. Germany itself expects to take in 800,000 refugees this year.
So far, people in the United States have had very little response or focus on this; as if this is a distant crisis. But, as Jeff iterated, this is not a distant crisis at all. It's absolutely necessary for the people of the United States to dedicate themselves to changing this situation; because the fault absolutely lies with Barack Obama. This is not an abstract crisis; it was created by the President of the United States. Every country from which these people flee has been torn apart by an illegal war either started or expanded by President Obama.
Let me just remind people of a few of the important crisis flashpoints. Back in October 2011, in what was a completely unconstitutional and illegal war, the Obama Administration and NATO forces overthrew the government of Qaddafi, murdering him in Libya under the auspices of a new doctrine of so-called "humanitarian intervention," the right to "protect," which was asserted by people within the administration, such as Samantha Powers, who claimed the right to violate the national sovereignty of a nation in the interests of protecting the "humanitarian rights" of the citizens of that country.
This is not a doctrine unique to the Obama Administration; this comes straight from the British. It comes straight from Tony Blair, who is being investigated as a war criminal for the Iraq war, another overthrow of the Westphalian system of national sovereignty. The policy in Libya was a complete continuation of the Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, of war and chaos in the hands of a unitary executive which does not go to Congress to authorize war.
When Qaddafi was overthrown in 2011 in Libya, Mr. LaRouche forecast that this would be the beginning of the unleashing of war and chaos across northern Africa and the Middle East.
At roughly the same time, officials from Russiamost emphatically then-President Dmitri Medvedevalso made very clear that it was Russia's view that the policy of undermining of national sovereignty with so-called "humanitarian interventions" and color revolutions, would lead to war; and it would lead to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
Now, Mr. LaRouche's warnings have more than been borne out, as I'm sure people are aware. Jeff outlined in great detail the kind of crisis and chaos that has spread to Syria with the U.S. and other governments' support of the forces of ISIS and al-Qaeda. This has spread to Yemen, as I referenced in the beginning; and it has spread to Ukraine, with the 2013 United States-supported coup of a legitimate government, and the installation of a Nazi right-wing overthrow which has unleashed the kind of chaos and refugee crisis and flashpoint for possible nuclear war.
So, what we're looking at is not some passing event or unexplained condition. This is the kind of crisis you get with the disintegration of civilization. This can only be compared to the situation mankind faced in the Dark Ages with sectarian conflict, with religious war, with increasing rates of death and destruction; and a policy of genocide. People have to ask themselves, "Where is the end of this?"
There's no practical solution; there's no machination or rearrangement of parts that could possibly end this. Europe is now broken and disintegrating; and it might just be at the hands of the strain of these people who are fleeing into Europe.
The only solution is to oust Obama. The people of the United States must step up and have the courage to declare Obama what he isa complete criminal who has to be removed from office. These people are coming to Europe because Obama destroyed their homes and terrorized their lives. And he must be put in prison; and that's the point. So, I think that the people of the United States have to face the horror of the situation, and they must act.
Once we decide that, it's very clear what could be done. Emergency measures can and must be taken to meet the immediate needs of the people who are coming to Europe. Programs can and must be started to meet their health needs, the education needs of the children, the training they might need in languages and otherwise to be integrated into the workforce. That must happen, but the only real solutionlong-termhas to be found on a higher level; in a completely new paradigm, as we see taking shape with the leadership of China and others in the BRICS nations.
Just very briefly, more specifically on that: In 2012 EIR released a white paper special report which was called "A Program for an Economic Miracle in Southern Europe, the Mediterranean Region, and Africa." This report outlined very detailed plans of infrastructure development corridors which could be created under the kind of credit system which we saw with Franklin Roosevelt in the U.S.; and that we see with the New Development Bank of the BRICS now: to build high speed rail and development corridors which would include transportation, new industrial centers, new canals. We already see an example of this with Egypt's building of the new, expanded Suez Canal. We can integrate nations such as Greece, the regions of the Balkans, the regions of northern Africa, into the new kind of Silk Road initiatives that we see now coming out of China.
So, the programs are there; new power sources, nuclear power. Putting people to work in high-technology jobs; uplifting mankind and giving all people a new possibility for a future. So, the challenge before all of us now, in the context of this very dangerous situation is: Will we have the courage and the morality to act? To throw Obama out; to stop this horror, and to join the rest of humanity.
Ogden: Thank you very much, Megan. In closing, I just want to emphasize that Mr. LaRouche's specific remarks were that "currently, we find ourselves in a situation in which our future is hanging by the thinnest of threads." It's a state of suspense that the world finds itself in, as we look at the opportunity for a flanking action that could be carried out by President Putin, as Jeff elaborated. The increasing rates of death and destruction are being experienced by the peoples of the trans-Atlantic, northern Africa, and southwest Asian regions as every day goes by, emphasize and underscore that a change of the entire world situationa change which we are on the verge of, a major changeis urgently necessary and must occur, with the necessary leadership coming from those who know how to act.
Before I conclude, I want to draw our viewers' attention to an urgent appeal that was published by Helga Zepp-LaRouche on August 31. It's called "An Urgent Appeal to the United Nations Heads of Government." This is being circulated as a petition in the weeks leading up to the United Nations' General Assembly meeting, which is going to be occurring from Sept. 24 through Oct. 1. [See accompanying article]...
With that said, I want to conclude tonight's broadcast. I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg and Megan Beets for joining me here in the studio tonight; and I'd like to thank all of you for watching. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.