The Measure of Strategic Success
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—President Donald Trump, in remarks to journalists on Air Force One as he departed the Philippines back to the U.S. from his history-making 12-day Asia tour, characterized the trip as “tremendously successful,” noting its value for national and world security, and that the $300 billion in deals that were signed could soon triple.
But it is more than that.
In a dozen American states which are the direct beneficiaries of many of those deals—from Alaska to West Virginia to Montana—a sense of relief and even optimism is returning, as the prospect of emerging from the country’s prolonged economic nightmare begins to take shape in people’s minds.
But it is more than that, too.
An op-ed in today’s Global Times of China goes further, proclaiming in its headline that “U.S. Participation in Belt and Road Inevitable”—a policy initiative distinctively associated with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. Author Wang Yiwei, the director of the Institute of International Affairs at Renmin University, writes that the trade deals from President Trump’s trip to China “will enable the U.S. to better learn about the potential and prospects for economic cooperation. Against this background, it is time for the U.S. to reconsider joining the Belt and Road initiative, which offers wider space for cooperation.” Author Wang even recommends that the two countries could work together on infrastructure, perhaps first in developed countries, like in the U.S. Midwest, and that U.S. and China could establish a “global infrastructure investment bank.”
But the measure of strategic success is more than even that.
We are facing a situation of even greater opportunity than 1989, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated today, when the fall of the Berlin Wall opened the prospect for Mankind to replace the bankrupt trans-Atlantic old order with policies for a New Paradigm that Lyndon LaRouche and his movement specified at the time. That opportunity was tragically wasted, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche has repeatedly stated.
“Back then we only had our ideas,” she elaborated today, “but you didn’t have any force that would implement them. But now you have the largest country in the world that is moving in the direction of implementing it, allied with 70 other countries. You have the whole Asian process, that is completely dominated by that new paradigm. And that reality is asserting itself in the U.S. and in Europe as well.”
What we are up against in that fight today, is the British Empire’s liberal Establishment and their brainwashing of the population through agencies such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). “We have attacked the CCF throughout this whole period,” Zepp-LaRouche stated. “They shaped the entire cultural paradigm in the post war period. The entire left-liberal elite and their axioms come from CIA- and State Department-financed cultural brainwashing by the CCF. On top of that you had the Frankfurt School; then the 68ers; and then you had imposed on that the Greenie Paradigm. So that if you look at the amalgam of all of these brainwashings, you have the elite neo-liberal establishment who are now going under, and who are freaking out about Trump, and naturally about China and Russia and so forth.
“This is a wrong world outlook,” Zepp-LaRouche continued. “They are anti-science, they are anti-classical culture. From the standpoint of history, they will go under, like the scholastics in the Middle Ages, because they believed in something that did not correspond to the laws of the universe.
“It’s important to reflect on this, because these are our opponents; this is what’s behind the Mueller way of thinking, apart from some other nasty neo-con components and so forth. The reason that they hate us is because of what Lyndon LaRouche has written. They hate his method of thinking, passionately.”
Zepp-LaRouche concluded: “The battle in the U.S. is wide open; it can be won. But these people are still there, so we have to really move hard against them. Lyndon LaRouche’s method of thinking is sosuperior; we should not fall below that standard at any moment. So let’s have the perspective of winning this battle and this war.”
That, and nothing less, is the full measure of strategic success.
NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER
Global Times Op-Ed: ‘U.S. Participation in Belt and Road Inevitable’
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—So reads the headline of an op-ed yesterday by Wang Yiwei, director of the Institute of International Affairs at China’s Renmin University, writing in Global Times. He says that the trade deals from President Trump’s official visit to China “will enable the U.S. to better grasp the potential and prospects for economic cooperation. Against this background, it is time for the U.S. to reconsider joining the Belt and Road Initiative, which offers wider space for cooperation.”
“Sino-U.S. cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative will not only benefit economic and trade ties, but also shape the trajectory of a new mode of major-country relationship and the world in the next 50 years,” he writes.
“Although the U.S. has not announced it will take part in the Belt and Road, it already has connections with it,” he continues. This is the case in part because standards, rules, capital, technology, and personnel in projects are global, and also because U.S. companies are already involved.
He recommends that the two countries could work together on infrastructure, perhaps first in developed countries, such as regional cooperation in the U.S. Midwest, and also on military resources; a challenging proposal. Defense Secretary Mattis has said that 19% of U.S. military facilities are idle, Wang reports. These facilities could be developed by Chinese enterprises, he suggests. Cooperation could also be strengthened in the Maritime Silk Road context, regarding navigation, logistics, and maritime industry.
The U.S. and China could establish a “global infrastructure investment bank,” alongside global interconnection and global development programs. He concludes that such initiatives “will serve the two nations’ interests and benefit the world. What’s more, functional participation and constructional cooperation has always been what Trump aims for.”
Report on the Chinese Economy: High-Tech Manufacturing Is Growing at 13.4% Per Year
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—Xinhua reported Nov. 13 on third quarter 2017 results for the Chinese economy, as presented by Zhang Liqun, researcher with the State Council’s Development Research Center. Although the reported growth rates are for GDP measured in monetary terms, in the case of China these numbers undoubtedly track closely with actual physical economic processes—which is emphatically notthe case in the trans-Atlantic sector, where GDP includes every form of speculative insanity, drugs, and whatnot.
The year-on-year overall growth rate in China for the first three quarters of 2017 was 6.9%, which was higher than expected. Most interesting is that “the high-tech and equipment manufacturing sectors posted stellar growth in the first three quarters, with output up 13.4% and 11.6% respectively,” Xinhua reported. Investment in high-tech manufacturing rose even more dramatically, by 18.4%, up from 11.7% for the same period in 2016.
Job creation is correspondingly strong: China created almost 11 million jobs in the first three quarters of 2017—300,000 more than the same period last year. Official unemployment in Chinese cities stands at 3.95%, the lowest level since 2008.
The Xinhua article also quoted Bank of China chief economist Cao Yuanzheng, who said that it is of vital importance to contain financial risks, including “countering debt, shadow banking and asset bubbles.” Even Moody’s had to admit, in a recent research note, that “a stronger policy focus on financial sector regulation should continue to restrain the growth of shadow banking activities, help mitigate asset risks for the banks, and address some key imbalances in the financial system.”
On poverty reduction, which is the central concern of President Xi Jinping and the entire national leadership, Vice Premier Wang Yang presided over a meeting of the State Council’s group on poverty reduction on Nov. 13. Wang emphasized that they had to be focused on “enhancing a sense of mission and crisis awareness, and targeting problems to fulfill the Party’s promise to the Chinese people and the international community,” Xinhua wrote. (The fact that Wang presented this policy as a commitment to the international communityis especially notable.) Wang added that to meet these goals it was necessary to train local authorities, “stressing the importance of carrying out research and investigation, and averting formalism.”
U.S. POLITICAL & ECONOMIC
Jordan and Gaetz Demand New Special Counsel To Investigate the FBI and Comey on Russia Dossier
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)-Yesterday Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL), both members of the House Judiciary Committee, released a letter calling on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the mounting questions on Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, the Fusion GPS Russia dossier, and more, Fox News reported.
Here is a significant excerpt from their letter:
“Mr. Attorney General, it’s time to do your job.
“Why in 2016 did FBI Director James Comey call the Clinton Investigation a ‘matter,’ not an investigation? After all, Mr. Comey wasn’t Director of the Federal Bureau of Matters.
“Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called ‘grossly negligent’ in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation? … And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?
“Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?
“Why in 2016, one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?
“Why in the days following the meeting, when emailing the public relations staff at the Justice Department, did Loretta Lynch use the pseudonym ‘Elizabeth Carlisle’?
“Why was the decision on whether to charge Secretary Clinton made by FBI Director Comey and not the Attorney General?
“Why did James Comey publicize the Clinton Investigation?
“Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying Fusion GPS for the dossier, the FBI also ‘reimbursed’ its author, Christopher Steele.
“Why was Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr.?
“Why is the FBI so reluctant to tell Congress and the American people if the dossier was the basis for a FISA court order permitting the government to spy on Americans associated with President Trump’s campaign? If the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document … then why not just tell the country?
“Why on January 6, 2017 did James Comey brief President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Again, if the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document, then why wait two months after the election to inform the President-Elect?
“Why did the Obama Administration leak to CNN that Mr. Comey had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier? … As pointed out in The Federalist, did the fact that the FBI Director had briefed the President-Elect on the dossier give it the ‘legitimacy’ the press needed to go ahead and print something they knew was not accurate?
“Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate?
“Why, after Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, was it so critical that a Special Counsel be named?… So critical that James Comey leaked a government document about his conversations with President Trump through a friend to the New York Times?
“Why is the Special Counsel Robert Mueller? …
“Finally, why won’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions … do his job?
“On July 27, 2017, twenty House Republican members of the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Attorney General calling for a Special Counsel to get answers….
“On Sept. 28, five House Republican members of the Judiciary Committee met with the Attorney General and Justice Department staff to inquire about the July letter.
“The Justice Department’s response? Silence.
“It’s time for Jeff Sessions to name a Special Counsel and get answers for the American people. If not, he should step down.”
House Votes Up Non-Binding Resolution against Saudi Genocide in Yemen
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 366-33 to approve a non-binding resolution that denounces the targeting of civilian populations in Yemen, and calls on all parties involved to “increase efforts to adopt all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent civilian casualties and increase humanitarian access,” reported The Hill.
This is a non-binding version of the privileged resolution that a group of House members—Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Walter Jones (R-NC)—tried to push to actually end U.S. military support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen. That resolution was blocked by the House leadership, ostensibly on the argument that U.S. military backing of the Saudis did not rise to the level of the War Powers Act and therefore the resolution could not be privileged.
The approved resolution also notes that there is no legal authorization for U.S. military force to be used against anyone in Yemen beyond those groups already subject to Congressional authorization, that is, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and associated groups. “This resolution makes abundantly clear that we cannot be assisting the Saudi regime in any of its fight with the Houthi regime. And we have to limit our involvement in Yemen to take on al-Qaeda and to take on the terrorists that threaten the United States,” Khanna said during House floor debate. Khanna pointed out that “In many cases, the Saudis have aligned with al-Qaeda to fight the Houthis, undermining our very counterterrorism operations.”
COLLAPSING WESTERN FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Bring Draghi Before the Italian Parliament Committee Investigating the Banking Crisis
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—Next week, the Italian Parliament’s Investigating Committee on the Banking Crisis will deal with the Monte dei Paschi crisis. After the revelations in the ongoing Milan trial (see Nov. 14 Alert), Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank, should be called before the committee. Draghi’s role in the MPS crisis has global relevance, because the evidence shows that as head of the Financial Stability Forum, he let MPS be plundered to help bail out the megabanks.
Elio Lannutti, a former senator and head of the consumers association ADUSBEF, has called for Draghi to go spontaneously to the Parliament Committee and provide explanations, in a press statement from ADUSBEF today. Lannutti wrote that “If Draghi had nothing to hide, he would ask to be questioned to clarify why, on March 17, 2008, he signed the authorization to buy Antonveneta at an insane price.”
MPS purchased Banca Antonveneta from Santander for a total of €17 billion. To cover the losses, MPS bought derivatives after derivatives from Deutsche Bank and Nomura, with knowledge of then-Bank of Italy Governor Mario Draghi.
Lannutti states that one year earlier, in 2007, the supervisory office of the Bank of Italy had drafted a document warning against the acquisition. On one side, MPS did not have enough capital, on the other side Antonveneta had €7.9 billion in outstanding debt to ABN-Amro, which would come on top of the acquisition price of almost €10 billion. But Draghi, despite knowing that fact, authorized the takeover on the condition that MPS raise €9 billion through various means, including by issuing “hybrid and subordinate instruments.”
This, “when, in that year 2008, the global financial crisis had broken out, precisely because of those ‘hybrid and subordinate instruments,’ which were recommended by the person who had the institutional responsibility of protecting ‘the healthy and prudent management’ of Italian banks.”
Lannutti argues that Draghi was not some inexperienced newcomer. He was “governor of Bankitalia and chairman of the Financial Stability Forum, an agency created in 1999 by the G7 finance ministers and the central bank governors to promote international financial stability and reduce the risks to the financial system.”
Lannutti however overlooks the implications of what he wrote. As head of the FSF, Draghi in 2008 was overseeing the bailout of the system, and the Antonveneta-MPS fraud was part of that bailout. When ABN-Amro—which owned Antonveneta—went bankrupt, threatening a chain-reaction of the entire system, it was bailed out by a consortium comprised of Santander, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and the Belgian Fortis. That bailout now required for Santander a major capital increase, in order to avoid its own financial crisis. The solution came through the sale of Antonveneta, which brought a total of €17 billion to Santander.
The Italian Parliament Committee should investigate that aspect, and raise the issue: All this was possible because of the lifting of bank separation regulations in Italy, in compliance with EU law. Had MPS remained a strictly commercial bank, the Antonveneta acquisition and the following derivative scams would have never occurred.
And who lifted bank separation regulations? Mario Draghi and his co-thinker Giuliano Amato (Draghi-Amato Banking Act), who has been the historical “protector” of Monte dei Paschi.
U.S. Senate Reaches Deal To Loosen Banking Regulations
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—“Further loosen banking regulation?” you ask, incredulous. “Isn’t that like feeding prune juice to a patient with dysentery?”
And yet Fox News reported today on this move in the Senate, which take things in the exact opposite direction of the required return to Glass-Steagall: “The bipartisan Senate agreement released Monday would relieve small and regional lenders from a number of restrictions meant to limit the damage firms could cause to the economy in the event of another crisis. In what would be the biggest step to ease the financial rule book since Republicans took control of Washington, the proposal could cut to 12 from 38 the number of banks subject to heightened Federal Reserve oversight by raising a key regulatory threshold to $250 billion in assets from $50 billion.”
The bipartisan deal was brokered by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Michael Crapo (R-ID), and was co-sponsored by nine Republicans, including Tim Scott of South Carolina and Bob Corker of Tennessee, along with nine Democrats, including Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. “That is enough to clear both the banking panel and the full Senate, assuming all Republicans in the chamber support the bill,” Fox reported with satisfaction.
The legislative concept of the bill may have started out as removing Dodd-Frank requirements for community banks and others which have no derivatives exposure, as proposed by FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig; but in the final analysis, Wall Street and the ABA got what they wanted. Quintupling the size of banks designated as SIFIs (significant international financial institutions) will encourage one thing: bank mergers among regional banks, and acquisition of more small banks by the big regionals. Thus, this legislation would help community banks—to disappear more quickly. It will not increase lending, any more than cutting corporate taxes will increase wages.
Nigel Farage Calls on EU To Investigate George Soros; Theresa May Wants To Investigate Russia
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—MEP Nigel Farage, who chairs the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group in the European Parliament, called for an investigation of George Soros in the European Parliament yesterday, reported RT.
Farage, founder of the U.K. Independence Party, said that while Russia is accused of funding the “Brexit” campaign, financier George Soros’s recent $18 billion donation to the pro-EU organization “Open Society” has escaped scrutiny. “This is where the real international political collusion is,” Farage said.
Farage told the MEPs, “We are looking in the wrong place” for collusion. He said Soros’s influence in Brussels is “truly extraordinary. I fear we could be looking at the biggest level of international political collusion in history.”
Farage said that Soros has spent billions in the EU to undermine the nation-state. “When we are talking about offshore money; when we are talking about political subversion; when we are talking about collusion, I wonder if we are looking in the wrong place. And I say that because George Soros recently gave Open Society, which of course campaigns for freedom of movement of people and supranational structures like the European Union, $18 billion. And his influence here and in Brussels is truly extraordinary.”
Farage concluded, “If we’re going to have a debate, and talk about full, political and financial transparency, well, let’s do it.” He said he would write to “all 226 of you” asking “Have you ever received funds directly or indirectly from Open Society? How many of their events have you attended? Could you give us a list of all the representatives, including George Soros?”
Farage said Open Society boasts it held 42 meetings in 2016 with the European Commission, and has published a book of reliable “friends” in the European Parliament, which includes 226 names. He told those MEPs he would be writing to them to establish whether they had accepted money or help from Soros.
While Farage pointed to Soros, British Prime Minister Theresa May lit into Russia instead for “collusion.” In a major foreign policy speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet in London today, she pretty much accused Russia of meddling in British elections. Russia’s bad behavior, she said, “has included meddling in elections and hacking the Danish Ministry of Defense and the Bundestag, among many others.”
BBC’s coverage adds that “the Electoral Commission is investigating claims that Russia used social media to meddle in the Brexit referendum.” May said Russia is “planting fake stories” to “sow discord in the West.” She said she doesn’t want to return to the Cold War, but Russia must stop all the bad things it is doing. She will send Foreign Minister Boris Johnson to Russia next month to tell them that.
Russian Federation Council member Sen. Alexey Pushkov responded, “The world order that suits May [wars, ISIS…] has had its day. You can’t save it by attacking Russia.”
SCIENCE & INFRASTRUCTURE
Completed Second Russia-China Crude Oil Pipeline Will Double Russian Oil Supply to China
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—On Nov. 12, the second China-Russia crude oil pipeline project, which took only 456 days to build, was finally completed, Asia Times reported, citing a report from the Chinese publication 21st Century Business Herald. Built by those countries’ two biggest oil producers, China National Petroleum Corp. and Rosneft, the 940 km pipeline from Mohe to Daqing, both in Heilongjiang province, will have an annual capacity of 15 million tons. According to the planned volume of pipeline transportation between China and Russia, after the completion of construction, Russian oil transported to China’s northeast by land-based crude oil pipelines will double from 15 million tons to 30 million tons per year.
The first oil pipeline of the China-Russia crude oil pipeline project, from Skovorodino to Mohe, moved 100 million tons of oil from Russia to China between 2011 and May 19, 2017, according to TASS. The second oil pipeline will further improve the safety and reliability of China’s crude oil supplies and make up for old Chinese oil fields like Daqing, Liaohe, which will promote the old industrial bases in northeast area and the steady development of the national economy.
Global Times cited Zhang Hong, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, that “importing oil from Russia also has great benefits for China because, first, diversifying oil import sources can reduce the risks of regional politics on domestic economic security. Second, in terms of geography, importing oil from Russia is more convenient than getting it from distant sources like Saudi Arabia.”
British Monarchy Intervenes To Protect Colombia’s Narcoterrorist FARC—Again
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—The Royal Institute of International Affairs awarded its 2017 Chatham House Prize to Colombian President Juan Manual Santos, for his work in imposing a “peace” agreement with the largest cocaine trafficking cartel in South America, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Santos received the award on Nov. 9 in London from Prince Andrew (sixth in line for the British throne), accompanied by a personal message of “warm congratulations” from “Her Majesty The Queen” herself.
EIR insisted from the beginning that Santos’ ”peace” accord was a fraud, a plan cooked up by the British Monarchy and City of London to legalize the dope trade and install narcoterrorists in government in Colombia. Santos faces enormous opposition to this fraud in Colombia (a majority voted against the accord in a September 2016 referendum), so the Monarchy’s Chatham House stepped in to give him a boost with its annual prize for the person who has “made the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations in the past year.” In his acceptance speech, Santos, noting that “the world” applauds the accord, declared that the United Kingdom has been “the great ally” of this deal from beginning to end.
The same day the prize was awarded, the City of London’s Economist spelled out Her Majesty’s demands: that no law be passed in Colombia which restricts the agreement that FARC criminal leaders are guaranteed 10 seats in Congress for 10 years (i.e., they don’t have to be elected); that no one who might change the peace process be allowed to be elected President of Colombia in next year’s elections; and that the Trump administration stop putting obstacles in the way of this made-in-London deal (which Obama supported).
The Economist is shameless: “Most Colombians know the FARC as a lawless army whose 52-year war against the state was at the center of a conflict that caused more than 200,000 deaths and displaced 7 million people. The party is not trying hard to disguise its origins. Its new name, the People’s Alternative Revolutionary Force, uses the old bloodstained acronym. Its presidential candidate, Rodrigo Londoño, aka Timochenko … is wanted by the United States for trafficking cocaine, kidnapping and murder.”
Yet London insists that the FARC’s “political participation and light sentences were the price of peace.” The Economist threatens: “The politicians trying to bar the FARC’s leaders from office are, in effect, proposing to renege on the peace deal. That is dangerous.” So, too, “a right-wing president could undermine the peace agreement in other ways, such as withholding money for implementing it.”
In the Queen’s view, “Colombia’s future would be brighter if politicians could agree that the FARC’s leaders are no longer terrorists. The United States could help by removing the group from its list of terrorist organizations. Timochenko and his comrades deserve Colombians’ scorn. The way to show it is not to vote for them.”
CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom Created Mainstream Liberalism and Its Media
Nov. 14 (EIRNS)—A surprising revelation was made in the Sunday edition of the Atlanticist Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, covering an exhibit on the Congress for Cultural Freedom currently taking place in Berlin. Under the theme, “Parapolitics: Cultural Freedom and Cold War,” the exhibit displays documents, letters, drawings and pictures that document the key role which the CIA and its funds played in launching this Cold War propaganda operation through a gathering of anti-communist intellectuals in Berlin, in 1950. The exhibit is shown at the House of the Cultures of the World, and a special conference accompanying it will also be held in Berlin in December.
The major German daily comments: “The disturbing point in this, is in doing so, the secret agency did not just promote a sinister reaction, but made possible the breakthrough for just the same leftwing liberalism that is the mainstream standard of Western intellectuals to this day.”