EIR Daily Alert Service, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2018

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2018

Volume 5, Number 208

EIR Daily Alert Service

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, DC 20041-0390

'Environmental Lobby' is Responsible  For the Record CO2 Emissions
Bank of England Warns Corporate Debt is Dangerous, Fed Keeps Interest Rate Hikes
Harrison Schmitt Argues, Modeling is Not 'Evidence' of Human 
                                              Influence on Climate
Freedom Caucus Insists on End to DOJ/FBI Stalling on
                                              Documents, Rosenstein Testimony
China-Ibero-America-Caribbean Conferences Promote Cooperation
                                              on Belt and Road Initiative
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Accord is No Obstacle to Mexico's
                                               Bilateral Trade with China, Says Minister
UN Official Warns That Millions in Yemen May Not Survive
Jamal Khashoggi, Turki, bin Laden, and the FBI

 

EDITORIAL

‘Environmental’ Lobby Is Responsible for the Record CO2 Emissions

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—The failure of Germany to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions since its bold pledges in 2015 at the Paris Climate Conference—or, for that matter, since 2009, before it began its anti-nuclear energy turn—illustrates the fraud of the fear-mongering “man-made climate change” reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Germany has shifted to so-called renewable energy sources more aggressively, per capita, than any other major nation. It has invested, as of 2017, roughly $225 billion in wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal power sources; and if its citizens’ resulting extra electricity bills—now running at least $50 billion/year higher than a decade ago—are added in, its renewables investment plus spending is in the range of $400 billion. But by “exiting” from nuclear power generation and closing down its existing nuclear power fleet, this huge investment has accomplished nothing on CO2 emissions; in 2018 they will equal the 2009 level, and experts forecast they will exceed the 2009 level hereafter.

Had the country invested the same amount over the past decade in new, third-generation nuclear power plants, while maintaining its existing fleet, it could soon have more than 50 gigawatts of nuclear-electricity capacity installed, and have replaced its entire coal-fired and oil-fired capacity.

How great could have been the reduction in Germany’s CO2, CO, and NOx emissions, had that been done?

The same is true across the world. It goes back to the sabotage from the late 1970s of what had been plans—centered in the United States nuclear industry and the Atomic Energy Commission’s “Atoms for Peace” program—for the industrial nations to lead in building up to 5,000-7,000 nuclear power reactors worldwide.

Rather, the world’s nuclear capacity has not yet approached 1,000 GW, and it is China, India, and Russia—all under attack by the IPCC, the World Wildlife Fund, Paris Climate Alliance, etc. for burning coal—which are, decades later, taking the lead in building new nuclear power capacity.

If there are now 40 billion tons of CO2 emissions a year, the anti-nuclear environmentalist lobby is responsible for it, especially since the worldwide fear-mongering promotion of the notorious 1979 “China Syndrome” Hollywood fraud.

The IPCC and the Paris Climate Conference are responsible for those emissions. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement was the right thing for a U.S. President to do, who wants to protect and improve the environment. Any “decarbonization” of our production of electric power and heat, must be done by nuclear power. Anything else is a sacrifice of industrialization and human productive powers—and a sacrifice of human population itself.

The breakthrough needed now is in mass production of fourth-generation small modular reactors (SMRs), and going from design to prototype to production quickly, requires the cooperation of the major nuclear-producing nations in a crash program.

This is demand number-one for the initiation by the United States, Russia, China and India of a “New Bretton Woods” monetary system, which will stop international speculation and foster infrastructure investment and capital goods exports. It was in the period of FDR’s Bretton Woods that large-scale exports of nuclear power to the developing nations was planned—but then stopped by environmentalist frauds and by the British Empire pulling down Bretton Woods.

COLLAPSING WESTERN FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Bank of England Warns Corporate Debt Is Dangerous; Fed Keeps to Rate Hikes

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, from its latest meeting Oct. 8-9, issued a warning about the dangerous growth of leveraged loans and collateralized loan obligations (CLOs). “The global leveraged loan market is already larger than—and growing as quickly as—the U.S. subprime mortgage market had been in 2006…. [The committee] is concerned by the rapid growth of leveraged lending,” it said, according to “Wolf Street” correspondent Don Quijones Oct. 10.

The committee put leverage lending—in other words, lending to zombie companies, and quite separate from junk bonds—at $1.3 trillion for the United States and U.K. economies alone ($1.1 trillion is the United States issuance, doubled since 2013). It seems there was $38 billion new U.K. issuance in 2017, and $39 billion in the first eight months of 2018; it appears to be doubling yearly. U.S. issuance in 2017 was put at $58 billion by Nomi Prins in an Oct. 12 article. Quijones writes, “These loans are considered too risky for banks to keep on their books. Instead, banks sell them to loan funds, or they package them into highly rated collateralized loan obligations and sell them to CLO funds and other institutional investors.”

CLOs, often insured by, and/or partly made of credit default swaps (CDS), were notorious accelerants of the 2008 financial crash. “Wolf Street” quotes Douglas Diamond, a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who told Bloomberg about their spread to banks’ books: “The borrowing they [the risk-chasing investors] do is usually from a bank. … They buy a loan from a bank, they borrow money from the bank to buy the loan from the bank—not necessarily the same bank. So the risk would ultimately get back to the bank balance sheets.’ ”

Another accelerant of the corporate debt crisis, central bank interest rate increases, may accelerate. The Federal Reserve minutes from the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) Sept. 25-26 meeting, released today, say: “With regard to the outlook for monetary policy beyond this meeting, participants generally anticipated that further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate would most likely be consistent with a sustained economic expansion, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near 2% over the medium term.” The FOMC members discussed the possibility of going “beyond normalization of rates and into a more restrictive stance”; i.e., raising rates faster.

SCIENCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Harrison Schmitt Argues, Modeling Is Not ‘Evidence’ of Human Influence on Climate

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt stuck to his guns on global warming, speaking yesterday at the annual meeting of the National Association of Science Writers. The Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist repeated his well-known analysis that he “saw no evidence” that global warming is taking place as a result of human activity. The predictably hostile audience shouted back “Yes!” when Schmitt asked rhetorically about evidence of a human cause for global warming. He responded that in his profession, geology, there has been no evidence of human influence, only computer models—and models are “often wrong.”

Schmitt was asked if he saw an irony in his mention of people who deny the existence of the manned Moon landing, including himself, and his denial of manmade global warming. “I see no irony at all,” he replied.

In 2013, Schmitt wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which “he claimed that increasing levels of carbon would actually benefit humanity,” says the incredulous reporter for the Live Science website, who headlined his article is that Schmitt is “Mistaken about Climate Change…”

In an interview yesterday with Associated Press, President Donald Trump elaborated on remarks he had made to “60 Minutes” aired Oct. 14, in which he also questioned manmade climate change. The climate goes “in cycles,” he told AP, and in reply to the interviewer’s assertion that scientists “say this is nearing a point where this can’t be reversed,” the President replied there are scientists “on both sides of the issue…. Some say that and some say differently.”

U.S. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC

Freedom Caucus Insists on End to DOJ/FBI Stalling on Documents, Rosenstein Testimony

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—Members of the Congressional Freedom Caucus and allies are demanding that documents requested long ago by House committees from the Justice Department and FBI now be handed over. They also want Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appear before the joint Judiciary and Government Oversight Committees, or be subpoenaed to appear immediately. Rosenstein is reportedly “negotiating” his appearance, but no firm date has been set.

There is no time to waste, Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) warns. Investigative reporter Sara Carter reported Oct. 16 that some Congressional sources fear that Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, won’t follow through on his vow to subpoena Rosenstein should the Deputy Attorney General fail to appear voluntarily. These sources suggest that Rosenstein may be trying to “run the clock,” and stall until Congress recesses.

Representative Jordan expressed great frustration over the DOJ/FBI stalling on document requests. Speaking to Fox’s Maria Bartiromo Oct. 14, he enumerated the many documents the House Oversight Committee has requested, including specific portions of the last FISA warrant application, and FBI interviews with disgraced DOJ official Bruce Ohr (MI6 operative Christopher Steele’s backchannel to the FBI). To date, none of the requested documents has been delivered, he said.

Interviewed on Fox’s Tucker Carlson show last night, Intelligence Chair Rep. Devin Nunes expressed similar frustration over the DOJ/FBI’s failure to hand over documents, and over Rosenstein’s refusal to testify to Congress. Moreover, the fact that Rosenstein is still “in the middle of” deciding what gets handed over, and what the American people are allowed to see, is a big mistake, he said. “He shouldn’t be in the decision-making process on this.”

Although former FBI legal counsel James Baker is scheduled to appear tomorrow before those committees, yesterday Glenn Simpson, founder of the “cash for trash” outfit Fusion GPS pled the Fifth Amendment, to avoid testifying. On Oct. 19, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr’s wife who worked for Fusion GPS on the Russia dossier with Christopher Steele, is scheduled to appear before the committees, but there is some speculation she may not appear or may also plead the Fifth.

THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER

China-Ibero-America-Caribbean Conferences Promote Cooperation on Belt and Road Initiative

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—In the space of the past week, China’s Association of Public Diplomacy (ACDP) helped organize three major conferences in Ibero-America—in Mexico, Panama and the Dominican Republic—in which the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for the region was the main agenda item. High-level diplomats, government officials and academics and media from all these countries participated.

These conferences coincided with the Oct. 11-12 summit in Washington, hosted by Vice President Mike Pence, in which he threatened Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala to not trust China’s “suspicious” motives in the region.

In contrast, Mexico’s Oct. 9 conference, sponsored jointly by the China-Mexico Studies Center at the National Autonomous University (UNAM) and the ACDP, was entitled “Cooperation Among China, Ibero-America and the Caribbean in the Framework of the Belt and Road.” Here, Xinhua reported, former Mexican Ambassador to China Jorge Navarette stressed that this is the moment for Mexico to join the BRI. Among other things, he said, the BRI is particularly important for “MesoAmerica”—Mexico plus Central America—where there is a great need for infrastructure. China’s Du Qiwen, a Chinese career diplomat and head of its Association of China’s Diplomatic History, pointed to the mutually beneficial cooperation, harmony and “win-win” spirit which distinguishes the BRI from other international initiatives.

Of the two other conferences, entitled “Dialogue Among Think Tanks and Media,” one was held at the Dominican Foreign Ministry Oct. 15, and the other on Oct. 11 at the headquarters of the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino) in Panama. Also organized with the ACDP, they included intense discussion on how to expand Chinese-Ibero-American cooperation in the context of the BRI. As ACDP Vice President Liu Biwei said in Panama, “the strategic transcendence and global importance of relations between China and Ibero-America” are very visible, La Estrella de Panamá reported.

In Santo Domingo, former Chinese Ambassador to Colombia Wang Xiaoyuan stated that while China is a late-comer to the Caribbean region, it has great interest in developing infrastructure, going beyond road construction to building electricity plants, railroads, ports and industrial parks. He reported that China plans to offer a $35 billion financing package for all of Ibero-America, as well as a $35 billion fund centered on “productive capacity” adding that Ibero-American and Caribbean region is the second largest destination for Chinese investment, with a total of $207.2 billion already invested in projects.

U.S.-Mexico-Canada Accord Is No Obstacle to Mexico’s Bilateral Trade with China, Says Minister

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—Mexico’s current Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray spoke by phone on Oct. 13 to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to assure him that the recently signed U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) in no way will represent an obstacle to Sino-Mexican trade relations, Excelsior reported the same day.

“Mexico is a sovereign nation,” Videgaray said, “whose foreign policy is clearly defined by that fundamental premise.” He added that Mexico is very proud of the Strategic Association it has signed with China, and is convinced that bilateral relations will continue to grow and strengthen in the future.

The Mexican Foreign Minister particularly emphasized that there is no provision in the USMCA “that constitutes an obstacle to bilateral relations or economic agreements which Mexico maintains with other nations, in a sovereign manner.”

This is a direct swipe at the “poison pill” provision included in the USMCA, described by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, which stipulates that if one of the three member-nations signs a free-trade agreement with a “non-market economy”—clearly aimed at China—the other two may pull out after a six-month waiting period, and begin bilateral negotiations between themselves—something that is highly unlikely to happen.

STRATEGIC WAR DANGER

UN Official Warns That Millions in Yemen May Not Survive

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—The warnings about the humanitarian situation in Yemen continue to get more stark. “The crisis in Yemen is so huge and of such magnitude, we have to be frank about whether we can together deal with what is facing us,” Lise Grande, the UN’s humanitarian coordinator for Yemen, told the Britain’s Guardian daily yesterday. “We are literally looking at hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people who may not survive.” Grande pointed not so much to food shortages but the total disruption of the local economy, led by the collapse of the Yemeni rial. “Tens of thousands of destitute families, who were barely able to buy what they needed just a few weeks ago, can no longer afford to feed themselves at all,” she said. She estimates that 14 million people are affected. “Things are deteriorating very, very quickly. The implications of this are enormous, and, truthfully, frightening. The reality is that time may be running out,” she said.

The British government announced yesterday that it would provide funding to help screen 2.2 million children for malnutrition, but this news was treated with appropriate cynicism by the Norwegian Refugee Council. “I anticipate the calls will come for international governments to inject more cash into solving the crisis,” said Suze van Meegen, a protection and advocacy advisor for the council based in Sana’a. “But the crisis doesn’t lie with money. It lies in stopping the war. There is a duplicity in the U.K., for example, where the British government is providing a lot of money to help us reach people with aid, but it could get more bang for its buck if it just stopped selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.”

OTHER

Jamal Khashoggi, Turki, bin Laden, and the FBI

Oct. 17 (EIRNS)—On June 2nd, 2002, Lyndon LaRouche was the keynote speaker in a major conference on oil and gas in international politics, organized by the Zayed Center in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates. The whole cabinet of the U.A.E., and several current and former oil ministers were sitting in the front row to listen to LaRouche. The U.A.E. energy minister shared the podium with him.

LaRouche focused on two points that could, potentially, become a revolution in this British-controlled region: 1. The City of London-Wall Street-dominated international system is on the verge of collapse. Take the lifeboats to a new system, LaRouche told the high-level audience (i.e., abandon the sinking ship of the British Empire where you invest all your wealth). 2. Stop exporting raw oil, build nuclear power and create a high-value petrochemical industry (i.e., independence).

LaRouche’s remarks received unprecedented, wide coverage in the Persian Gulf region. In the months following this conference, LaRouche and his associates held many conferences in Abu Dhabi and were writing regular columns and articles for leading Gulf newspapers, including inside Saudi Arabia itself. LaRouche became a household name, and a strong voice of wisdom from within the U.S. to stop perpetual wars.

In the meantime, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney were busy faking the case for the invasion of Iraq. On Feb. 5th, 2003 (several weeks before the invasion of Iraq, and the same day as Colin Powell’s UN speech) Jamal Khashoggi wrote an op-ed in the leading Arabic, Saudi-owned, London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, and simultaneously in Kuwaiti and Lebanese dailies: “LaRouche and His Associates: Stay Away from Them, Otherwise They Will Make You Crazy.” He rattled off the usual slanders against LaRouche and issued a warning that from now on, no one should ever invite LaRouche or his associates to any conferences in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, or in Arabic media.

Khashoggi was not writing from his position as a journalist in Riyadh, but from London, from his post as advisor to then Saudi Ambassador to Britain, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who went from being Intelligence Director (creator and controller of Afghan Mujahideen) to becoming Ambassador—to avoid the 9/11 talk about Saudi involvement, and obviously to take part in the preparations for the invasion of Iraq, Syria, etc. Turki was Ambassador in Britain from January 2002 to 2005. Then he served for one year as Ambassador to Washington from July 2005 to December 2006; All the time, Khashoggi served as his advisor.

According to well-informed U.S. intelligence sources, Khashoggi was the liaison between Prince Turki and Osama bin Laden in 1996-1998. Prior to that period, bin Laden and his London office managers of his Advise and Reform Committee (Khaled al-Fawwaz, Abdallah al-Masaari and Saad al-Fagih) were mobilizing, sometimes with the help of the BBC, against the al-Saud monarchy. Al-Fawwaz was trying to get bin Laden to move to London from Sudan (where the government of Khartoum were contemplating in 1996 to extradite him to the U.S. or Saudi Arabia)…. Khashoggi’s role in this affair was to persuade bin Laden to stop attacking the Saudi royal family and, in return, get free passage to Afghanistan where he would be protected and supported by Saudi assets. He was free to attack American or other Western targets, but not Saudi Arabia.

If one listens carefully to what President Donald Trump said in his visit to Riyadh in May 2017 where he made a speech in front of 50 leaders of Muslim nations, he said the support for Islamic jihadism should stop now. Many people thought he was talking to Iran. In reality, he was talking to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, et al. The Islamic jihadism that emerged out of the MI6-CIA-Saudi joint efforts against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and against other progressive governments in the Muslim world, was now facing its last stand.

What followed was that almost all open support to the Islamic terrorist groups in Syria was stopped, and Turkey went to cooperating with Russia. This was the beginning of the end of the terrorism in Syria. Qatar was scapegoated as a leading supporter of Sunni terrorist groups like Al-Nusra and the Muslim Brotherhood, not Saudi Arabia. Despite all the theatrics of blockade against Qatar from Saudi Arabia’s side, and well-financed conferences advocating regime-change in Qatar, observers with a good knowledge of the region never considered this anti-Qatari operation a serious matter. It was all distraction. Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar are under U.S.-British protection. So, the Muslim Brotherhood are being rounded up in several countries and sent to jail, except in Tunis and Turkey where they are in power. With Russia and China’s forceful backing of Syria, the use of Islamic jihadism for geopolitical purposes, including the Chechens and Uighurs against Russia and China is being rendered obsolete.

So, what will happen to the Wahhabi cult in Saudi Arabia, and their alliance with al-Saud, which is one of the four legs the Saudi Kingdom is standing on (the other three being allegiance to the British Crown, oil, and protection by the U.S.)? If any of these four disappears, the Saudi monarchy would be shaken.

British and U.S. liberal media have been pushing Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (known as MBS) as the reformist prince. Khashoggi, even in his exile in the U.S. in the past year, was pushing the same line, and never attacked MBS directly. The target of Khashoggi was the clergy. But he was doing that as a provocateur.

The killing of Khashoggi, which was described by an intelligence source as tantamount to a terrorist attack in its effect, was conducted by someone to create a shock in the Saudi Kingdom. It must be an inside force from within Saudi Arabia. But what is the purpose of it? Khashoggi was no threat at all. He was only a used-up asset, whose bloody shirt is being carried around in Western media to make him a martyr of free speech, and at the same time to paint President Trump as the terrible buddy of his murderers in Saudi Arabia. This contributes to the coup attempt launched against him by forces in Britain and America.

 

 

 

You may also like...

Translate »