WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2019 Volume 6, Number 26, EIR Daily Alert Service P.O. Box 17390, Washington, DC 20041-0390
- The State of the Universe
- Trump Administration Officials Again Blame Russia For INF Pull-Out, Downplay Threat of Arms Race
- Russian Expert Kortunov Assesses That INF Treaty Withdrawal Will Have Domino Effect
- U.K. Leads the Way in Europe in Recognizing the Synthetic Guaido Government in Venezuela
- George Soros Justified Today’s Ongoing Regime-Change Operation in Venezuela…10 Years Ago
- Sen. Rand Paul Rips Into ‘War Caucus’ That’s Attacking President Trump for Ending Permanent War
- Justice Department Coup Teams Pulls Stunt on Eve of State of the Union
- Americans Back President Trump Against Senate War Caucus
- Geraci in Trieste to Plan Belt and Road Cooperation With China in Africa
- Economist Folker Hellmeyer Shows How West is Blind to New Silk Road Developments
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—On the eve of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, tonight, the entire planet is entering a period of great turbulence, great danger, and great opportunity.
The Old Paradigm—with its bestial concept of Man, the physical universe, and God—is violently imploding, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stressed yesterday, and is virulent in its efforts to ensure the New Paradigm does not defeat it and prevail. This is not to say that the Old Paradigm will be victorious; it only means that the dangers are great, as are the prospects for victory of the New Paradigm, with its contrary, creative concept of Man, the physical universe, and God.
We see this in the strategic situation, where the post-war order of arms control treaties is crumbling. It will be replaced either by the British Empire’s quest for unilateral superiority, much as Bertrand Russell professed decades ago, which will be met by Russian and Chinese refusals to submit and likely thermonuclear war; or it will be replaced by a new strategic architecture built on Lyndon LaRouche’s twin proposal for joining great power cooperation on the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) and the Strategic Defense of Earth (SDE).
We see this as well on the international political front, where the current regime-change operation against Venezuela is intended to usher in a post-Westphalia world of Hobbesian war of each against all, and is designed as a trap for President Trump, to sabotage his drive to end London’s permanent war strategy. At this stage of humanity’s development, the only way national sovereignty can actually be defended is as part of a broader reorganization of the planet’s affairs around the common aims of mankind.
And we see it in the crumbling trans-Atlantic financial system, which cannot survive, with or without quantitative easing. Our immediate choices are stone age Green genocide and looting, or global reconstruction around LaRouche’s science-driven Four Laws, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that, in a crisis like this, as Nicholas of Cusa knew in his day, there are no side solutions possible. Only a fundamental change in axioms will function; only the package of measures designed by Lyndon LaRouche over the last 50 years, as a totality, will remedy the situation. Exonerate LaRouche and you “exonerate” his ideas back on to center stage of world political action, where they belong.
We have tremendous authority and weight from our half- century of international organizing, and we should throw it around, Zepp-LaRouche stated. The political ferment is there, in almost every corner of the planet, but people need to share a vision of a Grand Design. We must elevate people to the strategic level where alone the solution is found.
STRATEGIC WAR DANGER
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—After the Trump Administration’s announcement of last week that it had suspended participation in the INF Treaty, administration officials went out of their way to assure their audiences that a new nuclear arms race was not in the offing. One unnamed official during a background briefing on Feb. 1 said it is only looking at conventional options at this point. “Nothing the U.S. is currently looking at is nuclear in character,” the official said, reported Defense One.
David Trachtenberg, deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, claimed that U.S. withdrawal actually strengthens the system of international restrictions on nuclear weapons rather than weakens it. “The only way that arms control can have a future and be useful is to make sure we hold parties to their obligations, which means they must comply,” he said, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington. “There needs to be a penalty for noncompliance, otherwise treaties aren’t worth more than the paper on which they’re written.”
“I don’t think the demise of the INF treaty really affects the approach that we’ve taken in the [Missile Defense Review] MDR at all, because the MDR’s presumption is we need to defend against a growing proliferation of missile threats, period,” Trachtenberg continued. “The demise of the INF treaty—let’s be clear about this—is because the Russians have violated it and repeatedly violated it for years. That is indicative of part of the problem [that is] captured in the MDR.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, during remarks in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan yesterday, charged that the U.S. has not provided one shred of evidence that Russia is violating the treaty—a charge repeatedly made by Russian officials. “We see the basic concepts of the security architecture that was shaped after World War II being undermined, key strategic stability agreements being dismantled,” he stressed, reported TASS. “The latest example is in plain sight, specifically, the United States’ pullout from the INF Treaty under a far-fetched, unsubstantiated pretext of alleged violations of that accord by Russia. Not a single hard fact has been provided to us.”
Lavrov also charged that U.S.-Japan plans to place an Aegis Ashore installation in Japan is yet another violation of the treaty, for the same reason as those in NATO, which with the Mk-41 launchers installed, can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles. “We warned our Japanese colleagues when they were getting involved in this agreement with the U.S. that this would be a violation of the INF Treaty,” Lavrov stated.
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), examined the reasons for the U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, in an article published by the Valdai Club. First, he mentioned supposed U.S. military concern about Russia’s Avangard hypersonic vehicle. Second is the fact that China, Iran and a number of other countries are not limited by the treaty. Third, the Trump Administration is suspicions about any treaty that limits U.S. security options.
“But one cannot disregard the reasons connected with the internal political struggle,” Kortunov writes. “By quitting the treaty, Trump sent a message to his internal political opponents that he is a much tougher politician towards Russia than, for example, Obama, or that accusations of his softness towards the Kremlin are completely unfounded.”
As for the impact of the U.S. announcement, the military consequences of U.S. withdrawal from the treaty will take a few years to manifest themselves, but the political consequences, Kortunov reports, are already being felt. “In the field of nuclear arms control, the U.S. decision can create a ‘domino effect’: if it abandons the INF Treaty, it puts under question the New START treaty prolongation, and without the New START, there will be a broader issue of maintain the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime,” he writes. “Thus, a chain reaction can be launched that will lead to the collapse of not only the bilateral system of strategic weapons control, but also to the erosion of the entire international regime. This will create new risks and problems, and it will be very difficult to return to any international or bilateral agreements.”
As for what to do, Kortunov thinks that a new agreement needs to be worked out, but he doesn’t specify its nature. He notes that “It is already clear that it will be difficult to negotiate legally binding agreements—it is difficult to imagine Congress ratifying any agreement with Russia.” Number two, to bring China into such an agreement would require that it give up two-thirds of its existing capability. This is obviously unacceptable to the Chinese. Beyond that, it’ll take considerable political will, time and patience to develop a new agreement. “Negotiations on a new treaty will require considerable diplomatic skill, time, and perseverance,” Kortunov concludes. “There can be no quick success here. The Trump Administration has such an attitude that a victory is needed here and now. And this is the problem.”
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—Since Feb. 4 was the deadline for the illegal European ultimatum to the Maduro government to call new presidential elections in Venezuela or else, British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt tweeted Feb. 4: “Nicolas Maduro has not called Presidential elections within 8 day limit we have set. So U.K. alongside European allies now recognizes Guaidó as interim constitutional president until credible elections can be held. Let’s hope this takes us closer to ending humanitarian crisis.”
Hunt then issued a formal statement: “The United Kingdom now recognizes Juan Guaidó as the constitutional interim President of Venezuela, until credible presidential elections can be held. The people of Venezuela have suffered enough. It is time for a new start, with free and fair elections in accordance with international democratic standards. The oppression of the illegitimate, kleptocratic Maduro regime must end. Those who continue to violate the human rights of ordinary Venezuelans under an illegitimate regime will be called to account. The Venezuelan people deserve a better future.”
The U.K. move to recognize Guaidó was followed by Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Sweden and other European nations, whereas others in Europe (especially Italy) are in disagreement.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov slammed back: “Imposing any solutions or efforts aimed at legitimizing the attempt of usurping power is, in our view, just direct and indirect meddling in Venezuela’s internal affairs. This does not contribute in any way to the peaceful, effective and vital settlement to the crisis, which Venezuelans are enduring and who should, as we believe, pull through it on their own.” And Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told college students in the Tajik capital of Dushanbe that only direct talks between the Venezuelan government and the opposition could pave the way to a settlement. “Otherwise, there will be another regime change, like many in which the West has been engaged. There has not been a single country that benefitted from the regime change,” Lavrov said.
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—In a euphoric article published in the Oct. 28, 2009 edition of Foreign Policy magazine, George Soros, clearly emboldened by the accession of his man Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States nine months earlier, laid out the British Empire’s policy justification for color revolutions and regime-change operations everywhere in the world, including Venezuela, under the doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect,” or R2P.
In an article appearing under the title “The People’s Sovereignty” inForeign Policy, founded in 1970 by Samuel P. Huntington and part of the holding company which also owns the Washington Post, megaspeculator and drug apologist Soros let it all hang out:
“Sovereignty is an anachronistic concept originating in bygone times when society consisted of rulers and subjects, not citizens. It became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. During the French Revolution, the king was overthrown and the people assumed sovereignty. But a nationalist concept of sovereignty soon superseded the dynastic version. Today, though not all nation-states are democratically accountable to their citizens, the principle of sovereignty stands in the way of outside intervention in the internal affairs of nation-states.
“But true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments. If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens. In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.
“That principle has guided my network of foundations. In every country, we create a local board of citizens and channel our support through it….
“Indeed, the rulers of a sovereign state have a responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they fail to do so, the responsibility is transferred to the international community.”
One of the ironies of Soros’s argument here, is that it is premised on the “legal doctrine” of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, which was shared by both the British-run Chávez revolution (“The voice of the people is the voice of God…. Chávez is the people and the people cannot be stopped,” Chávez famously proclaimed); and also by the neo-con counter-revolution run under the cover of R2P by the networks of British agent Gene Sharp. Both sides of the British operation are premised on the idea of “Hobbesian man” and its attendant need for a Leviathan.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated recently: “I think that most people would agree with me that he [Soros] is the ugly face of neo-liberal capitalism, if you ever have seen one.”
U.S. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—Not present in the Senate for the Feb. 1 vote on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s craven resolution condemning President Donald Trump for pulling U.S. troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor yesterday to demand that the Senate adopt a resolution applauding the President for doing what no Democratic or Republican President has thought of doing in decades: ending the wars. He then issued a press release and tweet to ensure his speech is heard.
Senator Paul lambasted “the war caucus—on both sides, Republicans and Democrats—those who will not ever let the soldiers come home.” They say that President Trump acted “precipitously,” after 17 years of war. “The same people—the war caucus—and they’re on both sides of the aisle—will also tell you, if you announce that you’re leaving in six months, then you’re telegraphing to the enemy that you’re leaving. So they don’t want us to leave precipitously. They don’t want us to flee a planned way. They have left us no way to leave.
“People talk about bipartisanship. What is the one thing that brings Republicans and Democrats together? It’s war. They love it. The more the better. Forever war. Perpetual war.”
The McConnell resolution should be ripped up, he proposes. “I would like to ask unanimous consent that we get rid of the resolution condemning the President and that we replace it with a resolution that says simply this: that we applaud President Trump for being bold and brave enough to consider bringing our troops home, declaring victory and ending America’s longest war.”
Paul is scathing about what we are sending our soldiers to fight for: in Afghanistan, for a government which produced more opium than anywhere in the world for a decade, headed by a man who has a brother who is a drug trafficker and another who is a thief who ran off with the money. To build half-completed luxury hotels from which snipers now shoot on American soldiers, in the capital where after 17 years of our soldiers fighting there it is too dangerous to go a few blocks without an escort of Marine contingents and helicopters.
“With regard to the troops in Syria, President Trump said, I will defeat ISIS, and we’ll come home. Now the people are changing the mission. They say, we have to stay there until the Russians leave. We’ve to stay there until the Iranians leave. They’ve been there a long, long time. They’re not leaving. That means we stay there forever. We have 2,000 troops compared to tens of thousands of other troops, compared to a couple hundred thousand Turkish troops along the border. Do we really want to be involved in another enormous land war in the Middle East?”
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—The pattern is familiar. Just as President Donald Trump is scheduled for any important intervention, be it a summit with the President of Russia or China, or tonight’s State of the Union address, the British-run coup apparatus strikes immediately beforehand on some judicial flank, seeking to smear and undercut the U.S. President.
So, in the wee hours of this morning, the news broke that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed the Trump Inaugural Committee for a wide range of documents, at the request of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office to which Special Counsel Robert Mueller had shopped this criminal investigation earlier. Conveniently, various chosen media were given “access” to the subpoena. According to press reports, the subpoenas are for documents related to inaugural donors, vendors, contractors, bank accounts, and any information related to foreign contributors to the inaugural committee. Crimes under investigation include two particularly sinister ones: whether “payments [were] made directly by donors to vendors—which would flout disclosure rules” (according to the Wall Street Journal), and if anyone who attended the inaugural events were promised photo-ops with the President-elect (ABC News). No mention yet of Russian catering services being hired.
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—American Conservative editor W. James Antle III, responded to the Feb. 1 Senate vote, by calling on President Donald Trump to “call Congress’s bluff” in his State of the Union address. “He should dare legislators to do their jobs and vote to authorize continuing these wars—or he will end them. Put the onus on the House and Senate to fulfill their constitutional duties…. Trump’s call to bring the troops home has left him isolated in Washington. If he makes withdrawal a priority in the State of the Union, he may find that he has more company throughout the country than he thinks,” Antle wrote on Feb. 1.
He points to the broader battle within and over the administration, cautioning:
“Much is riding on whether a course correction is possible in Afghanistan and Syria. Trump has heeded the hawks in his party—and inside his own administration—on Yemen, Iran, and perhaps soon Venezuela. Breaking free of their stranglehold could help put his presidency back on track. Otherwise he will end up ceding foreign policy to the progressives who want to usher him out of office either by impeachment or electoral defeat.”
Michigan’s Rep. Justin Amash retweeted Antle’s article, after his own reaction to the Senate vote: “What an embarrassing move for the Senate—condemning the precipitous withdrawal from one war that is the longest in U.S. history and another war that Congress never authorized. It doesn’t get much more pathetic. Do your jobs and vote *for* war if that’s what you want.” [Emphasis in original]
Sen. Rand Paul retweeted a blistering article in The Federalist on Feb. 4, by Jesse Kelly, a former Marine combat veteran with a talk program on Houston’s KPRC-AM 950 radio station. Kelly is furious that a Senate so mired in partisan gridlock that a resolution declaring the sky to be officially the color blue would fail along party lines, could agree that after 17 years, “we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers (mentally and physically), or spent enough money. All for a now-aimless conflict in a part of the world Americans don’t even care about…. [Afghanistan] has now become a generational conflict where sons are patrolling the same areas as their fathers did. This no longer a war. This has become a hopeless mission to tame a part of the world that has never been and will never be tamed.”
Kelly calls this foreign policy “un-American,” quoting George Washington on the U.S. freedom to stay neutral, James Madison vs. standing armies, and John Quincy Adams’ famous warning against seeking monsters abroad. “Let us finally send neo-conservative interventionalism to the death it wishes upon our troops,” he wrote.
Concerned Veterans for America Executive Director Dan Caldwell issued a statement on Feb. 1 backing Trump against the Senate. He references polls from last November showing that 49% of U.S. veterans want the U.S. less militarily engaged around the world; 61% do not believe it is our responsibility to ensure that Afghanistan has a liberal democratic system of government; and that 69% would support the President if he withdrew all troops from Afghanistan.
THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—Italian Economic Development Undersecretary Michele Geraci and his colleague Infrastructure Undersecretary Edoardo Rixi paid a visit to Trieste Feb. 2 to plan for the role of the Trieste port in the New Silk Road, and called on local producers to forward proposals for cooperation with Chinese companies in Africa.
According to Trieste All News, Geraci “in view of the planned visit to Italy of Chinese President Xi Jinping in March, has invited local enterprises to communicate their readiness to collaborate with Chinese companies and partnerships on Beijing’s productive investments in Africa, in order to include it in the dossier that will be object of bilateral agreements.”
It is to be presumed that the same call is being extended to all producers nationally.
“On the sidelines of his meetings with local authorities, Geraci has stressed how the port of Trieste has the opportunity to become the most important terminal in Europe for the New Silk Road. ‘But we must decide quickly,’ Geraci warned, ‘because investors need certainties,’ ” Trieste All News quoted him as saying.
Feb. 5 (EIRNS)—Speakers at an event on the New Silk Road that took place at the Chamber of Commerce in Hamburg Feb. 5 highlighted the opportunities offered to Germany by Eurasian development. One of the speakers, economist Folker Hellmeyer, commented on his blog today that “the structures that are being built in the Eurasian region are nowhere near enough on the radar screens of the West, particularly on the financial markets. The reason for that might be ‘political correctness.’ Data show that the normative power of facts is politically non-correct and this is good.”
Other speakers at the event, which was organized by the Bundesverband Deutsche Seidenstraßen Initiative/Federal Association of the German Silk Road Initiative, included Kazakhstan Ambassador Bolat Nussupov, Prof. Karl Pilny (Asia expert) and architect Volkwin Marg (large projects in Asia).
Reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 1-571-293-0935