Meet Lyndon LaRouche!!!!

Intervju so Prof Nestor Oginar vo DENES-Mak

About the Interview English

LaRouche on MTV-Globus Lat

LaRouche na MTV-Globus Mak-Kir

  Pardew-OUT!?

...The terrorists to!

Russian Euroasian  Bridge NEW!

Pakistani Partners!

Russia:9-27/28
Washington...
Larouche...      ---in Brazil 

SECTION 2
Back then...
Hitler & all...
Putin--- "...to the Germans...
Full transcript..

SECTION  3

Prof.Babic on Larouche's book...

Mujehedins-MKD

- RUSSIA MAKES CRUCIAL DECISON TO BUILD KEY LINK -                   

- IN EURASIAN LAND BRIDGE -           

While Tinny Blair was in Moscow on Oct. 4 peddling his Made-In-London factoids, the Russian Cabinet held a meeting, after which it was announced at a press conference that Russia is determined to build a railway line across the Nevelsky Strait linking the mainland to the Island of Sakhalin. This was announced by the Minister for Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, German Oskarovich Gref, who is otherwise a neo-liberal. Gref pointed out that this decision has "geostrategic and geopolitical implications." Gref stressed that the project can only be economically effective, if Sakhalin is subsequently linked to Hokkaido in cooperation with Japan. Gref also emphasized that they would calculate the potential amount of freight and passenger carriage between the island and the mainland from the standpoint of the possibilities of using the Trans-Siberian railway "in the Eurasian transportation corridor."           

When Gref left, the press conference was continued by the Minister of Railroads Nikolai Yemelyanovich Aksyonenko, who was asked if there are any agreements with private investors to fund the project. Aksyonenko responded that, although he did not rule out private participation, the project was not considered for financing by private investors, because it is an infrastructural project. Contrary to Gref, Aksyonenko emphasized that the project would not depend upon private financing from Japan, because the project is in the interest of Russia. "It would simply be unforgivable not to take advantage of Russia's geographical position and to deprive the industry of utilizing its potential and taking advantage of the services of Russian, not foreign, transportation."          

Looking ahead longer than five years, Aksyonenko said, this is a very important strategic project. "It is a transport corridor that will link up with Europe." He continued: "We see the burgeoning Asia-Pacific region, we see the 6 million containers that travel from Europe to Asia and we see that Russia is left out of it, in terms of transportation."           

Aksyonenko noted that he was not the originator of the idea of this project, but rather it was conceived by "some smart people."           

Remember that while Putin was in Berlin, where he addressed the Bundestag in terms which reflected Lyndon LaRouche's policies, a Russian deputy minister of railways was in Vienna to present Russia's vision of Eurasian Transport Corridor development.           

Today's developments continue to reflect the impact of Lyn's ideas on leading Russians. Not only does the Russian decision to proceed with this project reflect Lyn's policies, but the thinking expressed by Aksyonenko, in particular, reflects Lyn's methodological thinking in respect to the importance of and national responsibility for infrastructure development, and the necessity of thinking in terms of long-term cycles of investment in physical economy.           

On the other hand, reflecting a totally different way of thinking, we have received a copy of the document, in which General Lyman Lemnitzer, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962, proposed launching a war of terrorism against the U.S. in order to trick the American public into supporting a war against Cuba. This document, which was released by the National Archives at the direction of the Clinton-appointed Assassination Document Review Board is authentic. What this document indicates is the "way of thinking" or mind-set, of which one should take note, in connection with the September 11 events and the ongoing threat of a coup d'etat in the U.S. today.

Emperor's Clothes

=======================================
Washington's Pakistani Allies: Killers and Drug Dealers
By Rahul Bedi in New Delhi
Reprinted from Sydney Morning Herald September 27, 2001
[Posted 27 September 2001]
=======================================

Pakistan's shadowy intelligence service, one of the main sources of information for the US-led alliance against the Taliban regime, is widely associated with political assassinations, narcotics and the smuggling of nuclear and missile components - and backing fundamentalist Islamic movements.

Locally referred to as Pakistan's "secret army" and the "invisible government", the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) was founded soon after independence in 1948. Today it dominates the country's domestic and foreign policies. It is also responsible for manipulating the volatile religious elements, ethnic groups and political parties that are disliked by the army.

Trained by the CIA and the French SDECE, the ISI "ran" the mujahideen in their decade-long fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf, who headed the ISI's Afghan bureau for four years until 1987, says in his book The Bear Trap that the agency funnelled US money and weapons to the mujahideen.

In the early 1990s the ISI provided logistic and military support for the Taliban, and helped them to seize power in Kabul five years ago.

Thereafter, it maintained a formidable presence across Afghanistan, helping the Taliban to consolidate their hold. The tactics used included bribery and raids that wiped out villages of different ethnic tribes. It is the knowledge gained of the Taliban into which the US is tapping as it plans punitive raids.

Intelligence sources said that the ISI-CIA collaboration in the 1980s assisted Osama bin Laden, as well as Mir Aimal Kansi, who assassinated two CIA officers outside their office in Langley, Virginia, in 1993, and Ramzi Yousef, who was involved in the failed bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in New York five years later.

Opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan's northern tribal belt and adjoining Afghanistan were a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA co-operation. It succeeded in turning some of the Soviet troops into addicts.

Heroin sales in Europe and the US, carried out through an elaborate web of deception, transport networks, couriers and pay-offs, offset the cost of the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

In the 1970s the ISI established a division to procure nuclear and missile technology for the military from abroad, especially China and North Korea. It also smuggled in crucial nuclear components and know-how from Europe.

(c) 2001 Sydney Morning Herald, Reprinted for Fair Use Only

New Federalist: 

Persona Non Grata: James Pardew showed the door? 

The Pardew-Bin Laden scandal explodes in Macedonia Macedonia rebels against Pardew’s Bin Laden cover-ups. Why Pardew hides the KLA-Bin Laden links? 

by Umberto Pascali Oct 3 (EIRNS)--The last diktat of US "facilitator," James „the cowboy" Pardew against Macedonia, did not work. On the contrary it backfired. When, last week, Ambassador Pardew went to Macedonian President Boris Trajkovski and demanded that the media be muzzled and do not report about the connections between the Kosovo Liberation Army  (KLA) and Osama Bin Laden, the well tested and lubricated mechanism of brutal diktats and obedience collapsed. Some of the main media indeed reported about the Ambassador blackmail. At the same time the media swam out of the fish bowl, and began reporting the international narco-terrorist connections of the KLA until then kept semi secret.             

On June 21, the wall of silence Pardew treasured so much received a first blow. The main Macedonian TV news program, {Globus} dedicated a large portion of his weekly story to an article published in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review." The {EIR} story  --  KLA and Drugs: The `New Colombia of Europe' Grows in Balkans" – published originally in June was then republished one day later in {Dnevnik} the biggest Macedonian daily. The article focuses on the symbiosis between the so-called Albanian Mafia, the Afghanistan's Taliban opium, the KLA and the strategy of the Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeleine Albright gang. It was also reported in other TV stations and printed media.             

Suddenly free from the heavy international censorship, the Macedonian journalists jumped on the "forbidden issue." The story of the links between the KLA and Bin Laden became the focus of many media reports. One of the most striking revelations on the KLA-Osama Bin Laden connection came, as we shall see, from the elected leader of the Kosovo Albanians, Ibrahim Rugova. The activities of Pardew in imposing silence over the Bin Laden connection appear even more appalling when the official and proclaimed goal of the Bush administration is a war against Osama Bin Laden.             

European sources familiar with the situation in Macedonia agreed full heartedly with Lyndon LaRouche that, while no informed official in the country believes that Bin Laden could have directed the September 11 attacks, there is no doubt that Bin Laden is one of the assets of the high level "rogue group" that launched such attacks. Persona Non Grata Now the story circulating in international diplomatic circles in Skopje is that Pardew will be declared "Persona non Grata" and be forced to leave Skopje. Even in that usually cynical world, Pardew exploits are provoking a reaction of rejection and sympathy for Macedonia.             

In any case Ambassador Pardew cannot boast an enviable report card from the countries where he has been active, especially Macedonia. Known as "the cowboy" for his arrogance and the lack of respect for even the most elementary rules of diplomacy and hospitality, the ambassador is a man with a past in the New NATO bureaucracy, a specialization in Balkan protectorates and a present as "peace facilitator" in Macedonia.             

Pardew has been the point man for the Anglo-American "international community" effort to deprive Macedonia of its sovereignty and territorial integrity using the deployment of the Kosovo Liberation Army's narco-terrorist gangs.             

With the modus operandi of a 19th century British colonial official Pardew cannot avoid pushing around the elected representatives of sovereign countries he deals with. Of course this brutal style is justified with the necessity to favor 'democracy."             Probably in Pardew's mind, he did not do anything different than what he has been doing since the beginning of his Macedonia mission. An added element in his diktats frenzy was apparently the "cowboy" fear that all his work could have been thwarted by a moment of truth. His strategy of depriving Macedonia of its sovereignty and subverting its Constitution imposed under the guns of the KLA, would have been reversed once the media were free to report about the KLA connections with Osama Bin Laden. Georgievski shows Pardew the door And apparently Pardew became frantic. Again, according to diplomatic sources, and by media reports, on Oct 3rd Pardew was openly asked to leave the office of Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski after a verbal confrontation. Pardew had again tried to impose his diktat, this time in demanding that the Macedonian authorities should not dare to go back in those areas of the country that the KLA had occupied, destroyed and ethnically cleansed.             

Pardew also demanded that any idea of a popular referendum concerning the change of the Constitution be abandoned immediately. And, according to diplomatic sources, had threatened the Prime Minister to report him to his (Pardew's) superiors. It was at this point that the "cowboy" was told that he could not insult the country hosting him and asked to leave.             

The Macedonian media in the meantime reported about the statements made by Ibrahim Rugova, the elected leader of the Kosovo Albanians: not only there are links between the KLA and Bin Laden, but Bin Laden organizations established themselves in Kosovo back in 1994, and that the closest collaborator of Bin Laden (some say even more important than Bin Laden himself) the Egyptian Mohamed Zvahiri personally supervised the training of the KLA narco- terrorists.

[Source: Phoenix TV, Sept. 26]       RUSSIA OFFERS MORE OIL AND GAS FOR EUROPE, IN CASE OTHER SOURCES ARE CUT OFF DUE TO ERUPTION OF CONFLICTS. 

In his speech before an audience of several hundred industrialists and bankers at the Krupp Villa Huegel in Essen, today, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke, again, of the creation of a "Greater European Economic Zone." Specifically, he offered commitment of Russia to increase oil and gas exports to Europe, to secure energy safety for the Europeans during times of conflict that would cut off supplies from other sources.       Putin reiterated that Russia not only considers itself a part of Europe, but that it really is a European country, in terms of economic structures as well as in science and culture. Whereas Russia has been a supplier of raw materials in the past, it wants to become a real partner in aerospace, nuclear physics, molecular biology, and other high-tech projects of cooperation with Europe in the future, Putin said. German and other European investors should upgrade their engagement in Russia, also in view of the potential for moving into neighboring markets from Russian territory.       He particularly thanked Gremany and its government for their policy of intensifying trade with Russia, even against a general background of worsening global economic conjuncture. 

 WASH, D.C. Sept. 26 (EIRNS) -- THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS CORPS WAS A BIT FREAKED OUT TODAY BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S hearty greeting to the Putin speech yesterday, even more freaked by the Administration assertion that Putin was absolutely correct in asserting that groups connected to bin Laden were indeed active in the Chechnya operation. The transcript of today's briefing speaks for itself:       

Q: "Is the US taking a softer line on Russia over Chechnya in return for the cooperation Putin has offered in this effort?"       

FLEISCHER: "President Putin gave a very important speech the other day, which should be noted.  President Bush appreciated very much President Putin's offer of concrete cooperation in the common fight against international terrorism. And President Putin's remarks demonstrate that Russia can make a major contribution to that common struggle against international terrorism, while at the same time displaying a respect for the sovereignty and independence of Russia's neighbors.       

"In particular, the President noted and wants to thank President Putin for his offer to provide, as President Putin described it, permission for humanitarian overflights, information about the situation on the ground, as well as search and rescue operations, if necessary.  The president looks forward to continuing to work with the Russian government together as we build this international coalition.      

 "The President also wants to note particularly President Putin's remarks about the situation in Chechnya, in which President Putin called on Chechen insurgents to disassociate themselves immediately from the international terrorist networks and meet for discussions to resolve the crisis in Chechnya. The Chechnya leadership, like all responsible political leaders in the world, must immediately and unconditionally cut all contacts with international terrorist groups, such as Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization.      

 "At the same time, the United States has long said that the only solution in Chechnya is a political solution, a political process to resolve the conflict there.  The president welcomes the sincere steps that have been taken by Russia to engage the Chechen leadership, and consistent with what you've heard repeatedly, respect for human rights and accountability for violations on all sides is crucial to a durable peace there."       

Q: "Does this offer by Putin reflect any input by the United States?  Did Bush suggest that he needed to do something on Chechnya? And do you have any idea what might happen if the 72-hour period expires without an acceptance by the rebels?"       

FLEISCHER: "Well actually, there's been an update on that, as you may have heard.  The Chechen leader, Mr. Maskhadov, has responded and indicated a commitment to the peace process. He has indicated a willingness.  And so it's important now to let events develop in Chechnya.  That is an encouraging sign." 

     Q: "And so the administration believes, with President Putin, that the resistance in Chechnya has been infiltrated and is linked to the same terrorist networks that committed the atrocities in New York?"

       FLEISCHER: "Terry, there is no question that there is an international terrorist presence in Chechnya that has links to Osama bin Laden.  And that's why I indicated what I indicated.       

"That also is a point of view that was shared with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in, I believe it was November of 1999, by a spokesman -- an official from the Clinton State Department, when he testified before Senate Foreign Relations. So that's been -- long been known.  In fact, it's been referenced in the Patterns of Global Terrorism report, which is issued by the State Department."      

Q: "One more on this. Would, then, Chechen separatists, by the statement you read today, calling on them to cut off links to this group, are they on notice, as the Taliban is, that they will share the terrorists' fate if they don't do so?"       

FLEISCHER: "The President's words speak for themselves about those terrorist organizations that have global reach.  But what's notable here is the president is reiterating that it's important to have a political solution to the situation in Chechnya.  But undeniably, there are terrorist organizations in Chechnya that have ties to Osama bin Laden." 

      HELEN THOMAS: "Haven't we made many statements denouncing Russia for its attacks in Chechnya?  And isn't there some image of freedom fighters there?  And all of a sudden you're calling them terrorists?"       

FLEISCHER: "As I just indicated, the concern for human rights remains a vital part of American policy, and the only solution to the problem in Chechnya is a political one."       

Q: "Yeah, but why is it just today that you're calling them terrorists?  What has changed?"       

FLEISCHER: "Well, as I indicated, that's not the case. That's been the long-standing position."       

Q: "I think this is the first time -- is this not the first time you've used this word at that podium? It's the first time we've heard it."       

FLEISCHER: "I'm not sure that I have discussed the situation in Chechnya with the White House press corps prior to this.  We haven't had much reason to do so.       

"But that's why I indicated, going back to the previous administration, in testimony before the Senate, they said what they said because it's true.  And the State Department publishes a report every year that included similar information."       

Q: "Is it fair to assume that these words from you are in exchange for Putin's cooperation on the U.S. effort?" 

FLEISCHER: "No, it's an accurate statement about the situation on the ground and the importance of the speech that President Putin made.  But keep in mind, President Putin called for political discussions.  Leaders of Chechnya have now indicated they are willing to engage in such discussions.  That's a positive development."       

Q: "It sounds like a deal, though.  It sounds like in exchange for Putin's support, we, rhetorically, from this podium, are lending him support in characterizing the opposition as international terrorists." 

FLEISCHER: "No, there's no -- no such conclusion should be reached.  This is consistent with actions taken by the previous administration because it's an accurate statement about developments in Chechnya." 

Sept. 24 (EIRNS)--LAROUCHE IS "ABSOLUTELY" ON TARGET, that the entire sequence of Sept. 11 events was organized by a highly sophisticated operation INSIDE the U.S., stated one of Europe's most incisive strategists, who added, that the Russians are aware of this, and that what is behind the operation, is a "vast geostrategic arrangement", that touches upon the most sensitive Russian interests.         In a discussion with EIR today, this individual, who had been unreachable after Sept. 11 until now, was briefed on the core of LaRouche's idea of what has been going on.  He responded: "I absolutely agree.  That's what makes all this talk of invoking Article 5 so problematic, because Article 5 is not valid, if the attack emanates from INSIDE a NATO country.  But the United States is hugely reluctant, to discuss the internal American factors in this.  Yet, the fact is, everything that happened on Sept. 11, was ORGANIZED, EXECUTED, AND RAISED INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.  All this obsession on Osama bin Laden is pure nonsense. In fact, this was all well-organized, the people who did it were geniuses, I wish they were on our side."         The strategist has been very carefully monitoring the Russian commentaries, over the past days, and stated: "What the Russians have been saying, predominantly, has been very much on target. The Russian attitude and position has been very good, they are very concerned about the implications for them, of what has just happened.  Why do you think [Chief of the General Staff] General Kvashnin rushed to Tadjikistan, as soon as the attacks happened on Sept. 11?  The Russians are concerned, that there are TWO elements involved in all this, there is the United States as such, and there is the situation in Central Asia.  All this talk of Islamic terrorism, is a cover, for the fact that there are vast geostrategic rearrangements afoot, in all this."         The source went on: "The way I see it, there are three parts to the whole picture.  First, there is the internal American scene. What just happened, was a highly organized, complex, and brilliantly carried out operation.  Second, what is now revealed, is the complete condemnation of the U.S. intelligence services, as a bunch of useless bureaucrats.  Thirdly, there is the Russian side.  The Russians see all this as a REAL threat, a giant rearrangement.  Overlaid onto the third factor, is the fatal connection of pipeline politics, typified by the American ambassador in Britain [Farish] saying he will be going to the Balkans soon, as part of wider oil politics.  What we see now, is not the rules of the game being changed, but the entire chessboard being turned over.         "All this talk of military operations in Afghanistan is, in my view, a bluff and a blind.  I think what we will see, is a variegated, theater-spread series of strikes, combining air strikes and special forces, in an area wider than Afghanistan. After all, if Afghanistan were really the issue, the first thing you would expect them to do, would be to build up the Northern Alliance opposition, but instead they been ignored."         When asked to further specify, how he saw the operations of Sept. 11 in New York and Washington having been carried out, he responded: "This was not primarily Islamic at all.  I'm sure there were Islamic elements, but what is behind this, is a deeply embedded conspiratorial and organized operation, that took two-plus years to put together.  These were people, who were able to make sophisticated moves on the markets, right before it happened.  It was very carefully initiated and carried out, using American dissident groups, of which there are a lot, some quite violent.  Probably the militia elements would have been tapped, although you have to keep in mind, they are a cover for something else.  In any case, what I can say to you with certainty, this was not done by a handful of Islamic fanatics."

LAROUCHE TO ADDRESS BRAZILIAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEMINAR ON      "BRAZIL AND THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT OF THE AMERICAS"

 WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 26 (EIRNS)--Lyndon H. LaRouche, {Executive Intelligence Review}'s founder and contributing editor, has accepted an invitation from Deputy Aecio Neves, the President of the Brazilian House of Representatives, to participate in an international seminar organized by the Brazilian Congress, on the subject of "Brazil and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas." The seminar will be held Oct. 23-24, 2001, in Brasilia, Brazil.            

 Mr. LaRouche will participate as a commentator in the fourth session, on the subject of agriculture, which will be presided over by Brazil's Agriculture Minister, Marcus Vinicius Pratini de Moraes. In addition to numerous cabinet ministers, congressmen, and other distinguished Brazilian participants, international participants in the two-day seminar include: Julio Sanguinetti (former President of Uruguay), Raul Alfonsin (former President of Argentina), Jorge Castaneda (Mexican Foreign Minister), Domingo Cavallo (Argentine Economics Minister), and others.

LAROUCHE ON DOMINICAN REPUBLIC RADIO           {Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Sept. 25, 2001, on ``Revista 110,'' the popular morning news and commentary TV program hosted by Dr. Julio Hazim in the Dominican Republic. The interview was widely publicized, starting the day before, on other TV programs, so there was a large audience gathered in the studio to hear LaRouche, and it must be assumed that an audience substantially more numerous than the usual large audience that follows Revista 110, tuned-in to see the LaRouche interview on channels 13 and 53, or listened to the simulcast on Radio Tro@aapico. The interview was scheduled to air again on Channel 56 that same evening, and again on Channel 13 and 53 the following weekend.           

Hazim: Mr. LaRouche, I want to quote something you said in a statement you issued on September 15:           

``The trouble is, there are too few people on this planet today, especially in my own country, who have both the knowledge and the guts to tell the truth about such matters. That is why I am a leader among my nation's celebrities, and some others who pretend, or are even elected to be leaders, are not.           

``As for the current global monetary and financial crisis, which defines the environment of what happened on Tuesday, I have warned you about it. Many of you rejected my warnings, including the leading candidates for the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. You were wrong; they were terribly wrong. Now the devil against which I warned you then is here. I know how to get us safely out of this monetary and financial crisis. I do not know who the treasonous rogues are, who did what happened on Tuesday, but I know we can defeat them if we come to our senses soon enough. Have courage. Stop looking for retribution against those who have been proven guilty of no crime. Face up to what you have lacked the courage to face up to now. Then, together, we shall build this nation out of this horrible nightmare.           

``I can propose; what you do about what I propose, is up to you. You can reject my  warnings, but you can not escape the consequences of your own folly.           ``For a start, turn off CNN!''           

Could you please comment?           

LaRouche: We're at a point of the collapse of a world system, a system which developed especially in the past thirty-odd years. We have reached the end-point of that, and at this particular time, we have not only the crash of a financial system, but we have from inside the United States, someone, some powerful agency, trying to run a coup d'etat. It's not an ordinary coup d'etat, nor is it over.           What happened on Sept. 11 was the first blow of what is obviously intended to be a series of blows. The first attack was on the mentality of the population. In that sense, it was a terror attack, but so far, we recognize that, unlike many terror attacks, the author of the attack has not come forward in any way. Nor has he been detected. He is not, of course, an Arab terrorist country, or something of that sort, because some of the personnel involved may have been recruited from such sources as the former Iran-Contra operation, and as we know, these people came from many countries. But it could not be done without the direction of a powerful organization, a secret organization, working inside the United States.           Therefore, there will be a second attack, and probably a third. Exactly when, we don't know, but it could be fairly soon.           

Hazim: Do you believe it's possible for there to be such an alliance, as has been proposed, of such different clashing cultures? You have the Taliban on the one side, which has already given some indication of its culpability. The cultures are so different. Also, are these people, who have their `behinds up in the air,' really capable of conceiving such a plot that they can hit this financial center, the Twin Towers, and the military center, the Pentagon, and a fourth plane which, to this day, we don't really know where it was headed for? Do you think this is possible?           

LaRouche: No, it is not. Not from such sources. Remember, we've had over the period of over a quarter century, actually since 1968, we've had the buildup of a phenomenon of international irregular warfare, including terrorism. But this was never, with a few exceptions here and there, was never really an individual or group phenomenon. I've been investigating this thing for over thirty years, and this is never done without the participation of governments or similar agencies.           The Iran-Contra operation, as it came to be called, is an example of this. This was run by special warfare units and commands inside the United States, Britain and Israel. And it had involved assets who had been recruited for this operation from many countries. The case of Italian terrorism, the case of German terrorism, the French terrorism, all of these things were run by agencies like governments, or by governments. This is a phenomenon of the age of nuclear weapons, where governments no longer feel free to start wars in regular warfare. So they go back to another form of warfare, of semi-anonymous guerrilla warfare, by people under false flags.           Now, what you have out there is you have a tremendous potential of mercenary, and mercenary-like forces, which have been trained and used for these kinds of operations. So, if someone wants, from inside the U.S. government, the British government, the Israeli government, or some combination of these, to run an operation of this type, they can pick up veterans of this kind of past experience, the way you pull tissues out of a box.           In a case like this, it's like hunting an animal that you don't know. You study the spoor and behavior of the animal.           

Hazim: You referred to a mercenary operation, but mercenaries work for money. Here we had people who actually gave up their lives. How do you get people to give up their lives? You had four planes, they didn't use nuclear weapons. Why use four airplanes filled with fuel as missiles?           

Within a year or ten years, they'll probably come up with a scenario, such as the ``Warren Commission,'' saying that the Oklahoma thing was carried out by an all-American guy all by himself, just like the magic bullet from Dallas killed four people, and that the Iran-Contra business was people independently trading drugs for weapons, and that Jimmy Carter lost the election because a political party was conducting negotiations on its own. So, what are the chances that we will get a different version than the simplistic tale they're telling us, that it was Bin Laden by himself who did it?  

LaRouche: First of all, you have to recognize that we're looking at an operation like that started by Brzezinski during the late 1970s, and continued under Vice President George Bush, in which they went to organizations like Islamic Jihad, then based in Egypt, to organize the forces for what became known as the Afghansi. Now, this operation that ran the Afghansi under Brzezinski, is the same operation which continued the Afghansi operation under George Bush, and also included other things, including things in Central America, like in Guatemala, the drug trafficking, the Iran-Iraq war, things like that. Although these people may be paid to do what they're doing, that is, for the logistics, they are not actually mercenaries in the ordinary sense. But they are the same people, like the Anglo-American-Israeli combination, which are recruiting mercenary armies inside Africa, the same command structure.           

So, it's a large assortment of capabilities, which are recruited and deployed in various ways. What we're looking at here is an attempt to terrify the United States into undergoing a change in its government, to conduct a geopolitical war in Central Asia. Although the operation was done from inside the United States, the brainwashing that's being done to the American people, is to cause them to believe that it came from someplace in the Arab world.           

There {is} a connection to the Islamic world, because the purpose of the operation is to have what Brzezinski has called a geopolitical ``Clash of Civilizations'' in Central Asia. And the idea, the motive for this operation, is that given by Brzezinski, Kissinger and people like that. So, therefore, they're trying to terrify the United States, to bring about a change in government, which will run this kind of geopolitical war in Central Asia.   

        Hazim: Mr. LaRouche, you have said in the past: ``Ask me, I know what to do.'' So, we have a situation where they have now said they are going to declare war on all terrorist organizations and countries that harbor them. We have eighteen such organizations in Latin America. We have the Tupamaros, Cuba, the Cha@aavez regime, the Peruvian terrorists, Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc. This could devolve into a Third World War. Do you see a situation where, because of the economic situation in the United States, somebody says, ``Look, we need a war to get the economy going again?''          

 LaRouche: No, though some people may say that. On the subject of economics, they are blind, wishful-thinking, idiots. The financial crash that is occurring now is the end of the present world financial and monetary system. It is like the crash of the banking system of Europe, the Lombard banking system, in the 14th century. Now, in this situation, you have all these local kinds of things you are talking about, but to my knowledge, none of them are autonomous. They're all run by governments, especially with Anglo-American-Israel connections.           What the guys behind this are afraid of, is that cooperation in Eurasia, among Russia, China, India, Japan, Western Europe, and so forth, will start an economic recovery of a new system, and that that will defeat the power of the Anglo-American financier lobby. And the question of oil in Central Asia is one of the key fulcrums of their objective, in the so-called Caspian region--and other natural resources in Central Asia, as well. So, what they've done is that they've launched this operation.           

Now, obviously, the solution is that the United States should dump this nonsense, recognize the need to replace the presently bankrupt system with a new monetary and financial system, and enter into cooperation, principally, with combinations of nations in Eurasia, in cooperation with nations in South America and Africa, to create a new system, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt planned to create a new kind of world system, a more just system, when World War II had ended. And while we work to expose and defeat this coup plot inside the United States, and in Israel and elsewhere, we must offer the people of the world a sense of hope that there is a positive solution to the present world financial and monetary crisis.           

We have to operate on the principle that if the overwhelming majority of the people understand what the threat is to them and their future, and to coming generations, nobody can conquer that people. It's only when the people are confused and don't know what they're fighting against, that the people surrender to things like a coup d'etat. When the people are aroused--and remember, soldiers are people and are influenced by the population--if we give political leadership and inspiration to the people, they will not allow any such tyrant to triumph. Under that condition, the tyrant is defeated before he strikes.           

Therefore, while I consider all the military and related problems, I concentrate on my specialty, the political and economic dimension where the solution lies. The solution never lies in winning the war. The solution lies in winning the peace, a durable peace.  

Hazim: What is the importance of Afghanistan from the standpoint of politics and economics? The Soviets invaded it, the United States armed the opposition. Now the United States is moving to attack it again. It doesn't seem to have any apparent wealth or natural resources. What is its importance?           

LaRouche: It has mountains, and it has a geographical position. If you have a war among several powers, involving Afghanistan, you have involved China, India, Pakistan, Russia, the nations of Central Asia. In fact, you have involved the entire Eurasian continent in one big war. And since it's impossible to win a war in Afghanistan, in the ordinary sense--it's a desert area with no infrastructure--it becomes like a thirty years war, but worse. The armies of the world, the mercenaries of the world, are all moving into that area, fighting each other in a perpetual war. The effect is to spread a war from Central Asia, which will destroy the nations, as well as the economy, of all Eurasia. It's the ultimate geopolitical war.           

Hazim: We must end now, but there is one thing we cannot close without dealing with. Lyndon LaRouche is attacked, he is a patriot, a leader, a man respected by some, and considered by others a controversial figure. What do he and his political organization think of this attack [of September 11], which has been deemed inhuman, atrocious, a provocation, arrogant, and even an insult to the Establishment, and the government and the people of the United States? They cannot respond by doing nothing, and he knows it. It was an attack against the two capitals of the United States: the economic capital, and the political capital. It was also an attack against the people of the United States, because the Twin Towers were full of workers. It was an attack on the commercial center of the world, on the military center of the world, and perhaps that fourth plane was intended for the political center of the world. How does LaRouche view that, and what kind of response do you think would be reasonable, to this kind of attack?           

LaRouche: The first thing you have to do is recognize who the enemy is, who you're going to respond to. The enemy, the command structure, lies inside the United States. Therefore, any attack on places or nations outside the United States, virtually has the same effect as an act of treason, because you are attacking your friends, when you should be looking to your enemies.           

Most of these Arab countries are, implicitly, friends of the United States. Russia is presently a friend of the United States. China wishes to be a friend of the United States. Kazakstan, where the Pope has just made a major appearance, is a friend of the United States. India would like to be a friend of the United States. The nations of Southeast Asia, many of the nations of Africa, wish to be friends of the United States. Most of continental Europe wishes to be friends with the United States. Why should we make war against these friends, or involve them in great troubles unnecessarily, when the enemy is within our own country?           

We don't know the exact identity of the perpetrators who commanded this operation. But they were a group of people with the highest degree of military skills and experience, on the flag-officer level of command. Things of the nature of a planned military coup run with special warfare capabilities. The ``activists,'' shall we call them, who did this--and I'm talking about people of flag-officer rank and higher--of the United States, are in sympathy with people like Brzezinski and Kissinger.

           Hazim: Unfortunately, Mr. LaRouche, our time has run out. I want to leave you one more minute, to give you the opportunity to say something to the people of the Dominican Republic, through our program ``Revista 110.''           

LaRouche: At the time that the attack occurred on New York and Washington, I was on the radio, and I told the people who were listening to this interview at that time, not to panic, that leadership must speak with a calm voice and speak relevant things, on the real issues and their solutions, like a great commander would in a major war, and as Franklin Roosevelt did in facing the Great Depression. That's what is needed. Panic and screaming from the mass media of the United States and elsewhere, is the worst thing you can do under these kinds of conditions. Hysteria in many parts of the U.S. government is the worst possible thing.           

Hazim: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche.

September 26 2001

 HOW IT HAPPENED, BACK THEN:             

At the end of 1932, with the election of Franklin Roosevelt as U.S. President, the situation of the British and U.S. financier circles behind Adolf Hitler and the Nazis was desperate.  The Nazi Party was virtually bankrupt, in the process of threatened disintegration.  The plotters of what became the Hitler coup d'etat were the Anglo-U.S. circles typified by former Bank of England head Montagu Norman, Norman's partners and accomplices Averell Harriman and the grandfather of today's U.S. President, Prescott Bush, and Montagu's asset Hjalmar Schacht in Germany.  These forces used Prescott Bush, among others, to arrange the financial resuscitation of the Hitler's Nazi Party, and used various assets, including certain trade-union circles in Germany, to bring down the potential partner of incoming U.S. President Roosevelt, the von Schleicher government of Germany.             

The German generals who should have remained on post to prevent the Hitler coup d'etat left the scene.  The plotters induced President Paul von Hindenburg to dump von Schleicher, on January 28th, and appoint Hitler Chancellor on January 30th.             

Next, the plotters of the coup d'etat arranged an incendiary attack on the leading building of Germany, the Reichstag, which Goering et al. used to install Ashcroft-like police-state decrees, establishing Hitler as dictator, and founding what became notorious as the Nazi death-camps.             However, Hitler's dictatorship was still vulnerable. Schacht saved the Hitler dictatorship by instituting Felix Rohatyn-like measures used to build the Nazi war-machine in preparation for the intended war.             Originally, the Anglo-American backers of Hitler had intended Hitler to prepare and launch a war on the Soviet Union, with the intent that British and French forces should attack Germany only when the German military forces were trapped deeply in their invasion of Russia.  When the British monarchy found itself blushing to discover that Hitler planned to make a deal with Stalin and attack to the West first, the monarchy panicked, and from about 1936 committed itself to bringing in the U.S. to mobilize for the coming war against Hitler.             

Today, some things, if only some, are different.  Fifteen years after World War I, the economies of the U.S.A. and western Europe still commanded much of the physical strength they had built up prior to and during that war.  Then, most notably in the U.S.A. and Germany, the efforts led by Roosevelt and Schacht, respectively, revived much of that vast potential, while it was still alive.             Today, more than thirty-five years have passed since the ruinous first Wilson government of Britain, and thirty years since Nixon's folly of August 1971. The "outsourcing"-dependent, bankrupt U.S. domestic economy, like those of Europe, are a pitiable wasteland compared to the U.S. and European economies of 1932-1933.  The U.S. and world monetary systems of 1933-1945 were resuscitated by "Dr." Franklin Roosevelt, as contrasted with the delusion that today's economies could be revived, by black magic, as zombies, or rescued by Rohatyn in the fashion of the famous sheep of Panurge.             Meanwhile, has anyone seen either the Democratic Party, or the trade-union movement, these days, or were those, when last seen, off in some swamp, somewhere, admiring the Moon?            

 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr..

Wednesday, September 26, 2001



        PUTIN'S EARTH-SHATTERING INTERVENTION IN BERLIN

Russian President Vladimir Putin made a history-shaping
intervention into the grave global crisis on Tuesday, with his
appearance before the Bundestag in Berlin.  According to
eyewitness accounts of his televised speech, and his earlier
press conference with German Chancellor Schroeder, Putin declared
that the Cold War paradigm is ended, that the old thinking about
a world divided into two rival blocs is gone forever, and Russia
is committed to be a bulwark for a united Europe, seeking
collaboration with Asia and with the United States.  He declared
that the horrible events that occurred in the U.S.A. on Sept. 11
taught the world a lesson about the absurdity of the
still-prominent Cold War modes of thought and action.  The
question of NATO expansion, for example, is shown as folly, in
the face of the {real} enemy, international terrorism.  Putin
also made it clear, in his press conference with Schroeder, that
China will be a crucial partner in the coordinated fight against
the new terrorism, and that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
will also play a central role, as a guarantor that there will be
no new Great Game over Central Asia's oil, gas and other natural
resource wealth.  He repeatedly declared that the Clash of

Civilizations must be averted, at all costs.

Lyndon LaRouche characterized the Putin intervention as crucial
and well-planned, aimed at changing the present world situation
in a decisive way.  He observed that idiots like Brzezinski will
babble on, in profile, but the reality is: Putin's intervention
assures that the effort to use the Sept. 11 events to create an
international military mess, as a means of dealing with the
economic and financial/monetary collapse in the U.S.A., just
won't fly.  The Russian leadership is not about to be fooled. The
Russians know that the collapse is on, and nothing can be done to
save the present global monetary and financial system. Putin
declared that Europe is no longer divided, and the world is no
longer divided.  If countries work together to solve mutual
problems, we can put the world back together, and amass the power
to dispense with those who wish to push their geopolitical wars,
their clash of civilization, their new dark age.

LaRouche emphasized, the United States--like every other nation
on this planet--is hopelessly bankrupt.  The fact that the U.S.
media avoids making this admission does not make it any less
true.  The party is over, and the United States is no longer in
the position to stabilize the economic and financial situation at
home, by promoting emergency measures abroad!  This crisis is
moving very fast.  The idea being peddled by Felix Rohatyn, of
some domestic public works program, to deal with the crisis, is
silly (see slug below).  It's much too late for that!  This is
just a repetition of old tunes that Rohatyn has been singing for
years.  He ought to be referred to as ``the Al Jolson of the
financial establishment.''

People must realize, LaRouche continued, that this is not a
Depression we are in.  This is a breakdown crisis of the entire
monetary and financial system worldwide.  If you try to save this
hopelessly bankrupt system, we all lose.  Brzezinski and
Kissinger ought to be referred to as the leaders of a mass
suicide movement, with their geopolitical games to save this dead
system.

Putin, in opposition to these fools, is proposing that a united
Europe cooperate with Asia, and cooperate with the U.S.A. Anyone
who turns down the proposal that Putin put forward in Berlin on
Tuesday is a damned crazy fool.  Only swine among Perles could
reject Putin's paradigm-busting proposal.

Immediately below you will find the transcript of Lyndon
LaRouche's interview on Tuesday morning on radio and television
in the Dominican Republic.  The text of this interview, along
with the test of the Sigerson interview with LaRouche of Sept.
18, will be available before the end of the week as a
mass-circulation L2004 pamphlet.  Remember LaRouche's emphasis on
the mass outreach and the mass innoculation of the population at
large, through the mass distribution of the leaflets and
pamphlets.  This is not just good works.  This is pivotal.
Without the mobilization of an American public, innoculated
against the brainwashing onslaught of CNN, Fox, etal., the coup
d'etat-in-progress cannot be defeated.  Particularly following
the Putin strategic intervention yesterday, you are going to see
new levels of absolute hysteria from the Brzezinskis, the
Kissingers, the Huntingtons, from the whole Mega crowd.  If we do
our job, with the same level of accountable individual effort and
creativitity that we achieved during the first weeks following
the covert assault of Sept. 11, we can judo the flight-forward
lunacy that we can expect from these dangerous loonies, and turn
it to our advantage and ultimate victory.  President Putin has
performed a magnificent service to humanity, so let's take full
advantage of it.



    FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT PUTIN'S ADDRESS TO THE BUNDESTAG

	[This text, based on the Russian version on Putin's web site
and a translation done by BBC from the transcript of the speech
as it was delivered in German, now contains the entire Sept. 25
speech by Putin in Berlin.]

	Dear Mr. Chairman, dear ladies and gentlemen,
	I am sincerely grateful for this opportunity to speak in the
chambers of the Bundestag. This is the first time that a Russian
head of state has had such an opportunity, in the entire history
of Russian-German relations. And this honor, extended to me
today, only goes to confirm that Russia and Germany are mutually
interested in having a dialogue.
	I am moved to be able here, in Berlin, to talk about
Russian-German relations, about the development of ties between
my country and a united Europe, and about questions of
international security--here in this city with a difficult
destiny, a city which more than once in the modern history of
mankind became the center of confrontation with practically the
entire world. But it is also a city where, even in the darkest
times, no one ever succeeded in snuffing out the humanistic
spirit of freedom, instilled by Wilhelm von Humboldt and Lessing.
	This did not happen, even during the hard years of Hitler's
tyranny. The memory of the anti-fascist heroes is deeply honored
in our country.
	People in Russia have always had special feelings for
Germany, and have seen your country as one of the most important
centers of European culture--a culture, to whose development
Russia has also made no small contribution. A culture that knew
no borders, and which always belonged to us in common, and united
our peoples.
	Therefore, I shall permit myself to deliver the main part of
my remarks today, in the language of Goethe, of Schiller, and of
Kant--in German.
	[Putin switches to German.]
	Ladies and Gentlemen,
	I have just mentioned the unity of European culture. At a
certain point, however, this unity did not prevent the unleashing
of two terrible wars on this continent--two world wars in the
course of one century. It did not prevent construction of the
Berlin Wall, which became a terrible symbol of the deep division
within Europe.
	In our day, the Berlin Wall no longer exists. It has been
destroyed. And today, it would be appropriate to remember once
again, why this became possible. I am certain that the grandiose
changes in the world, in Europe, and in the area of the former
Soviet Union, would not have been possible without certain
essential preconditions. Specifically, without the events that
took place in Russia ten years ago. These events are of great
importance, for understanding just what happened in our country,
and what may be expected from Russia in the future.
	Actually, the answer is simple: under the influence of the
laws of development of the information society, totalitarian
ideology of a Stalinist type could no longer withstand the ideas
of democracy and freedom. The spirit of these ideas won over the
minds of the overwhelming majority of Russian citizens. It was
the political choice of the Russian people, that made it possible
for the leadership of the U.S.S.R. at that time to take the
decisions, which ultimately led to the tearing down of the Berlin
Wall. It was that choice, that extended the boundaries of
European humanism many times over, and permits us to assert that
nobody will ever be able to turn Russia back to the past.
[Applause.]
	As for European integration, we not only support these
processes, but we look upon them with hope. We look upon them,
being a people who learned very well the lessons of the Cold War,
and the ruinous results of an occupation ideology. But here, it
seems to me, it would be appropriate to add that Europe also
gained nothing from its division.
	I am firmly convinced that in today's fast changing world,
where truly dramatic demographic changes and unusually high
economic growth are observed in some regions of the world,
Europe, too, has a direct interest in the development of
relations with Russia. [Applause.]
	No one is casting doubt upon the great value of Europe's
relations with the United States. It is just that I am of the
opinion, that Europe will consolidate its reputation as a
powerful and truly independent center of world politics, firmly
and for the long term, if it can join its own capabilities with
Russia's possibilities--with the human, territorial and natural
resources, and the economic, cultural and defense potential of
Russia. We have already taken the first steps in this direction
together. Now it is time to think about what can be done, in
order that a united and secure Europe become the harbinger of a
united and secure world.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we have accomplished a lot in recent
years, in the field of security. The security system, which we
had created over the past decades, has been improved. One of the
achievements of the last decade is the unprecedentedly low
concentration of armed forces and weapons in central Europe and
the Baltic region. Russia is a friendly European country. For our
country, which has suffered through a century of disastrous wars,
stable peace on the continent is the main goal.
	As is known, we have ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Treat, the
Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, as well as
the START II agreement. Unfortunately, not all NATO countries
have followed our example.
	Ladies and gentlemen, since we have begun to talk about
security, we should clarify first and foremost, against whom, and
how, we should defend ourselves. In this connection, I cannot
fail to mention the catastrophe that took place on September 11
in the United States. All over the world, people are asking
themselves, how such a thing could happen and who is to blame. I
shall answer those questions.
	I think that we are all to blame for what happened. And,
above all, we politicians, to whom the ordinary citizens of our
countries have entrusted their security. And this is the case,
primarily because we have not yet managed to recognize the
changes that have taken place in our world during the past ten
years. We continue to live by the old system of values--we talk
about partnership, but in practice we have not yet learned to
trust each other.
	Despite a great number of sweet speeches, we still secretly
oppose each other. One minute we demand loyalty with respect to
NATO, the next we argue about the wisdom of expanding it. And, we
have not yet reached agreement on questions of anti-missile
defense, and so on, and so forth.
	Indeed, for many decades of the last century, the world
lived under conditions of the antagonism of two systems--an
antagonism, which repeatedly brought humanity to the brink of
annihilation. This was so horrific, and we became so used to
living in this expectation of catastrophe, that we are still in
no condition to understand and evaluate the changes, taking place
in today's world. It's as if we don't notice that the world is no
longer divided into two hostile camps.
	The world, dear ladies and gentlemen, has become
significantly more complex.
	We do not want to or cannot realize, that the security
structure created over the preceding decades, which was effective
for neutralizing the old threats, is unable to handle the new
threats of today. Often, we continue to quarrel about issues that
still seem to us to be important. Probably, they still are
important. But, at the same time,  we fail to recognize real
threats and are unable to anticipate acts of terrorism. And what
brutal acts of terrorism! , but, while doing this, we fail to see
the new, real threats and overlook attacks - and what brutal
attacks.
	Hundreds of civilians were killed as a result of the
explosions in apartments buildings in Moscow and in other major
Russian cities [in 1999]. After seizing power in Chechnya and
taking the ordinary citizens hostage, religious fanatics launched
a brazen, large-scale armed attack on the neighboring republic of
Dagestan. The international terrorists openly, completely in the
open, proclaimed their intention to create a fundamentalist state
across the territory from the Black Sea to the Caspian. A
so-called Caliphate, or "United States of Islam."

    - Fight the Terrorists; No "Clash of Civilizations" -

	Here I would like to stress right away, that I consider it
unacceptable to talk about a "clash of civilizations." It would
be wrong to equate Muslims as a whole, with religious fanatics.
In our country, for instance, in 1999 it was precisely the
courageous and tough response by the inhabitants of Dagestan that
caused the defeat of the aggressors, and the population of
Dagestan is practically 100% Muslim.
	Shortly before my departure for Berlin, I met the spiritual
leaders of Muslims in Russia. They put forward an initiative to
hold an international conference in Moscow, under the slogan of
"Islam Against Terror." I think we should support this
initiative. [Applause.]
	Today we confront not so much the aggravaton of the
international problems we already know, as the emergence of new
threats. Russia, together with some CIS countries, is acting to
create a real barrier to the passage of drug trafficking,
organized crime, and fundamentalism from Afghanistan, through
Central Asia and the Caucasus, into Europe. Terrorism, national
inteolerance, separatism, and religious extremism have the same
roots everywhere and bear the same poisonous fruits. That is why
the methods for combatting these problems should also be
universal. First, however, first we should agree on a fundamental
matter: We should not be afriad to call things by their names. It
is extremely important to understand that criminal acts cannot be
used to achieve political objectives, regardless of how noble
these goals might look. [Applause.]
	Naturally, evil must be punished, and I agree with that.
But, we should also understand that no retaliatory strikes can
substitute for a full-fledged, deliberate and well-coordinated
struggle against terrorism. In this, I am in full agreement with
the President of the United States. [Applause.]
	I think that the readiness of our partners to pool efforts
against real threats, as opposed to fabricated ones, will show
how serious and reliable they are as partners. These threats are
entierely capable of spreading from the remote perimeters of our
continent, right to the heart of Europe. I have talked about this
more than once, but after the events in the United States, no
proofs are needed.
	What do we lack nowadays for effective cooperation?
	Despite all the positive achievements of the past decades,
we have not yet managed to work out an effective mechanism for
cooperation. The coordinating agencies, established so far, do
not give Russia any real opportunity to participate in the the
process of preparating and adopting decisions. Today, decisions
are frequently taken essentially without our participation, and
only afterwards are we insistently asked to approve them. Then,
once again, comes talk about loyalty to NATO; it is even said
that the decisions cannot be implemented without Russia. Let's
ask ourselves: Is this normal? Is this a real partnership?
	Yes, the affirmation of democratic principles in
international relations, the ability to find the right solutions,
and the readiness for compromise--these are difficult things.
But, after all, it was the Europeans who first understood how
important it is to seek consensus solutions, rising above
national egotism. We agree with this! These are all good ideas.
However, the quality of decisions that are adopted, their
efficacy, and, ultimately, European and international security as
a whole depend on the extent to which we can bring these clear
principles to life as practical policies.
	Not so long ago, it appeared that soon a truly common house
would be built on the continent, a house in which Europeans would
not be divided into eastern and western, or northern and
southern. Yet, these "fault lines" will continue to exist. And
this is primarily because we have still not yet been able to free
ourselves for good from many of the stereotypes and ideological
cliches of the Cold War.

        - Cold War Is Over; New Stage of Development -

	Today we must state firmly and finally: The Cold War is
over! [Applause.] We are in a new stage of development. We
understand that without a modern, lasting, and firm security
architecture, we shall never create an atmosphere of trust on the
continent. Yet without that atmosphere of trust, a united Greater
Europe cannot exist. We are obliged to say today, that we give up

our stereotypes and ambitions, and that from now on, together we
shall provide security for the people of Europe and the whole
world.
	Dear friends, today, thank God, people in Europe mention
Russia not only in connection with oligarchs, corruption, and the
mafia. Still, there is a great lack of objective information on
Russia. I can state definitively, that the main objective of
Russia's domestic policy is, first and foremost, to guarantee
democratic rights and freedoms, a decent standard of living and
security, for the people.
	However, dear colleagues, let us take a look back at the
events of the recent past. Russia embarked on a painful path of
reform. The scale of the challenges we had to face was
unparalleled in history. Of course, mistakes were made. Not all
problems have been solved, but today Russia is an extremely
dynamic part of the European continent. This dynamism is not
limited to the political sphere, but can also be seen in the
economic area, which gives us great hope.
	Political stability in Russia is being achieved thanks to
several economic factors, and, not least of all, thanks to one of
the most liberal tax systems in the world. Our income tax is 13%,
and the profit tax is 24%. [Applause.] Thank you. And, this is
really the case. Economic growth last year reached 8% -- 8.3%, to
be more precise. This year, we were planning on 4%, but the
economy will most likely grow by about 6%, maybe 5.5% or 5.7%; we
shall see.
	At the same time, I am convinced that only broad,
all-European cooperation on equal terms will make it possible to
achieve qualitative progress towards solving problems such as
unemployment, environmental pollution, and many others.
	We are ready for close trade and economic cooperation. We
are also planning to join the WTO in the very near future. We
count on the support of international and European organizations
in this. [Applause.]
	I would like to turn your attention to things that you, as
legislators, are certainly in a position to evaluate better, and
that cannot be considered propaganda. In essence, a change of
priorities and values has taken place in our country.
	In the consolidated budget for 2002, social spending
occupies first place. I would like especially to emphasize that,
for the first time in Russian history, spending on education
exceeds defense spending. [Applause.]

                 - Russian-German Relations -

	Dear colleagues, let me say a few words about Russian-German
relations. I would like to discuss this as a separate topic.
Russian-German relations are as old as our countries. The first
German tribes appeared in Russia at the end of the first century.
At the end of the 19th century, Germans were the ninth largest
ethnic group in Russia. But here what is important is not only
the numbers, but the role these people played in the development
of our country and in Russian-German relations. They were
farmers, merchants, members of the intelligentsia, military
people and politicians.
	The German historian Michael Stuermer once wrote, "Russia
and America are divided by oceans, Russia and Germany are divided
by a great history." I would say that, just like the oceans,
history not only divides, but also unites. [Applause.] It is
important to interpret this history properly.
	 As a good western neighbor, Germany often embodied Europe
for the Russians--European culture, technical thinking, and
commercial competence. It was no coincidence that, at first, all
Europeans were called "Germans" in Russia, and the European
district in Moscow was called {Nemetskaya sloboda}, the German
settlement.
	Cultural influences among the two peoples were, of course,
mutual. Many generations of Germans and Russians studied and
still today enjoy the works of Goethe, Dostoyevsky, and Lev
Tolstoy. Our two peoples understand each other's mentality very
well. A good example of this are the excellent Russian
translations of German writers. These translations are very close
to the original texts, maintain the rhythm of narration, the
atmosphere, and the beauty of the originals. Boris Pasternak's
translation of {Faust} is just one example of this.
	Ladies and gentlemen,
	There are various pages in our common history, and sometimes
painful ones, especially during the 20th century. But, before
that we were often allies.
	The relations between these two European peoples were
repeatedly consolidated by marriages between dynasties. In
general, women always played a major role in our history.
[Applause.] Think, for example, of the daughter of the Prince of
Hesse-Darmstadt, Ludwig IV, known in Russia as Princess
Elizabeth. Her fate was tragic. After the murder of her husband,
she founded a nunnery. During the First World War, she nursed the
wounded--Russians and Germans alike. The Bolsheviks executed her
in 1918, but not long ago she was rehabilitated and
canonized--for general veneration. A monument in her honor now
stands in central Moscow. Neither should we foget the Princess of
Anhalt-Zerbst. Her name was Sophie Auguste Friederike, and she
made a unique contribution to Russian history. Simple Russian
people called her {matushka}, but she went down in history as the
Russian Empress Catherine the Great.
	Today, Germany is the main economic partner of Russia, our
biggest creditor, one of our main investors, and a key
interlocutor on matters of foreign policy. Let me give an
example: last year, trade between our countries reached a record
DM 41.5 billion. This is comparable with the total trade of the
Soviet Union with both German states. Should we be satisfied with
that and rest on our achievements? I think not. Russian-German
cooperation still has quite some potential to develop.
	I am convinced that today we are opening a new page in our
bilateral relations. By doing this, we are making a joint
contribution to the construction of an all-European home.
	In conclusion, I would like to speak the words which were
used in the past to characterize Germany and its capital. I would
like to apply this idea to Russia and say this: Of course, we are
at the start of our path to building a democratic society and a
market economy. There are hurdles and obstacles on that road,
which we must surmount. But, if we free ourselves from the
objective problems and from our own inexperience, which we
sometimes exhibit, we shall see how the strong and vital living
heart of Russia beats. And this heart is open to genuine
cooperation and partnership.

Sept. 24 (EIRNS)--

SERBIAN PROF. BLAGOJE BABIC REVIEWED LYNDON LAROUCHE'S BOOK {"NOW, ARE YOU READY TO LEARN ECONOMICS?}, for the Sept. 17 issue (No. 2578) of the Serbian economic review {Ekonomska Politika}. Prof. Babic heads the renowned Institute of International Politics and Economics in Belgrade. It points out in an exemplary way, how LaRouche's conceptual approach to economics and identifies him as representing the ``real America.'' The text in translation follows:     - An Extraordinary Book from an Extraordinary Author -             

We have been accustomed to the conviction that the American political elite was homogeneous in the conceiving of the "national interests" of the U.S.A., as well on internal and on the world level. The official ideological postulate of the American policy of "globalization," "free trade," system of "floating exchange rates," "deregulation" we were taking as axiomatically generally accepted in U.S.A. Lyndon LaRouche by his book, as well as by a series of other writings and statements, forced us to get rid of so simplified a view on the most influential country in the present world.            

 Lyndon LaRouche, economist by profession, by his economic and political conceptions is among the controversial personalities. As a maverick, he got a high reputation by his economic forecasts. The following two are the most known:             

The first forecast is developed 1959-1960. Then LaRouche argued that, if the basic assumptions of policies of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower continue, in the second half of the 1960s, one has to expect a series of international financial and monetary crises, leading to the disruption of the Bretton Woods system. This forecast was fulfilled in 1971, when President Richard Nixon, by his decision, suppressed the convertibility of the dollar into gold, and by the same token he suppressed the Bretton Woods system itself. The system of the floating exchange rates replaced the system of the fixed exchange rates.             The second forecast departed from the suppression of the Bretton Woods system. LaRouche even at this time warned that, if the main powers took recourse in restrictive monetarist measures, the world would be confronted not with one more cyclical crisis, but, rather, with a systemic crisis, a "general breakdown crisis" of the world economy. He argues that the crisis of the American stock exchange in October 1987, and the strategic economic, financial and monetary decisions from the period of 1989-1992, the existing financial and monetary system became locked into a series of seismic shocks, i.e., in a global systemic crisis or a crisis of the "general breakdown."             How the author was convinced that the "general breakdown of the world monetary and financial system is imminent,'' the best evidence is his proposal how to confront it. The first chapter of his book is his anti-crisis program "People First!" In this program, he proposes a series of measures on the general economic level, on the social and financial levels, and the measures for the recovery of the physical economy. His key proposal is a "New Bretton Woods system." In the appendix of the book, there is an appeal for founding an "Ad Hoc Committee for A New Bretton Woods."            

 LaRouche stresses that Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Great Britain first undermined the Bretton Woods system by his November 1967 decision to devalue the pound sterling. U.S. President Richard Nixon, by his decision of August 1971, completed its breakdown.  LaRouche considers that the solution for such an induced crisis is to return to the Bretton Woods system. But, the author underlines that this system would have worked better, had the original vision of President Franklin Roosevelt been implemented  afterward.             

President Truman betrayed F. Roosevelt's vision in three points:             

a) He did not liquidate the Portuguese, Dutch, British and French colonial systems, as F. Roosevelt wanted done after the Second World War;             

b) "The militarily unnecessary, counterproductive, and otherwise foolish and cruel dropping of the two fission bombs" on Hiroshima and Nagasaki;             

c) He did not convert the military industry into a civilian one after the Second World War as F. Roosevelt intended to do.             

But, in spite of Truman's mistakes, the program of FDR, insofar as it was implemented, was successful. It insured the recovery of the postwar economy. In other words, F. Roosevelt's program was successful to the extent it was carried out. "Today ... we must implement Roosevelt's own intentions.... Leading developing nations ... must be leading partners with the U.S.A., Japan, and Russian establishing and administering ... the newly revived  ... economic projectionist Bretton Woods system, of cooperation among perfectly sovereign nation-sate economies." (74).             

The new Bretton Woods system would be formulated in a conference of the major world states--Germany, Russia, China, India, Japan and U.S.A., for practical reasons. But, all other countries would be equal partners in this system (226).             

In a nutshell, among the essential elements of the "New Bretton Woods system" would be the following principles:             

a) the rejection of the postulate of "globalization," and respect for the sovereignty of states;             

b) the rejection of the postulate of "free trade" in favor of the rights to protect national markets (protectionism);             

c) substitution of fixed exchange rate system for of exchange rate system;             

d) reorganizing debts, and writing off non-performing claims;             

e) the "New Deal"-like program for building basic infrastructure.             

To avoid misunderstanding, LaRouche does not consider these to be less American than those policies of "globalization," "deregulation," "free trade." The opposite is true. He considers himself to be more American, because he follows the policies of "Founding Fathers" of the American federation, notwithstanding of their party choice. He is member of the U.S. Democratic Party, where he did contended for the nomination as Presidential candidate in the 2000 elections. He intends to be the pre-candidate in the next election, too.             

In brief, the book {Now, Are You Ready to Learn Economics?} is at the same time the author's political program, and a synthesis of his philosophy. To understand the author, the reader cannot rely only on his own knowledge of economics. He would be forced to renew his knowledge of physics and the history of philosophy also, as the author abundantly relies on these disciplines, too.             

Of special interest for economists is the author's insistence on a "new accounting." It requires a new accounting unit, other than money without a real basis.             

Namely, the author raises one of the key and the most controversial questions in economic science: determination of the value of a monetary unit. With the separation of the dollar from the gold, the formal economy is divorced from the physical one. There lies the root of the instability of the world financial and monetary systems. That is why LaRouche proposes the "basket of hard commodities" as a measure unit of value.             

Many other economists too believed that without a real common measure of the value of all currencies in the world, namely, the determination of their value in relation to the same peg, the world economy would be permanently confronted with the danger of instability. 

The French economist of Bulgarian origin, Jacques Rueff (Jakov Ruev), sometime economic adviser of President Charles de Gaulle, proposed the return of gold to the international monetary system. The German economist Wolfram Engels, the author of the book {The Capitalist and His Crises} (1995), translated into Serbian, proposes to determine the value of the currency unit in real terms, i.e., as an aliquot part of the national product.             

But, what separates LaRouche from these economists, is the notion of the "physical economy." "[A] new monetary system will provide  ... a long wave of global real economic growth, as measured in physical terms, per capita and per square kilometer." (75).             In the conflict between "two camps" in American economic policy -- one seeking its interests in the national economy, consisting of the producers in agriculture and industry and operatives, and the second "oligarchic financier interests which loot the national economy"--LaRouche has been with the first. Thanks to such a choice, immediately after having built his own reputation, he was confronted by the financial oligarchy (246).             

We recommend the book {Now, Are You Ready to Learn Economics?}, not only to grasp an unconventional concept of economics, but also to see that there exists "another America," different from the one which we have bad memories of.  And to the author, Lyndon LaRouche, we wish success in the next election, hoping that, if he succeeds, he will not share the destiny of his idols--Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, who perished because they were for an "American America."

Mujahedins In Macedonia Serving The NLA

Skopje, September 22 (MIA) - At least ten of Osama bin Laden's close associates are directly and personally involved with the implementation of the Muslim fundamentalism, organizing, financing and arming of the terrorists of the so-called NLA in Macedonia, reads the headline of Utrinski vesnik daily newspaper. This daily finds out that these men were in Kosovo during the crisis in this Yugoslav province. During that time they managed to infiltrate in the territory of Macedonia and to originate the NLA's structure. Most of them were staying in the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, while some of them are still here legally or illegally, mostly possessing false passports. Utrinski vesnik publishes a list of the most important persons in the bin Laden's network that operate in the Balkans. Fatah Ali Hasanin, with origin of Saudi Arabia and Al Kaida, in charge of the extreme jihad in Southeast Europe. During the Kosovo crisis, according to some intelligence sources, Hasanin were in Macedonia, i.e. in Skopje, Tetovo and Gostivar. He used to travel to Kosov from time to time by a vehicle, belonging to KFOR with French license plates. In that period of time he had a meeting with Hashim Taci, who used to be a leader of KLA (UCK) and now is a leader of the Democratic Party of Kosovo. During the past few years, Hasanin was staying in Vienna, where he had founded a humanitarian organization, named "the third world," with a priority task to collect financial means for expansion of the Muslim fundamentalism in the Balkans, especially in Kosovo and Macedonia. He was identified as a man who organized military training for the Albanian militants in Macedonia and Kosovo. He used to be a councilor of Alija Izetbegovic in Bosnia, but he aslo traveled in the other countries in the region, such as Bucharest and Sophia. Omar Alavadi, also from Saudi Arabia is directly in charge of the Balkan. He is very close associate of Bin Laden and is closely connected to Hasanin, according to some intelligence sources. It is believed that he made necessary arrangements for military training of the Albanian terrorists in Macedonia, being in touch with the extremists in Tetovo, Gostivar, Skopje and Kicevo. He might be anywhere, from Skopje to Athens. The next one in the hierarchy is Edi Debsi. He is the chief executive of Omar Alavadi and is considered to be connected with the German secret services. Fatah Hasanin and Omar Alavadi are the principal founders of the so called NLA (ONA) in Macedonia, following the model of the so-called KLA (UCK) in Kosovo. Several members of the extreme jihad with origin of Egypt came to Macedonia illegally via the Romanian territory. The intelligence sources in the region, found out that two persons, staying in Bucharest but originally from Egypt and Saudi Arabia ordered some time ago certain amount of arms for the needs of the so-called NLA. pag/td/14:30