LaRouche On Ecuador Radio

29 de junio de 2007

<body><div id="article"><h2>Getting Rid Of Cheney Is A Step Toward No Colonies, No Empires, And Back To Sovereign Nation-States</h2><p> <em>June 29, 2007--Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Radio 530 AM's "Opinion Popular" program hosted by Patricio Pillajo in Quito, Ecuador this morning. The questions are transcribed as they were interpreted on the air by Dennis Small.</em> </p><p> <strong>PATRICIO <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> </strong> Mr. LaRouche, we wish you good morning, from Quito, Ecuador.</p><p> <strong>LYNDON <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> </strong> Well, thank you. Very good.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Mr. LaRouche, we want to begin the discussion with international affairs, foreign policy. You have made various denunciations about bribery and money laundering through the BAE. It involves high-level officials of the U.S. and British government. Furthermore, the <em>Washington Post</em> just ran a series of four articles which detailed Vice President Cheney's assault against the Constitution. All of this is being discussed as the "Scandal of the Century." What is going to happen next? Is the hegemony of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush over?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> It's not Bush and Cheney, it's London, it's Blair. Bush is not mentally very capable, so don't blame him for too much, in terms of intentions. In effect, Cheney is a British agent in function. He's essentially an agent of the circles associated with Tony Blair and the British government, which launched the recent war in Iraq, and represents people who are aimed at what's called "globalization," which people would call reinforcement of the British Empire in a slightly new form.</p><p>All of this occurs in the context of both spreading war, and also a general international financial collapse, which are precisely the kind of conditions which lead to the worst and greatest world wars. And what this is, it's really not just a minor conspiracy or international relations; this is a very serious international affair which forces our lining up globally on one side or the other.</p><p>In the hemisphere, for example, this takes the form of something like the period from the Malvinas War outbreak in 1982, through the crushing of Mexico's sovereignty by the same forces which had put Pinochet into power in Chile. So, we're back to the same questions in a new form.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> What is it that leads you to assert that it is certain sectors in Great Britain that are behind all of this?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Well, the British themselves have made it very clear. The British BAE organization is a supra-governmental, international power, which has some of the characteristics that the British East India Company had before England itself was an empire, back in 1763.</p><p>The British monarchy internationally represents essentially the interests of a certain group of international powerful financier interests, not the English people. There are certain powerful forces inside England and Scotland itself, which have played an important part in complementing what I'm doing to bring to the public attention the <em>reality</em> , as opposed to the myths, of the present situation. It's not a conflict with the British as a nation or England as a nation, or Great Britain as a nation: This is a conflict with powerful international financial forces, with which Ecuador is very familiar from the way Ecuador was raped in times past. This includes George Shultz inside the United States, for example. George Shultz is an interchangeable U.S. agent and British agent. We have people like that, who are <em>supra</em> -national, rather than representing national forces.</p><p>And that's what the enemy is.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Mr. LaRouche, it's very clear, then, that we're talking about international financial interests, not governments as such. The question is, are Cheney and Bush part of those international financial interests? And are these links to those economic interests what the <em>Washington Post</em> series has demonstrated?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Well, George Bush has a weak mind. He can be compared to a monkey on an organ-grinder's machine.</p><p>From the beginning, in 2001, of the present Bush Administration, Cheney, the Vice President, has actually run the U.S. Presidential system. From looking at George Bush--you can look at his family--but looking at George Bush personally, will give you very little insight into the present situation. You must look at Cheney, the acting President.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Does the publication of the <em>Washington Post</em> articles, the questions which they ask--I don't know if they should be called denunciations--with regard to Dick Cheney's role especially after Sept. 11th, does this mean that Cheney is no longer useful for these financial interests which you are discussing?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Not exactly. It wasn't the <em>Washington Post</em> series that started this off. What happened is, when I did this webcast on the Thursday before the first Sunday edition of this <em>Post</em> series, leading circles inside the United States decided I was right, and that I would be allowed to take the lead in going after Cheney. The series by the <em>Post</em> , beginning on the past Sunday, was an echo of that decision made by people in response to my webcast. And I shifted the attention from a mere scandal, to the reality of a real coup d'etat against civilization. The British had exposed the BAE as a scandalous piece of corruption. I identified what the reality was behind that corruption, the higher reality. So that's the way the thing is going now. It's an ongoing war, it's not an event to which people react: It's an ongoing fight. It's a fight for the survival or the destruction of civilization globally, that's what it amounts to.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Thanks for clarifying the point. In effect, it is the case, as Mr. LaRouche has said, that his webcast of June 21st, was prior to the first <em>Washington Post</em> article. Does this mean that the impeachment of Cheney and Bush--that there's going to be more awareness and promotion of this within Democratic circles inside Congress?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Let's not talk about impeachment, if we want to be precise. Let's talk about dismissal. And dismissal sometimes takes the form of a man who resigns from a position, because he's afraid of the consequences <em>if he does not</em> . I would say, that as of July Fourth, which is the U.S. Independence Day celebration, from that time on, there will be a massive drive for the sudden resignation of Dick Cheney from his position. It may not work, but I think it will. And some very powerful forces are agreed to do that. Which makes me rather happy, but not satisfied.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> And why not satisfied? Wouldn't a resignation or a dismissal of Cheney lead to a change in international relations?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> No. It would open a door, then you have to go into the room beyond the open door.</p><p>Take the case of Ecuador, for example: What's the relationship of Ecuador to this business? South America in general is moving in a direction typified by the proposal for the new banking system. And for certain countries in South America, such as Ecuador, and Bolivia, and so forth, the hope of a recovery from a bad period of life, depends upon some kind of new international arrangements and agreements, agreements which would allow the so-called banking system of the South to function in the way it's intended.</p><p>The fight is to get back to the system of sovereign nation-states, not globalization, and return power to the sovereign governments of the people. And to use that, as a basis for creating new forms of international cooperation among sovereign nations. And that fight has to be waged, but getting rid of Cheney will open the door in that direction.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Okay. Mr. LaRouche, I would like to transmit a question to you from the Prefect of Carchi, which is one of the northern regions of Ecuador, from Gen. René Yandún.</p><p>The question is: Where does all the financing come from for the wars which the United States wages around the world? And in particular, 9/11--who was behind that and where did the financing for it come from?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> 9/11 is a very sensitive question, and I'll be very cautious in answering it. We know, and have known since before it happened, as I warned on Jan. 3rd, 2001, that a coup would be planned in the United States, modeled upon the precedent of what Hermann Goering did with Hitler, in setting fire to the Reichstag in 1933. Over the years, we've known this is the case: This was a coup. We were trying to pinpoint what was the financial forces which were able to finance what we call "9/11."</p><p>To run an operation like 9/11 costs many, many billions of dollars. And who has billions of dollars, out of the control of governments? Now, the finger of suspicion--and it's suspicion--is pointing toward the BAE, as something <em>outside</em> the power of governments, which did have the power and capability to do what 9/11 represents.</p><p>So, that's the situation we're in, right now, still. And that's the real issue of Cheney.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> So, in other words, Vice President Dick Cheney would be kind of the Hermann Goering of the Bush Administration, to establish a series of steps to push a dictatorship? Would that be a correct characterization?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> That would be to say, that Cheney is a British agent, essentially, like his wife--his wife is much closer to the British circles of Blair than he himself is--and who is the center of power represented by the other forces behind 9/11, behind the BAE. In other words, he's following a function which is an imitation of that of Goering, but he does not have the independent position of power that Goering did. And of course, 9/11 is a much bigger operation than the burning of the Reichstag, which made Hitler a dictator. This is almost the "War Against the Worlds."</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> [station id] Mr. LaRouche, you've talked about the need for international change in foreign relations. Let's talk about the South American situation in particular. In your last webcast, you referred to López Portillo in Mexico as a "hero," a national hero, who nationalized the banks and so forth. Many in Mexico consider this a really misguided approach, a real failure, to say the least. Can you specify, what is the new model? What are the kinds of relations that are required, vis-a-vis South America?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> All right, we were in a fight. There were two fights in South America and Central America, during the 1970s/early 1980s. You had a coup in Argentina. You had the Pinochet coup in Chile. You had the mass murders in the Southern Cone. Upheavals in most governments in South America. And then, you had the Malvinas War, which was launched by the same forces behind the BAE crisis today.</p><p>I got in the middle of that. And therefore, during that period, on the Malvinas issue, I met with López Portillo. And he asked me what the United States was planning to do to Mexico, and I said, "They're planning to overthrow your government by September." And López Portillo acted as a <em>hero</em> . And many of the people who spread slanders against him since then, were people who were the cowards, who capitulated to the people behind the coup. Many of these people are not--they're just foolish. They're trapped into repeating gossip, and that sort of thing.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> But then, the model which he implemented in 1982, is it the case that nationalizing the banks the way he did is a viable model for countries like Ecuador today?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> I would say that, if you look at the precedent set by the President of Argentina, the assertion of the sovereignty of a nation over its banking system: It is my hope, that the Bank of the South, would function as a vehicle commonly used by sovereign nation-states of South America, to maintain sovereignty, number one; but as a necessary vehicle of the type I specified back in August of 1982. It is the exchange of long-term credit among nations, for projects in common interest. You need a system of fixed-exchange-rate agreements among nations, in order to do that.</p><p>Practically, the reconstruction of Ecuador from the rape by George Shultz and Co. requires that. The success of the Bolivian government's attempt to stabilize itself, depends upon something like that. The rebuilding of Peru, depends upon something like that: Large-scale transportation projects which are necessary, water management systems, power systems in general, these have to be subjects of international cooperation on infrastructure development. And it must be done by sovereign nation-states. Those nations require a common facility of credit in order to manage this set of relationships.</p><p>Right now, I think that would work, provided that we make the necessary change in the IMF system, in which case, the Bank of the South could serve as the South American component of a new international monetary-financial system, to replace the presently bankrupt IMF and World Bank.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Would it be correct to say then, that the Bank of the South, and the development, for example, of a Latin American currency, which is something that Ecuador has proposed as well, would be the alternative to the IMF and World Bank, to defend nations against the oncoming collapse of the speculative world financial system? Is that a correct formulation?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> In a sense, except the problem is a little worse than that: The world is not in a financial crisis, it's in a general breakdown crisis. International credit today resembles the state of Germany in 1923. What is needed is to use the precedent of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, for a treaty agreement among nations, sovereign nations, to reorganize the bankrupt international financial-monetary system.</p><p>The world has to be run, not by supranational institutions, but by <em>sovereign governments</em> . Generally, I speak about a minimum of 50-year agreements among nation-states on this kind of approach, to try to unify the world of sovereign nation-states around common purposes, and get out of the present mess. The center of that would be large-scale, technologically very progressive, infrastructure developments, whereas the private sector of economies would be prompted by the effects of large-scale infrastructure projects, among and within nations.</p><p>In other words, to go back to Franklin Roosevelt's view of how to run the world: No colonies, no empires, national sovereignty. Cooperation among sovereigns. And this Bank of the South is a step toward something for that region, which I think is very valuable.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Regarding your comments about the need for sovereign governments: If we look at the actual situation that a country like Ecuador faces, that the Correa government faces, there's a situation where there are currently U.S. troops present on the Manta Air Base inside Ecuador. At the same time, there are Andean tax agreements and accords, which we've had to negotiate with the U.S. to maintain our preferential tax treatment. It would seem that it's actually very difficult, despite all the reasoning and arguments, to achieve the kind of real independence that you're talking about.</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Well, the point is, my view is, if you get four nations, the United States, Russia, China, and India, to sponsor a reorganization of the international system based on sovereign nation-state principles, under that condition, you have a revolt in the U.S. military professionals against the kind of warfare which is being conducted under Cheney and British direction. There is a boiling revolt against the warfare in Southwest Asia from within the U.S. military and many political institutions associated with them, inside the United States itself.</p><p>The kind of imperialistic control over countries in South America that you describe, is a reflection of the same policy of the Blair government of Britain, which has now just gone out, but they're still there, which is the same thing represented by Cheney and his friends inside the United States, and by the BAE.</p><p>It's necessary to understand that the BAE represents, eventually, <em>trillions of dollars of power</em> , of independent power! The $60-80 billion taken for private interests from the BAE, has been built up on the oil market into trillions of dollars. And this financial power is <em>outside</em> the control, presently, of governments. And every government, including the United States, is a prisoner of this kind of supranational system, presently.</p><p>If Russia, China, and India, were to join with the United States in saying "we're going to break up this system," the system could be broken. You would have an act of will to break up the present system, which could bring the world back to a system of sovereign nation-states, rather than the present global imperialist system. And since the whole present world financial system is hopelessly bankrupt anyway, that should not be so difficult.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Mr. LaRouche, I have two last questions for you from those who are listening in. One is from Eng. Hernán Gavela. He asks: Is it the case that there is a U.S. policy to annihilate, to destroy nations and their military forces, as a book which you published denounce? And are there Ecuadoreans who have joined in that plot to annihilate nations and the military?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Well, don't look at the United States to understand this. Look at forces centered in the British Empire, <em>not</em> the U.S. Then, look at people like Cheney, and his boss, George Shultz, inside the United States, who are British assets. Then examine the BAE very closely, as we've exposed it. The BAE is a <em>government outside government</em> . It's an echo back to 1763 of the British East India Company, which as a <em>private company</em> , controlled the British Empire.</p><p>My job is to help to break my nation free of slavery to that British Empire! So, we are all slaves, and let's us slaves revolt, and return to the sovereign nation-state as a principle.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Mr. LaRouche, you have stated--and you just did now--that you have to defend the United States against Anglo-Dutch financial interests, and that the United States has to return to playing a role as a reference point for development. Yet, Simón Bolívar referred to the United States as being almost predestined by history to plague Latin America with evils; and he said this at a time, when the influence of General Washington was still strong in the young republic of the United States. What do you think about this view?</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Bolívar was mistaken, as he admitted in the last phase of his life, particularly in the Colombia phase of his work. He recognized that the Bolivarista movement had been misled by the British Foreign Office. And it was only after the middle of the 19th century, after the defeat of the British attempt with the Confederacy, when the United States turned the British puppet in Mexico out of power, and brought the President back into power, that the development of nations of South America and Central America, in the direction proposed by Lincoln's friends, became possible.</p><p>The myth that the U.S. is intrinsically the great imperial threat to the hemisphere, is a British lie. And Bolívar, in the last phase of his life, recognized that he'd been in error on this question, and denounced the control over his own movement, which had been exerted by the British Foreign Office.</p><p> <strong>PILLAJO:</strong> Thank you so much, Mr. LaRouche, for your time, and have a good day.</p><p> <strong>LAROUCHE:</strong> Yes, thank you very much.</p></div></body>