Breaking news, as well as the most pressing issues of political, economic and social life. Opinion and analysis. Programs produced and made by journalists from Sputnik studios.

The Danger That I See Is Chaos - Lyndon LaRouche

© Сollage by RIA NovostiThe Danger That I See Is Chaos - Lyndon LaRouche
The Danger That I See Is Chaos - Lyndon LaRouche - Sputnik International
Why would US democracy building invariably result in chaos? Radio VR is discussing the issue with Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, and Lyndon LaRouche, the founder and director of Executive Intelligence Review Press service.

Why would US democracy building invariably result in chaos? Radio VR is discussing the issue with Paul Craig Roberts, Chairman of The Institute for Political Economy, and Lyndon LaRouche, the founder and director of Executive Intelligence Review Press service. 

The proclaimed goal of the US Foreign Policy is spreading democracy. To quote the US State Department – “the US seeks to promote democracy as a means to achieve security, stability, and prosperity for the entire world”. The statement that looks all the more confusing if we come to recall Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, now Ukraine – these and other democracy-building efforts have somehow resulted in fighting and chaos…

The Danger That I See Is Chaos - Lyndon LaRouche_P1
The Danger That I See Is Chaos - Lyndon LaRouche_P2

Says Paul Craig Roberts, an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and the Chairman of The Institute for Political Economy in the US:

“The main problem is what is known in the US as the Wolfowitz doctrine. That is after Paul Wolfowitz. He is the leading neoconservative theorist. He’s held almost every important position in the Pentagon, I think from assistant secretary to undersecretary, to deputy secretary. He formulated the basis for the American foreign policy.

And that basis is that with the Soviet collapse there are no external restraints on the use of American power. And he takes a very beneficial, benevolent view towards the use of American power, and says that since this use is so beneficial to the world and it is so benevolent, that the US must prevent the rise of any other country that could serve as a check on the exercise of American power.

He specifically mentions Russia and says that under no circumstances can the US tolerate Russia rising to power, similar to that held by the Soviet Union. He says that Russia is a large country and has the potential of controlling the sufficient resources, to be a stumbling block to the American hegemony over the world. So, when the doctrine was formulated the main target of the American foreign policy was Russia, that is to prevent the rise of the Russian influence.

But the doctrine is also being applied currently to China. So, in fact, the US foreign policy has committed the country to preventing the rise of Russia and China, preventing them from having a sufficient influence or power to limit America’s ability or Washington’s ability to determine the behavior of countries in the world.

So, that is the main problem right there – the Wolfowitz doctrine. It is similar, though more extreme, to the doctrine of Brzezinski, who was the National Security Advisor for President Carter. Brzezinski’s doctrine is similar and it also spells out Russia, but the Wolfowitz doctrine is the one that is now the basis for the American foreign policy.

There are subsidiary reasons that attach to this foreign policy doctrine. One is the material interest of the military-security complex. In the US the largest economic sector is the military-security sector. It absorbs $1 trillion annually. To have the budget expenditures of that magnitude – you know, $ 1 000 billion – requires threats and requires enemies, and requires dangers.

And this sector initially faced difficulties with the Soviet collapse and the end of the Cold War. And that is one of the reasons for the Clinton administration attacking Serbia. And it was one of the reasons for the war on terror. But these wars were of insufficient magnitude and hard to acquire a success against the Muslims. The decision has been made that Russia is a good target and they can create a new Cold War around the Russian threat.

And so, the military-security complex has a great interest that is served by this foreign policy. The material interest solves any worries they have about the budget reductions, because how can you cut the budget of the military-security, when you have these dangers, the Russian threat threatening everybody with an invasion. And of course, this military-security complex has many media connections and can keep this type of story alive.

The third strong influence is that Washington and the energy industry are very interested in controlling not just energy supplies, but energy routes. They want the routes that energy uses to go from the producer to the user, to be under Washington’s influence or control. They don’t like routes that are independent of Washington’s influence and control.

And so, this is also part of the trouble in Ukraine and the trouble that Washington is causing for the Russian pipeline that would go under the Black Sea into Bulgaria. And it also I think relates to troubles in Iran, because they have alternative routes energy can be delivered and Washington wants to make certain that those routes, or as many of them as possible, are under Washington’s control and are not independent of Washington’s influence.

So, that is the explanation. No doubt, there are probably other reasons that I'm unaware of, but I think there you have the three biggest. The overall, the one that determines everything is the Wolfowitz doctrine and in that doctrine the military-security complex and the control of energy supplies and energy routes, they are subsumed under the foreign policy doctrine.

If you didn’t have the foreign policy doctrine, you would still have those other two interests working against Russia, but they wouldn’t have the same power or force. But when all those three come together, it is a very powerful drive which can very easily create dynamics that result in a war. And that is my main concern and the reason that I try to expose this and to counteract it.”

And in that kind of war there is going to be no winners?

Paul Craig Roberts: Right! That’s my view, because I don’t think either the US or Russia, or China, neither side could afford to lose the war. So, that means that it is likely to go nuclear. And I don’t think the US has any prospects whatsoever of defeating Russia or China in conventional military ways. The countries are too vast and their militaries are too strong.

And from what we are seeing, the effectiveness of the American conventional military is not very good. It is effective against women and children, and farmhouses, and kids’ soccer games, and villages’ elders, but it couldn’t even defeat the few lightly armed Talibans after 13 years, and neither could the real army. But the fact is – if the US were to engage in a conventional warfare at such great distances from the US (the supply routes, the logistic problems) and with countries as large as Russia and China (particularly with the population of China)…and these countries are well-equipped with modern arms, they are not Iraq or Libya. So, I don’t think the US would have any prospect of prevailing in that kind of war on conventional terms and it would go nuclear.

And here we would all be dead, because of this stupid Wolfowitz doctrine which is an expression of unbridled arrogance and hubris. And it is almost a direct copy of the Nazi doctrine, that they are the Übermensch and everybody else is the Untermensch, that they are above everyone. And in the US this is expressed as we are the exceptional, indispensable country and people. And when you have that view, it means you regard other peoples as dispensable and unexceptional. In other words, they don’t have your standing and, therefore, you have the right to prevail.

So, the Wolfowitz doctrine itself comes back to the neoconservative ideology that dominates the American politics. It came in in the second Clinton regime, it dominated the two terms of George W. Bush, and it has dominated the Obama administration. If you look at the appointees in the Bush and Obama administrations, they are almost universally neoconservatives.

Lyndon LaRouche, American economist and political analyst, the founder and director of Executive Intelligence Review Press service:

“Obama is a complete failure, there is no question about that. But failures can some in various forms and they can careen – shall we say – into a mess. And we don’t know exactly how this is going to occur. But, obviously, Obama is a mess. If we don’t get rid of him in the US, we could have a much bigger mess.

We know of the fact that this is not sustainable, that we are going into a new phase of things with the BRICS and the South America, and so forth. Other parts of the world – China, India – all these areas are now moving in to provide a sane approach to resolving the problems of our planet.

And that is where I worry, that’s what I fuss about. I'm concerned about the fact that there are risks involved in trying to get the thing done right.

I would say that the point is that, what we’ve got is an interesting picture that you have all the way from China, which now one of the greatest powers that has ever appeared on this planet… and China’s ability to deal with what it is doing now in terms of energy development is tremendous. So, we’ve got the nations of India, Russia, China – the nations of the BRICS states – these are all nations which are ready to gather together and to begin solving these problems. And I'm just holding on to my part, to try to keep this thing alive and working.

What is important, when you compare, for example, what Russia was doing on the question of development and what China was doing, there are particular distinctions but there is also a convergence, there’s been an increasing convergence of Russia’s work in trying to come to an agreement with what is going on in Asia in general. So, to me, this is something like ‘we want this’. And when I say we, I mean South America, I mean Asia in general and so forth. We want this, because we now have the capabilities which we can develop, which will solve a lot of these problems. And I'm just the one of many people who wants to get at it and solve these problems, like this whole silly thing that is going on in Germany now.”

But whenever the current US administration steps in, they create chaos. Is it a deliberate effect or is it a mistake?

Lyndon LaRouche: It is a British Empire effect.

What is that?

Lyndon LaRouche: The British Empire runs the whole operation.

Is it their purpose to create chaos?

Lyndon LaRouche: That is exactly it!

What is their interest?

Lyndon LaRouche: They control it, they run it.

Is it a realistic project to control chaos?

Lyndon LaRouche: It is! It absolutely is an intentional program to quash everything in sight. And this is what this is about. What we are dealing with, is trying to figure out, on the one hand, how to deal with this kind of threat with a minimal risk. And that is our problem. I mean, when I look at what faces Putin, for example, in terms of what he has to do from day to day, that’s what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the factor of risk. He is constantly dealing with the question of risk. And it is a complicated situation, which means that he has to be constantly managing on risk.

But the positive thing is that he’s got China, he’s got India. He represents these things. And when this smoke is cleared, we are going to find, there is going to be a new planet or something that functions like a new planet, because the old ways are going to go and they are going to go fast. I'm just waiting for us to get there.

I remember not so long ago the US was talking about engaging China. Is it still trying to engage China?

Lyndon LaRouche: The point is that you’ve got the President of the US who is a crock. So, what do you expect?

Look at it the way I think about it. We have South America. Now, South America has now become a collection of BRICS, a matter of nations which are piling in together for mutual defense and mutual development. We are finding similar things in Africa, as the ISIS thing. We are finding what is happening in terms of India. All these groups of nations are converging on a single result. That is the creation of a new system of government among the nations of our planet. And that’s what we are struggling for.

And the latest developments around Israel, are they part of the reaction to this attempt to create a new system?

Lyndon LaRouche: Israel is a mess, it is a hopeless mess. And it will have to be sorted out in the whole process. It’s gone crazy. Israel has become a crazy nation. It has no respectability anymore.

But has it become a crazy nation on its own?

Lyndon LaRouche: I was very close to a lot of people in the Israeli community during the immediate post-war period. And I've had the leading members of the movement at that time…and I was part of that, I wasn’t a member, but I agreed with them. I agreed that their efforts were worthwhile and I thought that their efforts could lead to a peaceful solution to that region. And we came very close to it. But then the right-wing came in in Israel, and when they came in, the whole thing has been going to hell since that time.

Talking about Israel and the ME, do I get you right that all those wars that are going on now, are the process of birth of the new world order?
There has to be a new world order. The new world order is based not on what most people think would be the new world order. The point is that it is very simple. There are certain nations which must come together. They already are trying to come together, they are trying to be independent of this nonsense that goes on.

Look at India! India’s independence is tremendous. China’s achievement is enormous. We haven't even begun to see how important China is, for example, in terms of its development. Therefore, we are on the edge of the greatest triumph for mankind ever. We just have to make it.

But then, what happens to the currently dominant nations – to the UK, the US?

Lyndon LaRouche: When I think about my old friends from Russia, I think of them as being my old friends from Russia still fighting it out, trying to win that battle and I just keep hoping they are going to make it, because they can do it.

In that case, when those big nations, I mean the UK and the US, when they are cornered, are they prone to extreme steps, like a nuclear war?

Lyndon LaRouche: No!

Why not?

Lyndon LaRouche: Because they would be all mutually destroyed.

Do they care about that?

Lyndon LaRouche: Yes, they do!

Is it a reason why they didn’t start a war on Iran?

Lyndon LaRouche: No, it is just because they are so corrupt, that they often don’t know what they are doing. The President of the US is one of the most corrupt persons on the planet.

Talking about that he needs to go…

Lyndon LaRouche: He needs to go, he needs to be thrown out of office. There is no question about it.

Essentially, what you are looking at is a probable breakdown of failed presidents, failed leaders. And these failed leaders are just going to fall off one after the other. And the danger that I see is chaos.

What do we do to prevent it?

Lyndon LaRouche: A victory. For example, I would take the case of Putin. Putin has a problem, Putin will do an excellent job. But Putin has to manage himself very carefully in a very complex situation, so that he does not fall into something that can be turned into a trap. So, I'm all for Putin, because he is doing the right thing. I don’t know if I agree with everything he says or does and so forth, but I know what is needed – the cooperation of Russia, China and India together with the BRICS nations. And now this includes Africa. This is now what is going to be the future of mankind.

Does that imply a change of ideology?

Lyndon LaRouche: Absolutely!

What kind of ideology should be?

Lyndon LaRouche:A new conception of mankind.

Do you happen to have any ideas on that?

Lyndon LaRouche: Yes, I do. The point is that mankind needs that kind of change and I think we are ready for it. I think that the best thinking people on this planet, who may be relatively few in number, but in terms of what their influence is, these guys better get in there quick, because we need them.

Take a case of some of my friends in Russia, who are all friends of mine, who are the leaders now in Russia. They know what they are doing and they do an excellent job. They work on the great difficulties, which are kept poured in. And I welcome them to win. Because I know that their winning means that we have a new arrangement for mankind on this planet.

To participate in the discussion
log in or register
Заголовок открываемого материала