Paris Press Conference
The Urgency of Removing Dick Cheney
December 5, 2023

Lyndon LaRouche gave a press conference in Paris on Dec. 5, 2023. LaRouche's long-time associate, and leader of the LaRouche movement in France, Jacques Cheminade, introduced the host, Lancine Camara, a former revolutionary from Guinea, and the president of the International Association of African Journalists, who in turn introduced LaRouche. Camara's remarks are paraphased here, followed by LaRouche's s opening remarks, and the first few questions.

Lancine Camara:: I am very happy and greet those of you who have come. I will tell you a secret: If Europe is going to become reconciled with the United States of America, if there will be no more talk of "Old Europe," but to the contrary, of the "Europe of the Future," I believe it will be with LaRouche. But further, as I will tell you, he is the only one who knows how to defend the minorities in the United States of America--the Jews, the blacks, and naturally, the Hispanics, who are there--the only one who defends them, seriously--I believe it is LaRouche. Let me tell you something else ... I tell you, if you want change things in the United States, reconcile the United States with Europe, with Africa, with the Third World, I think the only candidate that I would suggest to you, would certainly be Mr. LaRouche.

So, now, Mr. LaRouche will say a few words to you.

Lyndon LaRouche: I'll just state a few preliminary facts, and then a summary statement.

First of all, I am presently the second-ranking Democratic pre-candidate for the Democratic nomination in the United States, on the basis of the number of financial supporters, following Howard Dean, who I don't think is qualified, but has more nominal supporters than I do, at the moment.

The issue is two-fold. First of all, we're in a breakdown of the presently existing international monetary-financial system, especially the system as it was established between 1971 and '72.

Oh, I should also add that we're now in the first of the primary campaigns for the selection for the Democratic candidate, which is occurring in Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States. That campaign is now officially under way. I'm one of two leading candidates in that campaign, out of a total of five. The other three are Kucinich, and so forth. So, therefore, this particular campaign is now in full force, and it's occurring under the eyes of the Congress and the President, and therefore will be the most conspicuous campaign, to inaugurate the whole process.

But, as to the issues of the present, we are, as I said, in the financial breakdown crisis. The monetary-financial system established back with the Azores Conference, is dead. Exactly when the head will fall off the guillotine system, is uncertain, but it will be soon.

The two issues otherwise before the world now: on the one hand, the danger of a spreading war. If Vice-President Cheney is not removed soon from office, together with the so-called neo-conservatives associated with him, the war which we see in the Middle East will rapidly spread, to become a worldwide asymmetric, nuclear-armed warfare in the course of the coming years, ending probably with a war against China.

As a complication of this, the relations between the United States and the rest of the world, since January of 2023, have become, during the past two years, the worst in modern U.S. history, since President Bush's January 2023 State of the Union address, in which he set forth the "axis of evil" doctrine. In this connection, the war in Iraq, with the ironic developments in Samarra, has now clearly become an impossible war for the United States. There is no possible way the United States can continue to sustain this kind of military occupation.

We are also on the threshold of the time that Cheney and his friends would like to use nuclear weapons. As part of this, we have a recent incident involving Taiwan, a potential crisis of Taiwan and China, which would become a major crisis internationally. These wars are unnecessary. There's no need for them. They are dangerous, they threaten civilization. They can be prevented.

But, the problem lies in dealing with the economic crisis. Over the past 40 years, approximately, the world went--especially Europe and some other parts of the world--went from being the world's leading center of productive power, to becoming post-industrial societies, living on the back and sweat of the poorest people in the world. There has been a change in the cultural values of the people of Europe and the United States, resembling what happened in Rome, in Italy, under the influence of the deterioriation of Rome after the Second Punic War. We have gone from the world's leading producer society, to the consumer society, a parasite society, and our people have undergone a cultural transformation in their values.

In the United States and Europe, and in varying degrees, we have gone into a state of bread and circuses, as a substitute for production. This has meant that the people who went into the universities, for example, during the 1960s, and later, have developed the values of a post-industrial society. We have, in the United States and Britain, and to a large degree in Europe, a collapse of basic economic infrastructure, as a result. As the big corporations, or the big financial intersts have taken over what remains, the small industries, the farmers and so forth, have been ruined.

The conditions of life of the lower 80% of family-income brackets, in Europe and the United States, has become worsened over this period.

Contrary to rumors, the United States has enjoyed no growth in the recent period. The report of a 7%, or 8%, growth of the U.S. economy, from the United States, is nothing but one big lie. The truth is reflected in the current account deficit of the United States. The days that Europe and Japan cease to pour money into the New York financial market, will see the collapse of the U.S. economy.

Europe is also bankrupt. That is, Europe can no longer maintain itself at its present level, with the present level of economy.

So, the point is, we have to face two things. First of all, we must reverse the cultural paradigm-shift, to return to the principles of industrial society. In this connection, there has been some improvement in Europe recently. The breaking of the power of the Stability Pact by France, Germany, and Italy is a positive development. As the case of Chancellor Schroeder's visit to China recently, this opens the door for long-term agreements, between Western Europe and Asia, which can lead to growth of capital formation and employment in Western Europe.

That would be beneficial. But: It would be not sufficient.

What we need is a reform of the international monetary system, back to a fixed-exchange-rate system, which means 1 to 2% interest rates for prime lending rates on a global scale, which would be based on long-term trade agreements among nations, of 25 to 50 years. This, at those rates, would mean we could recover. And if we cooperate on that, we will surely act to prevent these wars from continuing.

So, my being in France, in particular today, is to try to promote an understanding of this situation, and to make clear the role of my Presidential campaign in the United States, as part of dealing with this problem. For reasons which I'm prepared to defend, I would say I'm the only person qualified to become President of the United States at this time. And I'm confident that, if I am President, that these problems will be solved.

I see the potentiality in Asia, in Russia, in particular, and in Western Europe, for cooperation of the type that's needed to address these problems, together with the United States. And typically, if we can solve this problem in the United States and Eurasia, then Eurasia and the United States together can take the action, which has been overdue, to deal with the problem of Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa.

As we in the United States and Eurasia, begin to improve our economic situation, we must not only end the genocide which prevails in Sub-Saharan Africa today--and I would say, intentional genocide--but we can provide the axis of strength for Africa to recover. Eurasia and the United States together, as combined forces, under conditions of recovery of the international system, would be in a position to assist Africa, in developing large-scale infrastructure development, among the nations of Africa, and to assist those countries in developing their internal capabilities for solving the infrastructural and related problems within the countries.

That should stimulate the African market, and empower the creation of stable governments in Africa, which are stabilized by the fact that they have now the ability, as governments, to provide people of the country, the opportunity for a future.

There's much more I can say, and I will say, if the questions require it. But I think that indicates the temper of where I stand, and what I see my role is, and why I'm here.

Camara: [in French]: We can now take reporters' questions.

Question: [in French, summary in English.] He's from the Iranian press agency. As you know, Iran has had a very important role in the war against terrorism, and he wants to know what your position would be, on restoring Iranian-American relationships.

Larouche: First of all, what we need is a conception--not only Iran--but we need a conception of how we're going to approach the relationship among nation-states and cultures on this planet. From a European cultural standpoint, I think that the answer is, that the United States and other countries, in particular, should take the view of the Treaty of Westphalia agreement, of 1648.

As I deal with the world, and I deal with the world at large, for...

For example, we now have a situation, concretely, in which, since Brzezinski, in particular, and Kissinger and Brzezinski, there's been an attempt to use Islam as a target for fomenting international war.

Question: [followup] More like a target.

LaRouche: So, the intention was to use a conflict between, especially Christianity and Islam, as a way of plunging the world into chaos.

Now, we must recognize in Europe, that, apart from the Islam differences, and Islam actually is very agreeable to European civilization, both in the origins of Islam, in the role of the Abassid dynasty, in Mesopotamia, for example, which played an important part in the recovery of Europe, from the time of Charlemagne; from the role of Islam in Spain, until the Spanish racists took over, which played an important part from Spain, in maintaining the culture of Europe.

So, but the problem is, when you go to Asia, that Asian people have a different culture, cultural background, than we in European civilization. So, therefore, we have to be sensitive to the fact that we can not impose an homogenized world, on other cultures.

So, therefore, my proposal is this: Go to the question, as I said, of the Treaty of Westphalia, which would include the case of Iran, in which Cardinal Mazarin, from here in France, played a key part in bringing about that Peace of Westphalia. So, rather than trying to settle differences, why don't we settle common interests, and leave the differences alone? That means that, the Treaty of Westphalia was based on the principle, instead of bargaining differences, you would try to help something, to the advantage of the other: For example, in the case of Iran, the specific case of Iran, that means that our policy must be, to find out what Iran wishes, and to see if we can give them that which they wish, from us. And to do the same in every part of the world. To say, that each of us must find what we must do for the other, and we must help give them the advantage of doing what they wish to do for themselves.

The objective should be, to establish a world community of sovereign nation-states, not world government, but a unity around principles of giving the advantage to the other.

Question: [in Eng., but off-mike, scarcely inaudible; paraphrased from translation. Began by saying something about President Clinton.] I'm a colonel in the U.S. Army.... I fought in 13 wars, and I see no reason for the war in Iraq, today. Shouldn't we worry about ourselves, before we start worrying about others?

LaRouche: No, we have to worry about other people. We are human beings. We live on this planet together. We all have the same ultimate needs, the same ultimate requirements. We all have the same need for the protection of certain kinds of institutional arrangements. Those things we must share in common. We also should help each other, as nations, but the problem is, that the Treaty of Westphalia--.

See, we in Europe have had the advantage, European civilization, especially from the 15th Century, the 15th-Century Renaissance, when we became a distinctive power on the planet, culturally, as distinct from--we were just a part of the average world before that, the same history. But now, we developed modern industrial society. We developed a society based on the idea of the universality of the rights of human beings. We said, "We are going to end the arrangement on which some people treat other people as cattle." And we tried to do it. The United States was founded on that principle. People in Europe wanted to do it; it didn't succeed for various reasons. We in the United States have made our mistakes, too.

Question: [followup, inaudible]

LaRouche: All right, fine. But what we need now, is, we've come to the point that if you look at what this war in Iraq portends, we have Dick Cheney and company: They wish to launch, and they call it that, "preventive nuclear warfare" as a way of establishing world government. That's their intention. And the problem with Clinton was, he didn't fight that. He was not for that, but he wouldn't fight it. He was ... because of his generation, is his problem. But we've come to the point, that if this continues, what we're going to get, is what we should have understood, when preventive nuclear war was introduced by Truman, on behalf of Bertrand Russell: We got the Korean War, as a result of Truman's trying to bluff the Chinese and Russia, the Soviet Union then. So, suddenly, we had the North Korean troops coming down in Korea. Then the Soviet Union was the first to develop a thermonuclear weapon. Then we found ourselves--. Then we had to quit going to preventive nuclear war. We dumped Truman, finally. We should have dumped him at the beginning, at birth! But Eisenhower gave us eight years of stability--.

So, anyway, Eisenhower gave us actually eight years of escape from the worst. And Kennedy was not ready, then, to deal with what was thrown at him. So, therefore, we found ourselves in the Missile Crisis of '62, the Kennedy assassination, and the beginning of the Indo-China War. This was the result of the same mistake that Truman had made in the 1940s: We provoked a war, a prolonged war in Indo-China, because we thought the Chinese wouldn't intervene, but the Soviets did.

Now, today, the idiots in Washington have thought, Cheney has thought, and the neo-cons, that now that the Soviet Union is weak, they can play this game again. They have not learned that Asia will respond to this kind of attack, with what is called asymmetric warfare! They will say, "Invade our countries. You have the superweapons! But then you will be person-to-person, neighbor-to-neighbor. When you are a neighbor, we can kill you with our weapons." But this time, it will be also nuclear weapons. It will be deep-diving submarines, not the obsolete super-submarines the United States has now. It will be in the entire electronic domain, of the GPS, will be shutting down from the time the missiles go off.

So, we're now at a point, that the whole world could go into a Dark Age, as the result of the idiocy of people like Cheney and his supporters.

We're looking at a kind of war that can kill over a billion people, or 2 billion people. It's time to say, "Idiots, don't make such wars!" We need strategic defense. We do not need to have a war policy. We need what Lazare Carnot conceived back at the end of the 18th Century, when Scharnhorst taught as doctrine. Not aggressive, preventive war.

I believe that there is no condition that warrants anybody to desire war on this planet. We have other interests, which are common interests of mankind. We must unite around a positive affirmation of those common interests of mankind, and we all recognize, we don't want this war! So, let us work to see to it, that we don't have this war. And we have to work to that purpose.

Therefore, it's not enough to take care of U.S. interests. The United States must take care for the whole world, not as an empire, but as a partner. And it's my job as President, to see to it that happens.