|
To send a link to this document to a friend |
||||||
|
Q: There are many things that are very powerful in the news media. One of these, even though it didn't happen today, is the announcement of the resignation of Paul O'Neill. Paul O'Neill suddenly quit the Secretary of the Treasury without giving much advance notice to the Bush team. I think you might have an insight on what is happening inside the White House cabinet on this stance of Paul O'Neill. LaRouche: Well, you have to look at the transfer between Nov. 5, that is, the mid-term election, and the post-November 5 period. Up until the mid-term election, the administration was operating on a set of ideological premises which were tied to the election campaign. Once the election was over, then the administration was free from the ideological package which it had had for the period through the election. At that point, a number of things that were likely, were uncorked. Number one, negotiations for an agreement on the Iraq question through the United Nations, was set into motion. We don't know if that is going to stick, but it looks very good so far. It's still in trouble. At the same time, we knew that Karl Wolff, who is the key advisor to the president in these matters, would be shifting gears to the economic question. They would have to recognize the economic crisis of the United States, and take measures. In that context, our understanding is that the White House solicited a number of possible replacements for Lindsey and O'Neill, and were not successful in many cases, and so settled for the two gentlemen, Friedman and Snow, who have now been designated. I don't think we can read any definite conclusion from this beyond that, because I don't think the administration knows what it's going to do yet. I don't know that these two gentlemen have an actual policy. I think that the administration is going to try to find a policy, somewhere between it and the Congress, but I think more shocks will be necessary, to see what the administration's response is. Q: In other words, there is no economic policy in the United States as of right now? LaRouche: Nothing effective. They have residues of.... You see, the United States has two problems. First of all, over the period since 1964, but especially since 1971-72, the US has undergone a number of changes, by law and by decree, in US policy. Under those existing rules, the US government has no solution for the present crisis. The alternative, as we are looking at it from Mexico's problem and the United States' problem, we need a large-scale infrastructure building project, which would involve cooperation between Mexico, especially northern Mexico, and the United States. We need that policy. The problem is we cannot put the policy into effect until we change the rules, from those changes which were made over the period from 1971 to the present. So therefore, this is the nutcracker. And the conditions in the United State are going to become worse, by the day. We have the airline crisis ... Q: Are the airlines going bankrupt? LaRouche: Yeah, the whole system is going. It's not just a few airlines going bankrupt. It's the airline system, the passenger system. We have the rail system which has almost disappeared, with the Amtrak crisis now. We have other crises. We have major crises in 46 of the 50 federal states virtually in bankruptcy. They are unable to balance their budgets with anything that they can see as existing means. So we have a major crisis. The United States is going to have to face that reality. You saw recently, for example, with the election of Senator Andrew in Louisiana, where the issue of NAFTA and relations with Mexico came into play. We're going to see more of that kind of thing. More crises which are going to bring about, for better or worse, very radical changes in US policy, both internally and in foreign policy. Q: So, would it be reasonable to think, or to presume, that the George Bush cabinet, especially Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, see the solution to this economic conundrum, in the actions being seen right now toward the war with Iraq, and the civil war that is being provoked in Venezuela? Would those be the cornerstone pieces of international policy, that the Bush cabinet sees as a solution to this crisis? LaRouche: I don't think that the Bush cabinet has any such consistent policy. Obviously, the Venezuela crisis.... I think that the opinion in the United States is that Chavez is crazy. That he's brought upon himself the kind of crisis he cannot solve, and which is a terrible problem for all of his neighbors--Mexico, Cuba, the United States included. So, that's a special case. I don't think the United States wanted that crisis. I think there are other factors involved. In the case of the Middle East , I think the tendency is for the United States to move away from the war with Iraq. However, there is one powerful faction inside the United States, associated with Vice President Cheney, which does want a war with Iraq, and is working with certain circles in Israel to try to get it. We don't know if that's going to work or not, but I don't think that's consistent US policy. I think that US policy now is to move away from the war with Iraq, to accept the exit provided by the United Nations, and to look at a possible strategy for the United States to deal with its own internal crisis. Q: The view from the Washington Post and the New York Times is very [inaudible] There is no clue in these two newspapers' headlines that there is such a shift away from an invasion of Iraq. The headlines of these newspapers hint at the military buildup and a continuous increasing menace in the Gulf... LaRouche: You have to understand how fanatic and dangerous this minority faction inside the Bush administration is, around Cheney, Rumsfeld, and so forth, especially Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. These people are very dangerous, they've acquired a very significant amount of power, they have powerful factions, including peoople who I think are religious crazies behind them, who want this war. You have the Sharon government, and its supporters in the US, which wants this war. Many of us are struggling to make sure that war does not occur. But apart from these people who I think are crazy, irresponsible, the White House has to look at the actual costs of actually trying to conduct such a war in the Middle East , and the effects of trying to conduct such a war. Q: So, would you say that Colin Powell is still the main deterrent in the starting of this potential war? LaRouche: Not necessarily. Colin is obviously a factor. He's Secretary of State. It's a powerful position in the United States' structure. But I think that you'll find there's a large faction within the circles of the presidency itself--that is, the military, other institutions around the presidency--which are very much against this policy. I think that Colin Powell is now the representative, because of his position, of the attempt to represent those forces which wish to avoid this catastrophe. Q: So, the next important step in policy starts between January and April, when we will see a further deterioration of the markets. That's where the Bush administration has to set forth a new policy to contain the damage that's being inflicted on the American economy. LaRouche: Well, the markets are not the problem. The markets are a disaster. They will become increasingly such. They're going to blow out fairly soon. It's unavoidable. It's the US economy, forget the markets. If the markets go down to zero, that doesn't bother me that much. What does bother me is the collapse of the state budgets, the collapse of industries, the collapse of employment, the collapse of pensions, all these social physical factors, which are important. And that's where we have to put our attention. February, of course, is probably the end time of this coming period in which an Iraq war would be possible. The emphasis is going to be largely, if the Israelis do not start an incident which triggers a war, the economic issue is going to be the leading issue, and the Bush adminstration--as I see it--has no clear idea of what to do about it, though many of us do. Q: We have just seen three straight months of declining industrial production, and we have seen also about six straight months where high-quality employment has declined at an accelerating rate. There is, of course, a lot of service jobs, low-level service jobs, like McDonalds and so forth--what they call hamburger-flippers--being created in this period. High-quality, high-tech jobs are disappearing from the US. So you are proposing that one of the solutions for the American administration will be to set forth a program that will resemble a Keynesian policy towards the frontier states--California, Nevada, Texas, etc.--in coordination with Mexico, to have a multiplier effect throughout 2023. LaRouche: That's one aspect of my proposal. For example, you have the question of transportation. Mexico does need an efficient high-speed rail system from the border to Mexico City. This will help to integrate Mexico as a sovereign nation, and also is economically essential. Mexico needs large-scale water cooperation, as opposed to the conflict with Texas now on this water use business. We need major water projects. These do involve the neighboring states. We do have a US crisis in energy generation and distribution. Mexico has a similar problem. So, we have similar problems on both sides of the border, and obviously, while that's not the total situation, with respect to relations with Mexico, these issues are perhaps among the leading issues inside the United States today. Q: But, these investments in the integration of Mexico to the continental economic system, from my view, are not important enough to offset the main tendency of the exporting of jobs, the exporting of industry, towards China, towards India, towards countries outside of this continent. LaRouche: Well, actually, the cooperation.... We now, as you know, we have a Eurasian cooperation bloc emerging, sometimes called the Strategic Triangle, centered around Russia, China, and India, as the three major countries of the region. But this however, includes Japan to a large degree, Korea, SE Asia, and so forth. So that we have a major bloc of developing potential, an appetite for high-technology capital goods in infrastructure and related things, in this group, which is the Strategic Triangle group. Europe needs that market. Now, if we have a policy of the United States to promote cooperation between Western Europe and this Strategic Triangle group, if we have Middle East peace, then the United States' additional objective--apart from cooperation with Eurasia --is to reverse the process of disintegration of the states of the Americas. And therefore, much of the emphasis of the US will have to be on the totality, long-term investment in infrastructure development throughout the Americas, from Argentina north. We have ruined countries, which are valuable countries, like Brazil, for example. We cannot allow these to go to the dustbin. So, while policies toward Mexico are part of this, the larger picture is the entire Americas, especially keystone nations such as Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and so forth. These countries, as a group, are part of the essential economic security system of all of the nations of the Americas, including the United States. And therefore, the development has to be global, with emphasis on the Americas. Q: But these are long-term strategies, and they will not basically do anything to forestall the crisis of 2023 in the financial markets and in the productive base of the United States. So, do you--from this--conclude that we will see a deep shift in the internal correlation of the cabinet of George Bush to address a longer-term perspective, from the very short-term perspective that they're handling right now? LaRouche: I think there will be. I don't know how it will occur, but it will have to occur. Right now, the two leading political parties, from the top down, are non-functional. The United States has largely been functioning, on the basis of default, on the ministerial institutions of the presidency. That's where the key decisions have been made. Obviously the system is falling apart. We are now at the beginning of the year 2023 election campaign, it's already started, it's in progress. Right now, the Bush administration faces a disaster in 2004 under present trends. Obviously, pressure for change will be great. Presure for change inside the Democratic Party will be great. But what the big issue will be is two-fold. The danger is so immediate that as you refer to this financial crisis. No, the financial crisis means that the United States and other states are going to have to do three things: (1) put the present IMF system under bankruptcy reorganization. There's no way these debts can be managed under the present system. (2) We have to change the laws, to allow us to go back to the kind of things, pre-1971, pre-1964, which we used to rebuild the post-war economy world, or much of the world. (3) We have to have large-scale infrastructure projects which immediately increase employment, and stimulate production in agriculture and industry, though at a slower rate than infrastructure. Under these conditions, we can manage the situation and survive. My objective is to create a policy approach which will enable us to manage the system, without dictatorships or something, and survive by going to a program of progress. I see lots of opportunities, lots of projects which could make that difference. I think we could start right now, but we have to have a financial reorganization of the system in order to do it. Q: All of this sounds very painful. This reorganization sounds extremely painful, since we are dealing with a monolith which has a huge inertia in its functioning, as it is today. It sounds like a big upset for the hats (*?) of the United States, like the end of a story and the beginning of a new one. So it will be a very big economic and political upheaval throughout the next four years in the United States. LaRouche: Well, I don't think the next four years. I think the next YEAR is going to be crucial. Q: The next year is crucial? LaRouche: Absolutely, because we're going to be making decisions, coming into 2023, we're going to have to make the decisions, in every part of the world, which will determine the future history, up or down, of civilization as a whole. I'm optimistic, in the sense that I know that I know that under conditions of great crisis, great changes and rather quick changes, become possible. My concern is to get the ideas out, to mobilize statesmen and other leaders, around these kinds of ideas. That's what we have to do, so that we do not have chaos and irrational behavior. Q: The U.S. media and establishment does not reflect this posture that you have at this Point. There is no outlet of the monolith of the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, that reflects this kind of views. LaRouche: We have certain indirect reflections, and obviously, looking from abroad into the United States, it may not seem that way. But remember, the major news media in the United States do not reflect the actual internal processes of the United States. What they reflect is a certain group of financier interests which owns and controls all of the major broadcast and print media of the United States, the major media. Q: So where would you recommend to start gathering information, on where the debate is happening? LaRouche: Well, the way I do it... I of course have an association of people, and we have a lot of outreach inside government, inside other institutions, not only in the United States but abroad. And we discuss things, as we did, for example, whre I was able to play some kind of a role in trying to prevent the Iraq war from coming off, and this involved discussion with a lot of circles whose opinions are not directly reflected in the major media, but it was those circles which were decisive in bringing about the postponement, at least, of the Iraq war. So, one has to look beyond the major media, which is almost like brainwashing, it's like Big Brother trying to control opinion, but their ideas don't work. For example, if you look at major banks, the major financial institutions which control these media, most of them are going bankrupt! So, we're on the verge of a very sudden change, like the change from Hoover to Franklin Roosevelt. We're in that kind of period. That doesn't mean we're going to succeed. It means we have the opportunity, and if we put our noses into the air, and look for those signs, we can find among leading institutions in various parts of the world.... For example, take Italy. The Chamber of Deputies in Italy voted up my proposal for Italy's taking the initiative for a new Bretton Woods reorganization of the world financial system. So, it is not a hopeless situation. There are important developments in India, Russia, China, elsewhere, now ongoing. The world is not a monolith of the type that the leading US media tend to pretend it is. It's much more complicated, and I would say from my standpoint, much more interesting. Q: So, we we will have a very very interesting 2023. I hope to have you aboard for commentary at least two or three times, as events develop in the financial world and the political world of the Middle East throughout 2023, Mr. LaRouche, and we are very grateful for this interview with Radio ??? LaRouche: Thank you very much. Good to be with you. - 30 -
|
||||||