Discussion Period With LaRouche At Mexico-Brazil-Argentina Integration Conference

Lyndon LaRouche addressed a packed auditorium in Guadalara, Mexico by telephone (see press release on his being denied the security necessary to attend in person by the Mexican government). The seminar was attended by political leaders and citizens from many nations in South America. We have also posted the remarks to the conference made by Col.(Ret) Mohammed Ali Seineldin, political prisoner and presidential candidate of Argentina, and Former President of Mexico Lopez Portillo, who met with Lyndon LaRouche in 1982, and attempted to implement LaRouche's plan for debt reorganization called "Operation Juarez."
The opening remarks by Mr. LaRouche are also available.

Q: [Abraham Aguilar] Mr. LaRouche, you have spoken repeatedly, and many of us have not understood the concept fully. Could you clarify it?

Carrasco: We'd like to take a few more questions, because that would facilitate the group process.

Q: Good afternoon. I am a housewife, and the mother of eight children. My struggle is for the welfare of my children. We have the problem of unpaid debt. What is the solution for me and other families with these problems, to put an end to these usurious interests? This reform which you are explaining, I would like to join this and continue to struggle for the well-being of many of us families, who are suffering here in Mexico. Thank you.

LaRouche: We have to understand that the entire, present world monetary-financial system, as a system, is bankrupt. We must understand that the financial systems of Europe are bankrupt; that the financial systems and leading banks of the United States are bankrupt; that the United States would be bankrupt, if it were not a nation-state with special constitutional authorities, which only a republic has. The Americas are bankrupt. But the world as a whole, with a few, spotty exceptions here or there, is all, in all parts, financial bankrupt. Japan is bankrupt. And so forth and so on.

Therefore, what we have to do in a situation like this: There is no simple, mechanical reform, which in the framework of the present monetary-financial system, will work.

I'll give an example of what I mean by that: In middle period of the 14th Century in Europe, all of Europe had been looted by a financial system, called the Lombard bankers, a syndicate, typified by the House of Bardi and Peruzzi. These bankers had engaged in “loan-sharking” (as we would call it) throughout Europe. At a certain point, the King of England said, “We can no longer pay this debt”; and said the debt was usurious, and therefore, illegal, under Christian law. At that point, the whole system collapsed. Now, during that period, leading up to the collapse, and following it, the option was, either to write off the illegitimate, usurious debt, or to destroy the people of Europe. At that point, the debt-holders prevailed, politically. Europe was forced to submit to the collection of debts they could not pay. As a result of that, one-third of the population of Europe was destroyed, murdered in a period of about less than half a century.

Today, we face a similar situation: We have the choice, now, of trying to collect on the outstanding debts, including the debts held against the nations of Central and South America, or we're going to see, as is clearly seen in the case of Argentina at this moment--and is threatened for Brazil; and is threatened throughout the region--we're going to see a holocaust of death, from economic and related causes, matching that that struck Europe in the 14th Century. No nation-state, presently existing, can survive, if it tries to keep paying this debt! It can't.

So therefore, under law, which is essentially the law of Christian civilization, the principle of the common good--or called in Greek “agape”; or also called “the general welfare” principle, which is the distinction of modern European culture, a state based on the principle of the “general welfare,” as the U.S. Constitution specifies: In such a condition, when paper debt threatens the lives and the general welfare, and the common good of people and of their nations, the debt must suffer, not the people!

This debt was created artificially, by usury, which technically is morally unlawful, which is therefore, lawfully a crime. The present system, established under the floating-exchange-rate system is, under Christian law, is immoral. It's a crime against humanity, like mass murder. And, if continued, will result in mass murder. Therefore, sovereign governments, which consider themselves accountable to present generations, and their posterity, must act to put the debt into bankruptcy reorganization, in the same way we put an independent financial firm or corporation into bankruptcy reorganization.

We must save the productive forces. We must protect the people. We must protect the sovereignty of the nation. And therefore, the debt will have to suffer, under those conditions. If we do not have the courage to do that, there is no hope for civilization, globally. Under the present conditions, of spreading old and new epidemics, there is no part of this planet, which could survive, under those kinds of conditions, which this bankruptcy requires; unless there's a reorganization of the financial system.

That's what we must do. And that is the thing that tests the nerve of governments: Do they have the courage, to combine with other governments, to force this system to go through bankruptcy reorganization? Or will they sit back and watch the mass murder of their people, and the extinction of their nation, in the most horrible way?

The solution is fairly obvious. And, let me just indicate, because other questions asked by others will probably follow the same direction, and therefore, in answering this question, I'll cover that area.

There are several things we must do: First of all, the governments or leading governments of the world, or some group of leading governments of the world, must say (as is implicitly being said, in a way, in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere right now): We must put this system through bankruptcy reorganization. We must break the present supranational controls over nation-states, by the financial oligarchy. We must create a new monetary system, a new financial system, with many of the best features of the previous monetary system, that of 1946-1965; which, with all its injustices, was nonetheless, a workable economic system. That means, that we must take certain practical measures, in addition to a protectionist system--no more free trade; protectionism, but rational protectionism, not chaotic protectionism. It means a fixed-exchange-rate system, without which, you can not make long-term loans at low prices, to rebuild economies. It means we will probably have to resort to a gold-reserve system, with gold prices, perhaps, of $800 to $1,000 U.S. dollars per ounce right now.

We must then take certain sets of economic measures, as such, physical economic measures: Since we have destroyed much of the agriculture and industry that many countries, such as Mexico, have suffered this kind of loss. We must now rebuild, starting with the emphasis on basic economic infrastructure: public transportation systems; railway systems; air-traffic system must be defended, as in the United States, where the rail system and the air-traffic system are both being threatened, right now. We must also maintain our ports, part of the transportation system without which we can't function. We must develop more sources of power, electrical power in particular. We must develop large-scale water-development projects, as in the case of Mexico. Mexican development depends upon moving large masses of water from the south, along coastal canals to the northern part of Mexico, such as Sonora, where the potentiality, within a generation, of a large increase in food production more efficiently, is possible. We must improve public health systems. We must protect the health of the population as a whole, as well as the individual person. We must develop an educational system, designed for progress. We must foster the development of entrepreneurships, in agriculture, small employers in manufacture and special services. We must foster scientific and technological progress in general.

With these kinds of measures of the type that Franklin Roosevelt did in the United States, over the period 1933 to 1945, we can survive. We can succeed. We can promise future generations the chance they deserve. But we must cooperate in doing it.

So, that's the general nature of the thing. Large-scale infrastructure in the form of public works. Use protectionist measures to foster agricultural development and progress, and to foster the development of entrepreneurs, in manufacturing and other categories. And that way, we build the economy, with using the infrastructure development on a large-scale, as the driver to stimulate mass employment, to absorb the unemployed, and to lay the basis for prosperity in the internal economy, on which the private sector depends.

Those are the kinds of measures we have to take. If we have the courage, to recognize we must put the world through bankruptcy; if we can bring nations together in cooperation around that idea; enforce the bankruptcy in a rational way; establish a new, stable monetary and financial system; let government organize large-scale infrastructure projects, of the type which are urgently in Mexico, as in elsewhere; and move quickly to try to use the stimulus of investment in infrastructure to build the foundations for investment and success in agriculture, manufacturing, and so forth, of entrepreneurs: That's that we must do.

If we have the courage to cooperate in doing that, we can win, and we can survive.

Q: [Ernesto Alvarez] Good afternoon. I would like to ask your point of view with regard to the economic policy of President Fox, and concretely what is your forecast regarding the result at the end of his six-year term.

LaRouche: You have to get him through six years in government!

The problem is, there's no way in which the present policies, which largely enforced upon Mexico from the United States and others, can succeed. This is not a matter of opinion. This is a plain matter of fact: When an enemy force is invading your country, you must take that into account. And the present policies of the international monetary-financial system, as [inaud] from the United States, are foolish policies which can destroy Mexico. Therefore, we have to change.

Now, the President of a republic, such as Mexico, is not the embodiment of a contract that he signs, to support certain kinds of policies. He is the President of a republic. He is the chief magistrate of a people; his job is to be the key figure, in the introduction and implementation of the policies which the country requires. He is not wedded necessarily to any earlier contract, on his policy. He is free to abandon policies, if conditions require him to do so. And, the reason you need a chief executive of a republic, is for precisely that reason. A parliamentary system, as such, can not do that. A parliamentary system can shape the environment; can implement the laws, which are needed for the country to function. But the chief executive officer of a republic, has the responsibility to act as the protector of the nation. He is not required to commit himself to any previously adopted policy. He must act for the interest, the general welfare, of his republic, of the nation. He must take into account the welfare of nations, which are his partners.

So, the question is: Will the influential people in Mexico, working with their President, be able to bring about those modifications of policy-commitments, which are necessary [audio break]…. That's what that's going to determine.

If we can do that. If we can build what I'm trying to do, for example, if we can build a stronger alliance within the Western Hemisphere, not just among governments, but among influential institutions within nations, which influence governments; if we can build a solidarity of purpose, among leading forces within those countries, we could bring about the kinds of political processes, which are necessary not only for individual governments to make the changes in their policies, to change away from policies, which prove mistaken, to polices which are better; and find among various other governments, a solidarity, so that these governments can work in unison around a common perception of common interest--that's what I would hope. And, my job is to, --.

Let me put it this way: Presently, I'm emerging, again, as a leading figure of the United States. The Republican Party is a mess. The Democratic Party, at present, is a worse mess. The Congress is a mess. Politics are a mess. The system is collapsing, it's disintegrating. Hence, therefore, in this period, very recently, in the past two months, I have zoomed back into--shall we say?--reclaiming the influences I used to have, and gaining new influences as well. For example: We have in motion, in the United States today, a new youth movement. It's relatively small, but it's extremely effective and influential--moving, in motion. It's the only thing in the United States, moving in that way. Other, older kinds of groups are collapsing entirely. We're moving! And, I'm moving internationally, as in the Arab world, in the Orient, in the nations of Asia, in Europe, in Africa, and throughout the Americas: I personally am committed to building the kind of coalition--a coalition of ideas, coalition of principle--within and among nations, which is prepared to rally itself, as a force, to strengthen any government which is determined to do the right thing. That's our best chance.

Q: [Jose Escordi] Good afternoon. Before anything else, Mr. LaRouche, I want to congratulate you, and thank you for participating with us today and answering all of our questions. Thank you very much.

Mr. LaRouche: In Mexico, we depend on the free-trade agreement, especially in agriculture, so we would like to know what your view is: What should a country like Mexico, which has tremendous agricultural potential but most of country like Mexico, which has tremendous agricultural potential but most of us agricultural producers are just about dead in the water.

I thank you again for you help. I am from the Committee for Improving Agriculture in the state of Guanajuato.

LaRouche: What must be understood in Mexico, clearly, is, that the market represented by the United States is collapsing, is disintegrating. The tragedy is, that Mexico, in the recent period, has come to depend greatly upon NAFTA, the NAFTA arrangements, and similar kinds of arrangements. These arrangements are now becoming worse than useless. The internal market of the United States, as a market for employment of Mexicans going into the United States as labor, and a market for Mexico-produced goods, as in the maquiladoras: That is dead. Not totally, but largely dead.

So, you look at Mexico over the period since 1982, since our great crisis in Mexico, of the period of August through October, 1982, and you see there's been a great destruction of Mexico's independent, national capability, in areas such as petroleum, energy generally, agriculture, and so forth; and increasing dependency upon special arrangements, with North America, under which Mexican labor has become essentially labor, or cheap production, for feeding the internal market of the United States, as many other nations, too--but Mexico, especially.

So, Mexico faces an absolutely desperate situation, economically. So, obviously, several things are required: We require an orientation toward increasing the protection of employment in agriculture and other affairs, in Mexico. This means requirement of infrastructure development in transportation, water management, power, and so forth, which is indispensable for agriculture and other things. This could serve as a stimulus, for the development of entrepreneurship in other kinds of things--manufacturing, and so forth.

So, therefore, the internal economy of Mexico, becomes much more important, than it has been in the recent period. The idea of living on the U.S. market, as an importer or exporter of last resort for Mexico: That is finished; not entirely, but for the time being, it's finished.

The U.S. economy is in the process of collapsing. For example: In the area outside Washington, D.C., we are looking at, imminently, a 33% collapse--failure--of mortgage-holders, because of the loss of employment in the so-called “New Economy”--the dot.com sector, it's collapsing. We are on the verge of a collapse of the real estate bubble in the United States. The U.S. economy is in the throes of an onrushing general economic depression. The U.S. is losing its international credit. Its budget is not balanced. The U.S. government can not balance it's own budget. The current-account deficit is squeezing the United States. It can no longer secure [credit]. Money is being pulled out of the dollar, into Europe and elsewhere. The U.S. is on the verge of collapsing and bringing down the entire world system with it.

So therefore, the idea of trying to find solutions within this relationship between Mexico and the United States, which has developed over the period since 1982, especially more recently: That is impossible.

Therefore, the only solution, for a country like Mexico is, first of all--the first line of defense, is to defend and expand internal employment, internal production, develop the internal market. This, of course, requires the creation of national credit, to fund this kind of operation. This, in turn, of course, requires cooperation with other states, in similar programs.

But, the first thing, I think, in a case like this: We have to look at what ideas will work, under such circumstances. Then we must look around for partners, collaborators, to make correct ideas possible for implementation. Now, obviously, if we could move water into northern Mexico, along the coastline--with canals; this had been planned in Mexico for more than a century!--you would transform large areas of Mexico into potentially (or emerging as potentially), rich agricultural markets. The world needs food! Mexico can produce food. They don't have to go with the United States, to produce food.

Mexicans can do it very well, with one country or another. They need the conditions under which to do that. They the protection, under which to survive. They need the water; they need the power; they need the transportation: infrastructure. They need the education. They need to get the families back together again, a sense of family solidarity, which has been lost in the recent period.

So, I would say, that we have to define the ideas, which fit the situation, and then find the means--international cooperation and other--to find the means, by which we can implement those ideas.

Carrasco: We still have a few more questions. For those of you listening to us on the Internet, engaged in a dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche, the author of Operation Juarez, on this 20th anniversary of the famous work by Mr. LaRouche, in which Mexico supported his proposals for nationalization of the banking system, and debt moratorium.

We continue with this dialogue We have a list of Mexicans who are interested in this dialogue and exchange of ideas, which is indispensable at this time. And we continue.

Q: [Alfonso Lujan] I am from the El Barzon Mexican movement. My warm greetings. My question to you is, what can we do throughout Latin America, the Third World, if the media--the means of communication which are indispensable to inform people and to communicate among ourselves--are controlled by the financial oligarchy; even in your country, the United States, they managed to get the Republican Party persuaded that the best President of the United States, would be the son of President Bush. So, what strategy are you following to convince people from around the world, that the system is awry, when those who manage the system are a very few, who control both the financial means as well as the media, and so forth? Thank you.

Carrasco: We would like to group a couple of questions together.

Q: [Miguelangel Patricio] Mr. LaRouche, I would like to address two questions to you. Which are the main forces which are now orchestrating the collapse of the financial and monetary system; and, what is the final objective of these forces? My second question is what are the main obstacles to a new international monetary and financial order?

LaRouche: Well, let's take the first one. Don't overestimate the power of the mass media. The mass media in the United States and elsewhere today, must be compared to the role of “bread and circuses” in ancient Rome. People who call themselves “citizens” in imperial Rome, were given payment--not wages--but bread, to survive. They were entertained by being sent into arenas, for such edifying sports as watching lions eat Christians. And they cheered, as Augustinus describes this situation, and its effects on people. You look at the United States today, for example, or other countries: You see mass entertainment, in the form of sports, bodily contact sports, football and other sports, which are essential the same kind of method by which the Roman Empire brainwashed its citizens into submission, and let them into the self-destruction of Rome. We have the same thing, now. Don't overestimate the media; don't underestimate the stupidity of people, in submitting to it.

But when a shock comes, you enter what's called a “revolutionary period,” because the mass media of that time and form no longer controls the mind. That is happening in the United States right now. So, the people who try to influence the mass media, as a way of dealing with politics, make a fatal mistake. This is like asking the enemy, appealing to the enemy, to do something in your favor against him. It doesn't work.

Now, the mass media and the financial institutions that control it, are going bankrupt. Citibank is in danger of bankruptcy. J.P. Morgan Chase is on the verge of bankruptcy. Other major banks, controlling banks, are near bankruptcy. The large syndicates, which control the mass media, are on the verge of bankruptcy inside the United States. The people of the United States are beginning to turn away from these influences rapidly, and they're doing so around the world.

So, don't be a slave to the idea of trying to get the emperor, who put you in chains, to let you off your chains: the chains of illusion; the chains of the mass media.

So, we are moving now, around the world, with mass forces, or mass-led forces. The United States is becoming increasingly isolated. Its present policy, of war against Iraq, and toleration of the fascist slaughter in Palestine, by the present fascist government of Israel--the Sharon government--is not accepted. Resistance is growing around the world. So, we do not have to submit.

What we have to do is, go through a political process, of educating the people to think for themselves, not trying to influence the mass media. The greatest mistake would be to base politics on the mass media. Base politics on the mass people; on their interests, on discussion of their interests. Engage in a dialogue, a Socratic dialogue, on the subject of their interests, their concerns. The way we did it in former times: This is the method you do it.

Now, the forces that can be rallied internationally, are tremendous. As you know, recently, I've become a kind of folk hero throughout the Arab world. And, I've spoken in a number of locations, and my writings are all over leading publications--mass media, by the way--in various parts of the Arab world. And, also other parts of the world: in the Orient, in Asia. I've been more active in the Americas: I recently was honored by an honorary citizenship in Sao Paulo, which is the third largest city in the world, with a special ceremony.

So, this is not an impossible situation, politically. You have a change in the policies of Italy, in the direction I've been fighting for, and working with leading Italian politicians to bring about. They're moving in that direction now. Similar policies are being introduced by the present government--not the same policies, but policies in that direction--are now being pushed by the government of Germany. Europe is tending to move in that direction. China is doing a reexamination of its policy, as recently announced by President Jiang Zemin of China.

So: The world is changing. The world is open. The forces are real forces. Always start with the youth: It is the young people, especially between 18 and 25, when they come out of adolescence--that period of insanity we call adolescence, which is legalized insanity; and they come into a period as university entrants, students. They come into a period when they're more vigorous, they're more open than some older people who've become somewhat ossified in their politics. And, when they move, politically, in a rational way, around policy ideas, they stimulate the older generations. And it's through this mechanism which you generally get great movements in history, for the good. We have such a phenomenon, emerging in the United States, right now. It's explosive: The changes in the United States, in the past two months in the United States in this respect, are enormous. Most of all the political circles are completely discredited. It's a wide-open situation.

So, the point is: Go to the forces of the future. I would suggest: We have just formed, in the United States, we're getting into motion, a youth movement, a national youth movement associated with me. I think that what probably is needed, you should study what we're doing in the United States--it's not perfect. It's typical of youth movements, and what they're like. We're organizing around ideas, like what's the significance of Gauss's fundamental theorem of algebra? Why is that a revolutionary concept, even today? Or things like that. So, we're not talking about silly youth. We're talking about serious, thinking people, who are discussing things, studying things, just talking through things--but youth: 18- to 25-year-old youth.

I think we need, throughout the Americas, we need youth movements of that type. Not like the “Lula,” the other thing--this so-called anti-globalization nonsense; not these crazy anarchists. We need a youth movement, which is positive, which is looking for the future; which is trying, not to tear down the present, but to build the future. And, I think such movements are needed to change the character of the political forces, to make them more optimistic, and to give them a greater sense of building and unity, rather than the kind of despair and fear, which is dominating today.

Q:[Francisco Ascensio] It is a great pleasure to greet you. I would like to make two, very important points. I am the leader of the Catholic youths in the state. The circumstances that you have mentioned already, and you may recall that the Holy Father, the Pope, has said that the debts of all the countries need to be condoned. Another point that I'm interested in, is the energy system, as it is being handled both in the United States and Mexico, and what are the circumstances that lead the Americans to adhere to the energy system, and why Mexico is getting energy from other countries.

LaRouche: Well, the problem here, in the United States, we have since Brzezinski. Brzezinski is probably--Brzezinski is no supporter of the Pope, by the way! He's on the opposite side: You get a certain aroma around him, and his pointed ears, if you suggest where he might spend his evenings. And his policies, more clearly so.

He did great damage to Mexico, among other countries, while he was National Security Adviser, for example. The energy policies, which have been introduced, since Brzezinski was running President Carter, are destroying civilization in Mexico and elsewhere. We have policies, and when President Lopez Portillo was President of Mexico, with which I highly in agreement. Now, the policies were twofold: We have the long-term view of Mexico's petroleum development, as both an export item for trade--that is, petroleum exports for capital goods, for developing Mexico's agriculture and industry; but the ideas also were there in Mexico, and many people in Mexico had to help these ideas, of the problem of dealing with the north, which is water-shy, and dealing also with the coastal areas, which are very hot in the summertime. And by using nuclear power, which was the intention of Mexico, back in those days, to develop systems built around complexes of power production and distribution: integrated power production and distrution, to enable a revolution to be made in technology; to create new cities in Mexico; to create networks in transportation, new industries, a revitalization and expansion of agriculture-- things, which could have all made Mexico, in two generations, among the first nations in the world in terms of production and economy. These were the ideas.

We have to do that, now, as an energy policy. We have to, as John Paul II has emphasized, we have to approach everything, from the standpoint of the common good. Or, as it's otherwise called, “the general welfare,” in the Constitution of the United States. Otherwise known as the Greek agape, as in I Corinthians 13 of Paul. This is the policy: We must take care of all of the people, to honor the past, to defend the living, and to provide for the future. We are all mortal; we shall all die. Therefore, the question is, not what we get out of this life, as mortal people, but what our lives mean, when we have completed our life, our mortal life. What have we done, which is honorable in the eyes of our ancestors? What have we done, which will be blessed by our posterity? And, we have to approach things like this, in that state: We have to have love, for those who went before us, many of whom suffered. We have to have love, for those who come after us. And we must devote our life to what we can do, in cooperation and as individuals, to make the transition--and one of the things is energy.

We must provide a large-scale energy system, of high energy- flux density, in which production and distribution are integrated. They are not privatized. They are regulated by the state. They are not a method of looting the people, but a method of providing the basis upon which organized life depends for its progress.

Q: [Carlos Repeto] I'm a Peruvian, an engineer, from the trade union, Retired Workers of Peru, and I have a question for you, Mr. LaRouche, perhaps a somewhat controversial question. With regard to my country, Peru, in modest view and with a certain appreciation that I have of the situation, I will allow myself to tell you, in one of your articles, you say, “Peru has no better future, especially after the evil offensive of the U.S. State Department to overthrow the government of Alberto Fujimori.” This view of yours, Mr. LaRouche, with regard to the cause of how Peru doesn't have a positive future, because of what you said about Fujimori--as a Peruvian citizen, this brings confusion and uncertainty to me. Dr. LaRouche, Fujimori is a Japanese, and Montesinos, as a Peruvian for ten years, wrecked our poor country. They left us destroyed, economically, militarily. For example, they said, that they fought and defeated terrorism, which is true, but not with the healthy intention of freeing Peru from this; but rather, to monopolize the drug trade, which is a well-known evil, with goes hand in hand with terrorism, as in the case of the FARC in Colombia. It's also said that they stabilized the economy, which is another great lie. The best example of this is the economic problems created by Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, the envoy of Soros, and Minister Silva Ruete, also a liberal. The envoy of Soros, and what is little said about Kuczynski, is that he came to just cover up the Peruvian economy.

I would like you, Mr. LaRouche, to please clarify this for me. Thank you very much.

LaRouche: Well, your questions are a bit self-contradictory, because I agree with you about Soros and Kuczynski and so forth; I know these creatures very well, and I dislike them very much.

The point is, one has to take a certain view of the social process, the political process, in judging a President of any country, such as Peru. Now, Fujimori capitulated, and adopted in many respects, adopted a pro-liberal view. That does not mean, that was his opinion. That does not mean, that was his instinct. Remember that Peru has lived, as all nations of the Americas, have lived under a quasi-imperial boot. They have been, in a sense, quasi-colonies, of the United States since 1982. No country of the Americas has been really independent. It has been dominated by the IMF and the Anglo-Americans, by the English-speaking oligarchical factions, financial oligarchical factions of the world. And, Soros is among the worst. Kuczynski, who represents certain Boston and other interests, is among the worst. And, of course, this Boston crowd, like United Fruit and other things--Grace, and whatnot--have a history in Peru, and the history continues. And when you look at the situation, from that standpoint, you understand it.

But, Fujimori acted as a patriotic President. That does not mean he was a perfect leader, in respect to forming his policy. Look, I'm a political figure of the United States--a Presidential candidate. I'm probably the best-qualified Presidential candidate the United States has seen in the past 30-odd years, or longer: So, I have some ideas about Presidencies, and have some idea about how an American Presidential candidate should treat and regard Presidents of other republics in the Americas.

Now, Fujimori, I consider in a friendly way. Why? Because he's the President of Peru. And he was couped by the United States, and much of the charges against him were manufactured by the United States. And there are problems in Peru, which, to a large degree, were introduced to Peru, by the United States! So, who am I to criticize Peru, or the people in Peru, as if that were not the case. They were living under a virtual dictatorship of the overreach of an English-speaking alliance, power, and they had no absolute freedom of action. And the President of Peru, and the President of every republic of the Americas, has to calculate, what he has to concede to, what he can get by with, under the pressure of the United States, and its English-speaking allies.

So, I would not make simplistic views about criticizing of things that, I agree, are problems in Peru. I have to say what created the problem? What is the infectious agent, which caused the problem? How must we deal with it. How must we give Peru the opportunity to free itself? I mean, a coup was made, by the Clinton Administration, overthrowing Fujimori! It was made, because of a speech that Fujimori made in Brazil, which implicitly was consistent with the policy perspectives of the Mercosur; which is in the vital interests of that part of South America, to have such policies.

So, that Fujimori was toppled, not because he did something bad: He was toppled, because he did something good!

So, when a man is thrown out; exiled from his own country; lied about internationally, and sitting in refuge in Japan, after being couped illicitly, by an orchestrated coup d'etat--I don't attack him. I don't agree with many of his policies. Me and my associates objected to these liberal policies many times. But, I've always understood, that I do not treat lightly, the problems and importance of a Presidency of a republic--such as Mexico, for example. I don't have to agree with Fox, to defend the Presidency of Mexico. I do! I must defend the Presidency of Mexico! It's a republic: I must defend it. It's a partner-country of mine: I must defend it.

So, simplistic kinds of criticisms, we should not make. We should proceed with understanding, not with populist rhetoric; not with anarcho-sindicalist rhetoric. I saw anarcho-sindicalism in the form of Trotskyism: It doesn't work. We should therefore, abhor it, on those grounds alone!

So, no. I don't feel that strongly about that. I feel that Peru has been abuse. It will be destroyed, under the present policies, where it probably could have survived a bit, under Fujimori. What has happened to Peru, since the coup d'etat against Fujimori, is far worse than anything that happened under him. So how can we cheer for the tribulations of Fujimori? I don't. He's the President of a republic, honestly elected. An honest man, as Presidents go. He may have made mistakes; he may have had bad policies, but I have some understanding of why those policies were made. And I've always worked rather, as much as possible, positively, to help Presidents and other institutions of republics, to improve their policy. I don't walk in with hand grenades, trying to find ways to destroy them. I respect them; I respect the institution they represent; and I treat them accordingly. I try to win them, to a better policy. I try to assist them, in finding the means to adopt a better policy. [applause]

Q: [Javier Montero] Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I'm a trade unionist from Jalisco. I would like to know what you think of the movement toward flexibility of labor? We view this as a direct attack on social organizations, and on the achievements of workers that have been won through many long decades of struggle. What is your view of this flexibility of labor?

LaRouche: I agree, this is a danger. This is a danger. People have to come to an understanding, an intelligent view of what the labor movement represents. And the importance of solidarity within organized labor--the ability to implement things.

For example: A rational discussion between the employer or other institutions, and labor, is a good way of bringing the forces of production into effective operation. The other key thing here is, the human question: We can not continue the policy of cheating labor, for the sake of profit. We have a collapsing economy. The economy is collapsing, not because of labor. The economy is collapsing, because of international policies, which are rapacious and stupid. Where is the investment? Where is the technological improvement? Where is the improvement of the schools? Where is the improvement of the health-care systems, and all the other things, which make for the increase of the productive powers of labor? Where's the investment in better technologies? Improved physical technologies? These are the things that are urgent.

When you say, “Labor must work more cheaply”; when you say, that you must do things which mean destroying the already-fragile social structure within the family and community of working people, you're not doing anything right: It's wrong! You must have minimal standards, and they must rise, for the improvement in the conditions of life of labor and their families: in terms of education, health care, and also family and community social relations--extremely important. And, when labor fights for this, and negotiates with employers, to press them to move forward, so that these requirements can be satisfied, through a common effort, then labor can cooperate with its employers, with a sense of common purpose: “We're trying to make things better.” And, good labor organizations will help bring that about. But, at the same time, they have to have agreements, with the employers' groups, on the kinds of investment, the kinds of conditions of life, the conditions of work, which make that success possible.

No, it's good to have solid agreements, negotiated periodically, between labor and employers, all kinds of employers, with the idea that a partnership can develop, based on bringing together the sometimes paradoxical relations between labor and employers. And finding, by understanding the paradoxes, to discover solutions, which solve those paradoxes.

I've heard this stuff all over--I don't know what the details are in Mexico--but I know what's going on all over the world, and it's producing nothing but misery and breakdown of the economy.

Carrasco: We are approaching the end of our dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche from the “Mexico-Brazil-Argentina: The Hour of Integration Seminar,” being held today and tomorrow in Guadalajara, the capital of the state of Jalisco, in Mexico. We are receiving one last question, which will bring to a close, at this time the dialogue, that all of you should know is an open dialogue, is a dialogue that LaRouche constantly seeks to engage in with patriots from Ibero-America and other parts of the world. Fortunately, the Internet favors direct contact, and we invite any and all who wish to participate in this process to join in, with your questions, and the work of building the movement that LaRouche has initiated, which is a worldwide movement, for the creation of a new financial system, a New Bretton Woods.

We now move on to the final participant in this forum and dialogue with Mr. LaRouche.

Q: [Rodolfo Galvez] Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. I am a Mexican merchant, and here's my question. If you had the opportunity, as you did 20 years ago, to meet with President with Lopez Portillo--today with President Fox--what recommendations and guidelines would you offer President Fox, so that the financial system does not blow? And many thanks for your answer.

LaRouche: I think I would do the same kind of thing. Of course, President Lopez Portillo is a very distinguished person, of real knowledge, and intellectual development. President Fox has, of course, a different background: He comes from a business and related background; shall we say, that President Lopez Portillo is a man of Classical attributes, typical of many leaders of the Mexican Republic, like himself. And, therefore, when I met with President Lopez Portillo, we were people who are in the European, Classical tradition, and it's easy for us to exchange certain ideas, because we've already been through that territory, so to speak.

President Fox has not had the benefit of that. He's the President of Mexico. My message to him, would be essentially, the end-result of any approach to him, would be the same. He's the President of Mexico: I would address him as President, as President. And I would try to be useful, in my communication with him, and to try to persuade him to see things that I know are true, which is important that he see. And to suggest to him, things that we and others might do in common, as ideas, as human beings, in our respective positions, to help bring things into play, which have to be brought into play. I think, he has to change his policies; I think he knows that. I he will know that, very soon. But the fact that he changes his policy, does not mean he vanishes as the President of Mexico. He remains the President, even if he changes his policies, because his function is not to be the servant of a contract on policy. His function is to be the servant of the interests of the people of Mexico, and their future. And he has to change--as he must change--to satisfy that mission. That mission: It's almost a sacred position, to be a head of state, even for a time. And the mission is the future of one's nation; and respect and honor, for one's predecessors.

So, with him, I would simply to do the same thing: to explain to him what I know; to try to answer his questions; and to indicate what I can do, what I think others can do, to make possible the implementation of those suggestions.

Carrasco: Very well: Lyndon, we are grateful for your participation. People here look very satisfied at having had this opportunity. They would have preferred to see you and shake your hand personally, which we have not lost hope of achieving, at some immediate future. For the time being, we really thank you for this effort, and as always, your generosity. [applause]

LaRouche: Thank you.

Return to the Home Page
Top