An historical transformation is in process, if it can be
sustained. Obama's drive for war has been stopped, his effort to get Larry
Summers installed as the new Fed Chairman was stopped. Now we must drive Glass
Steagall through the Congress. This article will be in the next EIR.
Mike Billington
Putin-Led War Avoidance Is A Strategic
Breakthrough
by Jeffrey Steinberg
Sept. 16--The agreement among
Russia, the United States, and Syria to
eliminate Syria's stockpiles of chemical
weapons, as part of a broader effort to end the
Syrian conflict through a Geneva II conference,
was hailed by Lyndon LaRouche this weekend as a
major breakthrough. If the diplomacy prevails,
LaRouche told colleagues, this can represent a
strategic reversal of the trends toward war and
dictatorship that have dominated the global
political landscape since January 2001.
The breakthrough came early on Sept. 14 in
Geneva, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
signed a bilateral agreement setting a
timeframe for Syria to provide a full inventory
of its chemical weapons, and turn them over to
UN monitors who would supervise their
destruction within one year. The agreement has
been endorsed by the Syrian government, which
earlier this week signed the UN Convention
barring the use of chemical weapons. This means
that the threatened U.S. military strikes
against Syria, bringing the world one giant
step closer to thermonuclear extinction, have
been postponed indefinitely.
Just three weeks ago, President Barack
Obama had ordered military strikes against
Syria--without going to the U.S. Congress or to
the UN Security Council. At the last moment,
Obama reversed that decision, in the face of
overwhelming American public opposition, and
the threat that Congress would initiate
impeachment proceedings against him were he to
order the strikes. Since Spring 2013, Obama has
faced a succession of scandals, rendering him a
virtual lame duck President, just months into
his second term. The fact that Obama pulled
back from the strike order, which had already
been decided and reported to the National
Security Council and to European and Middle
Eastern allies, was the result of combined
opposition from the public, the Congress, and
top military advisors, led by Gen. Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Russia, the United States, and Syria to
eliminate Syria's stockpiles of chemical
weapons, as part of a broader effort to end the
Syrian conflict through a Geneva II conference,
was hailed by Lyndon LaRouche this weekend as a
major breakthrough. If the diplomacy prevails,
LaRouche told colleagues, this can represent a
strategic reversal of the trends toward war and
dictatorship that have dominated the global
political landscape since January 2001.
The breakthrough came early on Sept. 14 in
Geneva, when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
signed a bilateral agreement setting a
timeframe for Syria to provide a full inventory
of its chemical weapons, and turn them over to
UN monitors who would supervise their
destruction within one year. The agreement has
been endorsed by the Syrian government, which
earlier this week signed the UN Convention
barring the use of chemical weapons. This means
that the threatened U.S. military strikes
against Syria, bringing the world one giant
step closer to thermonuclear extinction, have
been postponed indefinitely.
Just three weeks ago, President Barack
Obama had ordered military strikes against
Syria--without going to the U.S. Congress or to
the UN Security Council. At the last moment,
Obama reversed that decision, in the face of
overwhelming American public opposition, and
the threat that Congress would initiate
impeachment proceedings against him were he to
order the strikes. Since Spring 2013, Obama has
faced a succession of scandals, rendering him a
virtual lame duck President, just months into
his second term. The fact that Obama pulled
back from the strike order, which had already
been decided and reported to the National
Security Council and to European and Middle
Eastern allies, was the result of combined
opposition from the public, the Congress, and
top military advisors, led by Gen. Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Obama Reads the Writing on the Wall -
After the President had announced that he
would go to Congress before striking Syria, it
became clear that he would never win
Congressional approval, despite the support he
had from Republican leaders in the House, and
from Senate hawks John McCain (Ariz.) and
Lindsey Graham (S.C.). He then scheduled a
nationwide TV address for Sept. 10 to win over
public support for the action. Obama met
privately with McCain and Graham and promised
them that he would vastly expand the Syrian
military targets to tilt the war on the ground,
in favor of the rebels. This is exactly the
kind of escalation of American involvement that
the Joint Chiefs had warned against, and that
the American public fiercely opposes.
The night before the President's scheduled
TV address, top political aides told him that
he would lose the vote in the House of
Representatives by a wide margin, and might
even lose in the Senate if there were a
filibuster (which had been mooted by Sen. Rand
Paul of Kentucky). During his TV address,
instead of motivating the strikes, President
Obama announced that he would work with Russia
to finalize a deal to have Syria surrender its
chemical weapons to the UN.
While the American media had jumped on a
fake story that the idea of U.S.-Russian
mediation of the chemical weapons surrender had
come out of an offhanded, cynical comment by
Kerry, during a stopover in Moscow, the reality
was that Russian President Vladimir Putin had
proposed just such a plan the previous week,
when Putin and Obama had met on the sidelines
of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Obama told reporters before his Sept. 10
address to the nation that Putin and he had
discussed such an idea the previous week.
Beginning Sept. 11, Kerry and Lavrov began
intense work in Geneva, accompanied by chemical
weapons experts. They worked until midnight on
Sept. 13, and announced the signing of the
bilateral agreement the next morning.
Under the agreement, which was also
endorsed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
the immediate threat of war has been greatly
reduced. However, it cannot be assumed that war
has been averted altogether. The British, the
Saudis, the Turks, and others are furious at
Obama for backing down from his widely
circulated pledge to take military action. The
danger that the Anglo-Saudi combination could
stage a false-flag incident or some other
atrocity to rekindle the sparks of war in Syria
or elsewhere cannot be underestimated.
After the President had announced that he
would go to Congress before striking Syria, it
became clear that he would never win
Congressional approval, despite the support he
had from Republican leaders in the House, and
from Senate hawks John McCain (Ariz.) and
Lindsey Graham (S.C.). He then scheduled a
nationwide TV address for Sept. 10 to win over
public support for the action. Obama met
privately with McCain and Graham and promised
them that he would vastly expand the Syrian
military targets to tilt the war on the ground,
in favor of the rebels. This is exactly the
kind of escalation of American involvement that
the Joint Chiefs had warned against, and that
the American public fiercely opposes.
The night before the President's scheduled
TV address, top political aides told him that
he would lose the vote in the House of
Representatives by a wide margin, and might
even lose in the Senate if there were a
filibuster (which had been mooted by Sen. Rand
Paul of Kentucky). During his TV address,
instead of motivating the strikes, President
Obama announced that he would work with Russia
to finalize a deal to have Syria surrender its
chemical weapons to the UN.
While the American media had jumped on a
fake story that the idea of U.S.-Russian
mediation of the chemical weapons surrender had
come out of an offhanded, cynical comment by
Kerry, during a stopover in Moscow, the reality
was that Russian President Vladimir Putin had
proposed just such a plan the previous week,
when Putin and Obama had met on the sidelines
of the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Obama told reporters before his Sept. 10
address to the nation that Putin and he had
discussed such an idea the previous week.
Beginning Sept. 11, Kerry and Lavrov began
intense work in Geneva, accompanied by chemical
weapons experts. They worked until midnight on
Sept. 13, and announced the signing of the
bilateral agreement the next morning.
Under the agreement, which was also
endorsed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
the immediate threat of war has been greatly
reduced. However, it cannot be assumed that war
has been averted altogether. The British, the
Saudis, the Turks, and others are furious at
Obama for backing down from his widely
circulated pledge to take military action. The
danger that the Anglo-Saudi combination could
stage a false-flag incident or some other
atrocity to rekindle the sparks of war in Syria
or elsewhere cannot be underestimated.
- Warnings of a New Financial Blowout -
The driving factor behind the war push
has, from the outset, been the accelerating
disintegration of the entire Anglo-Dutch global
financial system. Senior financial community
sources from Tokyo to Singapore to London to
Washington are warning that a blowout, far
worse than September 2008, is imminent, unless
the United States and other leading nations
adopt Glass-Steagall and a return to a global
fixed-exchange-rate system, wiping out
quadrillions of dollars in unpayable
derivatives and other gambling debts. Because
the stakes in Syria were complicated by these
motives, it cannot be ruled out that a new
military conflict will be conjured up to tilt
the global balance away from the peace process
now underway.
LaRouche, in his weekend assessments,
identified the breakthrough in Geneva as a
reversal of the trends in place since January
2001, when the Bush-Cheney Administration first
took office. At the time, LaRouche had publicly
warned of an imminent ``Reichstag Fire''
incident to provide a pretext for dictatorship
in the United States. His warning, nine months
before the Anglo-Saudi-engineered Sept. 11,
2001 attacks, was prophetic. When Bush and
Cheney left office, and Obama was elected as
the 44th President of the United States,
LaRouche warned that Obama would be a
continuation of the Bush-Cheney drive for
dictatorship--and worse.
Now, with the pendulum swinging away from
Presidential dictatorship, driven by a spate of
scandals, any one of which could lead to
Obama's impeachment, the potential is there for
a profound change in direction. That begins
with the enactment of Glass-Steagall, return to
an American System of credit for great
projects, restoration of a Bretton Woods-type
fixed-exchange-rate system, all to bring about
a global leap in science and technology.
LaRouche has identified a Manhattan Project
drive for thermonuclear fusion, the immediate
launching of the NAWAPA XXI water-management
program, the building of the Bering Strait
tunnel and the New Silk Road/Eurasian
Land-Bridge plan presented in the early 1990s
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. That New Silk Road
program was put on the table this past week at
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization annual
heads of state meeting.
has, from the outset, been the accelerating
disintegration of the entire Anglo-Dutch global
financial system. Senior financial community
sources from Tokyo to Singapore to London to
Washington are warning that a blowout, far
worse than September 2008, is imminent, unless
the United States and other leading nations
adopt Glass-Steagall and a return to a global
fixed-exchange-rate system, wiping out
quadrillions of dollars in unpayable
derivatives and other gambling debts. Because
the stakes in Syria were complicated by these
motives, it cannot be ruled out that a new
military conflict will be conjured up to tilt
the global balance away from the peace process
now underway.
LaRouche, in his weekend assessments,
identified the breakthrough in Geneva as a
reversal of the trends in place since January
2001, when the Bush-Cheney Administration first
took office. At the time, LaRouche had publicly
warned of an imminent ``Reichstag Fire''
incident to provide a pretext for dictatorship
in the United States. His warning, nine months
before the Anglo-Saudi-engineered Sept. 11,
2001 attacks, was prophetic. When Bush and
Cheney left office, and Obama was elected as
the 44th President of the United States,
LaRouche warned that Obama would be a
continuation of the Bush-Cheney drive for
dictatorship--and worse.
Now, with the pendulum swinging away from
Presidential dictatorship, driven by a spate of
scandals, any one of which could lead to
Obama's impeachment, the potential is there for
a profound change in direction. That begins
with the enactment of Glass-Steagall, return to
an American System of credit for great
projects, restoration of a Bretton Woods-type
fixed-exchange-rate system, all to bring about
a global leap in science and technology.
LaRouche has identified a Manhattan Project
drive for thermonuclear fusion, the immediate
launching of the NAWAPA XXI water-management
program, the building of the Bering Strait
tunnel and the New Silk Road/Eurasian
Land-Bridge plan presented in the early 1990s
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. That New Silk Road
program was put on the table this past week at
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization annual
heads of state meeting.
No comments:
Post a Comment