WHY IS A SUMMIT OF GREAT POWERS SO THREATENING TO THE LONDON-CENTERED ESTABLISHMENT?

In January of this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that a summit meeting of the Permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council (P5) be convened to discuss how to overcome the confluence of strategic, financial, economic, social and political crises which threaten to unleash existential chaos on the human race.  Putin's proposal was endorsed by Helga Zepp LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, who had previously called for an emergency summit of the U.S., Russia and China, after the assassination of Iran's Revolutionary Guard leader Soleimani by a U.S. drone strike on January 3 created the prospect of an outbreak of war between the U.S. and Iran.  

If Putin's proposal were acted upon, she wrote, it would become possible to achieve a "Grand Design", a "peace order" which could ensure that the world would never again face a catastrophe as that of the Second World War. She pointed out that the other P5 members—the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom—had all responded positively to Putin's proposal, and that a likely venue for the summit could be the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) meeting beginning September 22. The proposal represents what she described as an "unprecedented challenge...[of] whether enough of the main actors on the world stage are able to raise their thinking to a higher level of reason in time, or whether they will cling to their respective ideologies and patterns of action."

Putin reiterated his call for a summit during his address to the UNGA on September 22, saying that the leaders of the P5 nations—which he called the G5—will meet in person as soon as the pandemic permits. He said, “In the current challenging environment, it is important for all countries to show political will, wisdom and foresight. The permanent members of the UN Security Council—those powers that, for 75 years now, have been bearing particular responsibility for international peace and security, the preservation of the foundations of international law—should take the lead here. Fully realizing this responsibility, Russia has suggested convening a G5 summit. It would aim at reaffirming the key principles of behavior in international affairs, elaborating ways to effectively address today’s most burning issues. It is encouraging that our partners have supported the initiative. We expect to hold such a summit—in person—as soon as the epidemiological situation makes it possible.”

Putin spoke of “our shared memory of the lessons of history, and the spirit of alliance which guided the anti-Hitler coalition participants who found it possible to rise above differences and ideological preferences for the sake of victory and peace for all nations on the Earth." This sentiment was coherent with that expressed by China's President Xi, who spoke of the need for global cooperation against the pandemic, and for working to “foster over time, a new development paradigm.” He said that, “The baton of history has been passed to our generation.” Let us join hands to “build a new type of international relations, and a community for a shared future for mankind.” For his part, despite some unfortunate language attacking China, President Trump added his voice to those seeking peaceful cooperation, referring to “America’s destiny as peacemaker,” and his commitment to put an end to policies which result in "blood on the sand."

NO SUMMIT!

Yet, despite such apparent agreement on the need for a summit, and the glaring need for enhanced dialogue given the proliferation of crises, nothing has yet been scheduled. Instead, Russia and China are being confronted by a series of provocations, which stem from the geopolitical strategic doctrines and adherence to neoliberal financial policies which flow from precisely the "respective ideologies and patterns of action" at the center of the challenge identified by Zepp LaRouche. These provocations include a global offensive of overheated rhetoric and threats from U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo, targeting both Russia and China; aggressive military maneuvers by U.S. and British forces, which include jet fighters and naval vessels probing the borders of both nations; an escalating pattern of sanctions and economic warfare; and a series of proposals for extending the range of military alliances, such as NATO and the proposal for a Quad formation in Asia, which would place troops directly at the borders of Russia and China, and dramatically increase the firepower of weaponry aimed at them. Also featured as part of this offensive is the dubious charge that Putin is behind the "poisoning" of opposition figure Navalny, who is the darling of those pushing for regime change in Russia; and the push for a Color Revolution to topple the government of Belarus.

That these provocations are occurring even as President Trump repeats the theme of his 2016 campaign in his 2020 re-election rallies, that he intends to put an end "to the era of endless wars", which he decries as "stupid policy", and wishes in particular to establish a friendly, cooperative relationship with Russia and President Putin, raises the question of who and what is behind these actions. Trump's victory in 2016 was in large part due to the distinction he drew between his intent to end the wars, and to reverse the deindustrialization of America caused by "globalist" so-called free trade agreements, with Hillary Clinton's commitment to continue the policies of the George W. Bush and Obama administrations—policies which included support for regime change coups, permanent war and an escalating attack on sovereign nations which rejected the failed policies of the post-Cold War order. That order was based, as Trump pointed out, not on a defense of the true national security interests of the American people, but of a global establishment, in which U.S. military and economic might served as the enforcer.

That "global establishment" is based in the City of London and Wall Street. Described by some as the "Deep State", it was more usefully identified by President Eisenhower in his farewell address in January 1961 as the "Military Industrial Complex" (MIC), a term President Trump has begun using in describing those committed to permanent war, and the bloated defense budgets associated with those wars. This is the network of War Hawks and promoters of neoliberal economic/financial policies which identified Trump as a dangerous adversary, when his campaign began steamrolling through the Bush-dominated Republican Party in the primaries in the spring of 2016. The response of this network to the threat posed by Trump was to launch the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, concocted by Britain's GCHQ and MI6, in collaboration with Obama's intelligence community, by claiming that he was a puppet of Putin, and must be kept out of the White House.

His defeat of Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the MIC, in the general election, led to an escalation of lies and slanders against him, which has continued throughout his presidency. An example of this is a New York Times article published on September 23, which reports that the CIA has "moderate confidence in its analysis" which claims that Putin is "likely" to be behind efforts "to aid Trump" in the 2020 election. As one intelligence professional noted, the expression "moderate confidence" means "no evidence." This charge coincides with an effort to mobilize support within the U.S. military for a coup against Trump, to physically remove him from the White House, which was exposed by former Pentagon official Col. Richard Black in a series of events sponsored by the Schiller Institute and LaRouchePAC.

The net effect of this ongoing operation has been to severely limit the potential for collaboration between Trump and Putin, which would be greatly facilitated by a series of face-to-face meetings. The coup effort against Trump, and the slanders and sanctions against Russia, were intensified after their 2018 summit in Helsinki demonstrated their joint commitment to work together against terrorism, and to prevent a costly and dangerous nuclear arms race.

IT'S THE BRITISH EMPIRE

These most recent developments should confirm for anyone with a grasp of the history of the tragic events unleashed in the twentieth that the source of these operations is what economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche identified as the "British Empire." The modern-day British Empire consists of the interlocking interests of corporate cartels, especially those in banking, the "shadow banking" system, finance, insurance and media, centered in the City of London, and the intelligence agencies, think tanks and "consultants" which operate under its direction. This includes those firms which are part of the post-9/11 "surveillance state", including the internet and social media profilers, such as Amazon, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., which were created as part of this conglomerate. This is the nexus which imposed a post-Cold War order of permanent warfare, deploying U.S. and NATO military power to enforce its control, and crush any opposition which emerged—as in the coups conducted against Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and that attempted in Syria, as well as that underway against President Trump in the United States! It also includes the growing efforts to censor anyone who challenges the imperial narrative channeled through the mainstream media, even as it collects data on everyone through the capabilities of a super-Surveillance state.

LaRouche proposed a "Four Power Agreement" to take on this empire in a webcast on November 18, 2008, in the wake of the crash of the speculative mortgage-backed securities bubble in September of that year, which nearly triggered a domino-style collapse of the bankrupt global financial system. In that presentation, LaRouche called for an agreement between the United States, Russia, China and India, to establish a new world credit system. Only an agreement of such sovereign nations has the power to take on the forces he identified as an "imperialist system, which is actually part of the British empire." The British empire, he said, "is not the British empire: It's an international monetary financial system, which has a base in England, but which operates globally. And since the breakdown of the U.S. dollar, in 1971, and the subsequent launching of the highly-speculative market in petroleum—the short-term speculative market in petroleum—the U.S. no longer controlled its own dollar. The dollar has been controlled increasingly, as the U.S. economy has deteriorated, by a London-centered crowd, centered in those financial interests."

This is the empire that is threatened by President Trump's assertion of the right to protect the sovereign interests of not just the United States, but of all nations, as he stated in his UNGA address in September 2019, and reiterated again this week. It is this empire, LaRouche said, that survives by using the 19th century strategy of British geopolitics, which pits nations against each other, and uses differences of religion, race, ethnicity, etc., in a global practice of "identity politics," to prevent nations from acting together in defense of the "Common Aims of Mankind."

The greatest threat to this empire would be the establishment of a common mission among the major powers in the world, which could be forged by a summit, or a series of summits, such as that proposed by President Putin. The forces running this empire see the convening of a summit as the most dangerous threat to their existence that they have faced, perhaps since the American Revolution. For their survival, it must be prevented, by whatever means necessary, including by launching wars, coups and terrorism internationally, and by supporting violent insurrection in the U.S., a constitutional crisis around the upcoming election, or even a military coup.

For those who wish to defeat these imperial forces, and win back the sovereignty of their nations, the most efficient means to do so is to mobilize support for the convening of a great power summit. The collapse of Russiagate and the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco created some breathing room for Trump to move ahead—it is now time to take the next step, and immediately begin the summit process. The howls emanating from the City of London in response will confirm that it is the correct and necessary step out of the collapsed global order, into a New Paradigm for humanity.

Reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.