A Win-Win Solution in Sea Dispute with China
By Victor N. Corpus
October 16, 2016 – The upcoming RP-China talks on the West Philippine Sea or South China Sea put the Philippines at the vital cross-road to war or peace. The choice of which road to take, war or peace, all depends on what strategy the Philippine negotiating team will adapt. A “win-lose strategy”, otherwise known as a “zero-sum game” will lead the Philippines to war; or, end up with zero benefits: zero oil; zero gas; and zero fish; in addition to angering a neighbor who is now the largest economy in the world in terms purchasing power parity measurement of its GDP. This neighbor is also our largest trading partner, bigger than RP trade with the US and Japan combined. The other road, which is a “win-win strategy”, will lead the Philippines to both peace and progress. It involves settling the issue of sovereignty acceptable to both parties; and ensure that the core interests of both sides are properly addressed and satisfied.
We have had a taste of a “win-lose strategy” when we unanimously won our case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. It was a total win for RP and a total loss for China. But this victory will eventually end up as a “zero-sum” game for us because China will make sure that we do not get a single drop of oil, a single cubic feet of gas, or even a single piece of fish in the disputed area. What we got instead are China’s fully-armed strategic bombers patrolling Scarborough Shawl and other Chinese-occupied islands in the disputed area. One such bomber (H6K) is capable of destroying all the six EDCA bases being used by US forces on Philippine soil in a single sortie; to include US bases in Australia if China wishes to. China’s submarines can deliver the same package if they are also now patrolling the disputed area declared by PCA as illegal as they are within the nine-dash line adjudge as non-existent. So, we won a tactical victory in the legal arena; but we are losing strategically on the geopolitical arena. Now we can say that all the islands claimed by China in the South China Sea is illegal. What if China, in revenge to what we have done, start occupying all the islands occupied by the Philippines? Have our leaders ever thought of that? Are we sure that US will come to our aid and die for us? All these are the dilemma we now face as a result of our “win-lose strategy” we have adapted in trying to resolve the sea dispute with China.
As talks with China approaches, it may be timely to contemplate on the right strategy to adapt. The initial choice of our negotiating team is critical at this point. If the President chooses negotiators who are inherently or historically hostile to China, then expect that our team will pursue a “win-lose strategy” that will eventually lead to war and/or we do not benefit at all from the rich resources of the West Philippine Sea or South China Sea under dispute. If President Duterte really does not want war as he has declared in the past, then he should dictate or command the Philippine negotiating team to adapt and follow a “win-win strategy” at the same time shunning the “win-lose strategy”. It is also the prime responsibility of the President to personally select the members of the negotiating team to make sure that each team member is not a warmonger, does not harbor innate hostility against the other party, and has the interest of the nation foremost in his heart; and not willing pawns of foreign interests whose dream is to sabotage and torpedo the incoming negotiations. These first moves are critical. As the saying goes: one false move on the chessboard losses the whole game. Wrong choice by the President on who will represent him in the incoming negotiations with China may mean the difference between war or peace.
What is the “win-win strategy”? This negotiation strategy involves a win for both sides: the Philippines and China. But before real win-win negotiations can begin, the highly contentious issue of sovereignty must be settled by the parties. The Philippines claims sovereignty based on legality; especially the recent decision handed down by the PCA at The Hague. China, on the other hand, claims sovereignty based on history; that they discovered those islands and gave them names so they have sovereignty based on international law and history. Both side have good points, but “never the twain shall meet” – even if both sides negotiate for a hundred, nay, a thousand years! Hence, better for both sides to set aside the sovereignty issue for the rest of the century; making clear that both sides do not abandon their respective territorial claim so that no one will lose face to their respective constituents. Once both sides agree on the issue of sovereignty, then the genuine “win-win talks” can begin.
What is a “WIN” for the Philippines? This consists of five basic items comprising Philippine core interests:
- Joint development, environment protection and exploitation of fishery and maritime resources in the disputed area;
- Joint exploration, exploitation and development of oil, gas, and other mineral resources in the said area;
- Visa-free and cooperation in people-to-people exchanges and tourism development in the disputed islands;
- For China to include and make Manila as the easternmost terminal HUB of the Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century;
- For China to support the development of the Manila Maritime HUB involving the modernization of major ports in Manila, Batangas, and Subic; development of the International Airport at Clark; a railway network north to south of both Luzon and Mindanao, to include Panay Island and Cebu; modernized telecom system (fiber optic networks and high-speed info highway); alternative energy development (solar, wind, etc.); and industrial/manufacturing zones in select cities along the railway networks. (China supported the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor with $46 billion. The Manila Maritime HUB can rival Pakistan’s Gwadar Port because a Manila Maritime HUB can extend the current Maritime Silk Road to reach Oceania and North and South America by reviving the ancient Manila-Acapulco galleon trade route).
Fears have been expressed about the Philippines, a small country, negotiating with a giant nation like China. I think it was Mao himself who said: turn a bad thing into a good thing. Being small, in fact, is our best weapon in the upcoming negotiations with China. The whole world is watching the unfolding drama in the South China Sea. This can prevent China from using bullying tactics against a small country like the Philippines. Surely, China is extremely wary of being seen perceived as a bully, for no small nation like the Philippines will ever dare talk to China again one-on-one if China forces us to get the small end of the bargain. Our negotiators should use our “smallness” to soften and eventually melt and win over the Dragon’s Heart.
What is a “WIN” for China?
To know what a “win” for China is, our negotiators should be well aware of China’s core interests in the South China Sea. Why did China build those artificial islands, three of which have 3-km long airstrips? And why is China prepared to risk war with the US and its major allies like Japan and Australia over those tiny islands?
Robert Kaplan, a renowned US geopolitical author and analyst, referred to those islands under contention in the SCS as a mere bunch of “barren rocks”, with practically no inhabitants, and of little geostrategic value; comparing it to the situation in Central Europe in World War I which was densely populated, resulting in some 17 million soldiers and civilians killed. Such military cataclysm, says Kaplan, cannot happen in the South China Sea situation.
China’s view is just the opposite of Kaplan’s. To the Chinese, holding on to those “barren rocks” may well spell the survival of the Chinese nation and civilization or their destruction. Why so? One of the main functions of those artificial islands with airstrips is to prevent a possible first nuclear strike against China’s East Coast where most of China’s manufacturing base and most of China’s almost 1.4 billion population are concentrated. US Ohio class nuclear submarines, each with 154 Tomahawk submarine-launched land attack cruise missiles with a range of 2,500 kilometers, each missile in turn armed with a nuclear warhead more than 10 times stronger than that used in Hiroshima, can surreptitiously and secretly approach China’s east coast from the deep portions of the SCS (i.e., the Manila Trench) and launch a first nuclear strike against China’s industrial base and population center. In just a few hours, if not minutes, the Chinese nation and civilization can be driven to extinction. This is the reason why China needs those artificial islands to monitor and counter any possible attack of this nature by US submarines or that of its allies. And China will surely go to war if those said islands, declared illegal by the Hague tribunal, will be taken militarily by force, by the US or whoever.
Another major reason for the establishment of those artificial islands by China is the prevention of any potential naval blockade by the US and its Japanese and Australian allies, or even joined by NATO, of the extremely vital Malacca Strait and other straits in the area (i.e., Lombok, Sunda, and Makassar). China’s oil trade with the Middle East and Africa and China’s overall trade in goods with Europe, the Persian Gulf states, and Africa pass through these straits. Effectively blocking such strategic bottlenecks can force the whole Chinese economy to grind to a halt. Hence, those Chinese artificial islands cum bases can prevent the US 7th Fleet and that of US allies from choking China’s oil and trade sea routes.
What then is a WIN for China? It is simply the maintenance of the status quo. China continues to hold on and develop the islands it is now controlling; and the Philippines also continue to hold on and develop the islands it now controls. (At the moment, China controls 9 or 10 of the islands; the Philippines controls 9 islands, while Vietnam controls 20+ islands.) Even if China controls a few number of the available islands in the disputed area, it is enough for China to satisfy their core interests; which is the prevention of a possible first strike by US nuclear submarines passing through the deep areas of the South China Sea and also prevent a potential naval blockade by the US and its allies on the vital straits surrounding SCS.
So a win for China is for the Philippines to agree on the current status quo: that both China and the Philippines continue occupying and developing the islands each country is occupying at the moment. This will put China’s mind at ease; free from worry of a possible first nuclear strike by US nuclear submarines secretly approaching China’s east coast from the Philippine deeps, or being blockaded at the Malacca Strait or other straits in the area.
Another major win for China (i.e., if China agrees to make Manila an important HUB in China’s Maritime Silk Road of the 21st Century with the revival of the ancient Manila-Acapulco galleon route) is the extension of the current Maritime Silk Road to encompass not only Asia, Europe and Africa but will include Oceania, North America, the Caribbean, and Latin America as well. It will make China’s “One Belt One Road” initiative (or the “New Silk Road”) truly a planetary-scale economic development that literally circumnavigate the world.
If this Win-Win solution is adapted by both parties, there is no more reason for continuing with EDCA. There is no more reason for China to put Philippine bases in the cross-hairs of their missiles. There is no more reason for the Philippines to be the epicenter of a battle between the superpowers.
About the Author: A graduate of Philippine Military Academy Cl’67; MPA ’90 from Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; Brig. Gen. Victor N. Corpus, (AFP, retired) spent five years with the New People’s Army (1971-76); detained for 10 years under Martial Law and sentenced to death by musketry; but later became Chief, Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
By Jeffrey Steinberg
After the House of Representatives followed the U.S. Senate by passing the JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) bill by unanimous voice vote, President Barack Obama has announced that he will veto the bill—setting up a head-on confrontation between the President on the one side, and the U.S. Congress, the 9/11 families and the American people on the other. JASTA would allow the survivors of 9/11 and the families of the 2,997 people killed in the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center to finally have their day in court to confront the Saudi Monarchy for their role in supporting the terrorists.
President Obama has so far announced his plans to veto JASTA, which arrived on his desk on Monday, Sept. 12, the day after the 15th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history. He has ten business days—until Sept. 23—to either sign the bill or send a veto message to Congress. Already, leading Senators and Representatives from both parties have made clear that they have lined up more than enough votes to obtain a 2/3 majority in both Houses and thus override an Obama veto. The White House is teaming up with the Saudis and other states of the Gulf Cooperation Council to arm-twist members of the Senate and House to change their votes and accept the President’s veto.
Terry Strada, a leading spokesperson for the 9/11 families (her husband Tom Strada was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11) has announced that there will be a protest outside the White House on Tuesday, Sept. 20 to demand that Obama either signs the bill into law or casts his veto to allow Congress to do its patriotic duty and override his shameful action.
Lyndon LaRouche commented on Sept. 15 that he expects Obama to veto JASTA “because he is an agent of the British System.” He takes his orders from the British Monarchy, and London has as much to lose in an honest trial in U.S. Federal Court as their Saudi underlings. A prominent member of the British House of Commons has written recently in the Daily Telegraph that under JASTA, the British Monarchy can be sued as well as the Saudis, because of London’s longstanding support for the very same terrorists behind 9/11.
The evidence of the Anglo-Saudi hand is overwhelming. The 28 pages from the original Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, co-chaired by former Senator Bob Graham, clearly revealed the central role of Prince Bandar bin-Sultan in the 9/11 attacks. Bandar, who was Ambassador from Saudi Arabia to the United States at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was so close to President George W. Bush that he was nicknamed “Bandar Bush,” financed at least two of the 9/11 hijackers via Saudi intelligence officers in the San Diego area, and he had ties to top Al Qaeda leaders, as revealed in the 28 pages.
Bandar is himself a British agent. In 1985, he and Margaret Thatcher engineered the Al Yamamah oil-for-arms deal, through which the British and the Saudis amassed a secret, offshore slush fund in excess of $100 billion, to finance global terrorism, regime change, and assassinations.
In a speech at a major conference on the 9/11 attacks at the Cooper Union campus in Manhattan on Sept. 10, EIR senior editor Jeffrey Steinberg pointed out that Bandar was no Wahhabi fundamentalist. “He had a greater affinity for single malt scotch and Cuban cigars than for Islam,” Steinberg told the audience of 300 9/11 activists. “Bandar was acting as an agent of the Saudi Monarchy in providing the critical support to the hijackers, and he was doing it on behalf of the Bush-Cheney Administration,” Steinberg declared. He reminded the audience that in Jan. 2001, Lyndon LaRouche’s national spokesperson, Debra Freeman, had testified against the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General, on the grounds that the incoming Bush-Cheney Administration was committed to imposing a police-state dictatorship on the United States and would look for the first opportunity to stage a Reichstag Fire incident to get to that goal. “That was a forecast that, unfortunately, came true nine months later,” Steinberg said. “Bush and Cheney suppressed the 28 page chapter, that showed the Saudi Monarchy’s hand behind the 9/11 hijackers, in order to make sure nothing stood in the way of their plans to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.”
In addition to passing JASTA by a veto-proof majority, there are other urgent actions that must be taken to finally get to the full truth about 9/11. There are literally millions of pages of government documents from the investigation into 9/11 that remain classified to this day. A Federal Judge in Florida is reviewing 80,000 pages of long-suppressed FBI files on another high-ranking Saudi businessman who hosted three of the 9/11 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta.To date, no documents have been released on the 9/11 cells that were operating in Paterson, NJ or Herndon, VA in the year leading to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Sen. Bob Graham, Rep. Walter Jones and other leaders of the fight for the truth about 9/11 have demanded that the government release all of these secret files. As Graham told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, the release of the 28 pages “popped the cork on the bottle, and now we must see the entire contents.”
The American people want the truth to come out. During the weekend of Sept. 9–12, approximately 4,000 people turned out for memorial concerts in New York City and Morristown, NJ where the Schiller Institute NYC Community Chorus performed Mozart’s Requiem, to commemorate and honor those who lost their lives on 9/11 and the many thousands of first-responders who have since died or contracted grave illnesses as the result of their heroic response to the 9/11 tragedy. For those heroes and for all people, the truth about those horrible events has no statute of limitation.
The full wrath of the American people must now be directed at President Obama, to force him, despite his actual loyalties, to do the right thing and sign JASTA into law.
If Obama is so filled with treasonous hatred for the United States that he issues a veto, the Congress must stand up with a single voice and pass the measure by an overwhelming majority—and then take the proper Constitutional action against Obama.
If Barack Obama does go ahead and vetoes JASTA, this should lead to his immediate impeachment. Any President who puts the interests of the British and Saudi Monarchies ahead of those of the American people is prima facie guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and must be immediately removed from office. Otherwise, the Constitution itself loses all meaning.#
Shultz and the ‘Hit Men’ Destroyed the Philippines
by Mike Billington
December 24, 2004
Editor’s Note: This is the third in a series of features on the assault against the Third World by the “Economic Hit Men.” We examine here first the case of the Philippines, and then Mexico.
The U.S.-orchestrated coup which overthrew the government of Philippines’ President Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 was a classic case study of what John Perkins describes in his recent book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, as the post-World War II preferred method of imposing colonial control under another name. In the Philippines case, George Shultz per-formed the roles of both the economic hit man, destroying and taking full control of the Philippine economy, and the coup-master, deposing the Philippine President in favor of an IMF puppet—while calling the operation “people’s power.”
Throughout this process, from the late 1970s through the February 1986 coup, and beyond, Lyndon LaRouche and his collaborators were fully engaged in the fight to expose and reverse this subversion and destruction of one of America’s most important allies, by the supranational financial institu-tions which Shultz and his ilk represent. By mobilizing sup-port from patriots of both the United States and the Philip-pines, the LaRouche effort put a spotlight on the crimes of the Shultz cabal, as will be shown below. Although the effort failed to stop the process at that time, the crimes thus exposed in the Philippines can and must serve today as a nemesis to Shultz and his neo-conservative operatives, who are in an endgame in their effort to impose a new fascist order over the planet.
In a Nov. 16 interview on radio station DZAR in Manila, LaRouche described his own view of the special mission of the Philippines nation: “The Philippines has a very important pivotal role, some people would say geopolitically, in the entire region, of trying to bring together on a global scale for the first time, a world system, which is capable of accommodating both the European cultural heritage and Asian cultures. This is the great barrier, the great frontier, of a hopeful future for this planet: to bring together the cultures of Asia—which are different than those of Western Europe generally—with European culture, to get a global culture based on a system of sovereign nation-states, which understands that this unresolved cultural question has to be addressed, with a long-term view, of several generations, of creating an integrated set of sovereign nation-states as the system of the planet. So the Philippines is a very special country, with a unique importance for the people of Asia, in particular, in playing a key role in bringing about this kind of general integration of Asian and European civilizations.”
The lesson of the subversion of the Philippines in the 1980s for today is clear. Shultz is the eminence gris behind the neoconservatives running the Bush Administration, which has brought the world to the current disastrous circumstance. It is also the case that the Philippines, although currently lacking any national leadership comparable to that of Marcos, is nonetheless facing a new coup threat, orchestrated by the same neoconservative circles in Washington who were responsible for the 1986 coup.
In the early 1980s, the circles around then-Secretary of State George Shultz (left) and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz (right), led a massive propaganda campaign against President Ferdinand Marcos. “His overthrow by the Shultz cabal had nothing to do with the charges issued publicly, but were intended to stop his national development policies, and his international collaboration with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice.”
The popular memory of Ferdinand Marcos today, in the U.S. and in the Philippines, is largely shaped by the massive disinformation campaign created in the early 1980s by the circles around then-Secretary of State Shultz, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz. Marcos was accused of corruption, human rights violations, plunder, and even the murder of a political opponent, Benigno Aquino—and this caricature is repeated ad nauseam still today. While Marcos was not without faults, he was by far the last Filipino head of state to have understood the challenge of true leadership in a world slipping towards chaos. His overthrow by the Shultz cabal had nothing to do with the charges issued publicly, but were intended to stop his national development policies, and his international collaboration with LaRouche and others in countering the genocidal policies of the IMF, and bringing into being a new world economic system based on development and justice.
Marcos’s True Legacy
Marcos was elected President in 1965, just as the United States launched the disastrous and futile war in Indochina. The fact that the United States used its bases in the Philip-pines, Subic Bay and Clark Airfield in Luzon, as launching pads for the Indochina War, fed a domestic insurgency by the Maoist New People’s Army (NPA). Marcos was then treated as a close friend and ally of the United States. Even when he declared martial law in 1972, with the Indochina War still raging, the Administration of President Richard Nixon raised no objections.
But Marcos was not only concerned about “counterinsurgency” in declaring martial law. When he was elected President in 1965, the Philippines was still essentially a colonial economy, although the United States had granted full independence on July 4, 1946, as had been promised by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934. Productivity was low in both agriculture and industry: agriculture lagged as the Philippines relied on special access to U.S. food exports, and industry was confined to process industries, rather than the development of basic industries.
Marcos set out immediately to establish Philippine food self-sufficiency in rice and corn. This also required breaking the control of the landed aristocracy left over from the Spanish imperial era. Marcos was the first President of the Philippines who did not rise from this elite class, but was a “commoner” trained as a lawyer.
As President, he focused on basic agricultural infrastructure, especially irrigation, in the major food-producing regions of Luzon and Mindanao. Credit facilities, mechanization, and the introduction of high-yield rice varieties, which needed irrigation, resulted in the elimination of rice imports by 1968.
Land reform, primarily a political problem, remained illusive. However, when Marcos imposed martial law in 1972, among his first acts was a proclamation that the entire nation was to be considered a “land reform area,” and a declaration that all tenants working land devoted primarily to rice and corn were to be the owners of that land, up to a specified limit. Despite the enraged opposition of the oligarchy, the program proved to be extraordinarily successful. Coupled with the infrastructure and mechanization improvements, a quarter of a million peasants became land owners, and grain productivity increased by half.
Marcos built the first (and so far, only) nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia, and in 1979 announced a plan for 11 major industrial projects, with the intention of shifting the nation’s industrial economy from consumer goods to basic heavy industry. The IMF attacked these projects as unrealistic, demanding debt payment instead.
Another major step after the declaration of martial law was to contract with Westinghouse for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant—which was to be the first (and would still be the only) commercial nuclear power plant in Southeast Asia. While nuclear power is clearly the only sane solution to the energy requirements across the region, the sad saga of the Bataan Nuclear Plant symbolizes the pure evil of the policies enforced by the “economic hit men.” As originally contracted, the plant should have cost about $1 billion, and produced 1,200 MW of electricity by 1984. However, after the hysteria generated by the anti-nuclear “Nuclear Club of Wall Street” (see EIR, Dec. 3, 2004) following the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania, the Carter Administration imposed retroactive safety regulations which contributed to more than doubling the cost of construction. Then, after the overthrow of Marcos in 1986, one of the first acts of the new Presidency of Corazon Aquino was to moth-ball the fully completed, but never used, Bataan Nuclear Plant. The Philippines has been forced to pay countless billions in debt service, and pays still today over $155,000 per day, for this nuclear facility, without having drawn one watt of electricity from the state-of-the-art facility. Two further nuclear power facilities which were planned to provide 1,880 MW of electricity by 1991, were also scrapped.
Nuclear energy was not the only innovation of the Marcos regime. In 1979 Marcos announced a plan for 11 major industrial projects, with the intention of shifting the focus of the nation’s industrial economy from consumer goods to basic heavy industry. Included in the plan were steel, petrochemical, pulp and paper, a copper smelter, aluminum, phosphate fertilizer, diesel engines, gas and oil, a coconut industry, and the nuclear power program.
The Marcos Administration, during the 1972-81 martial law period, tripled the country’s road network, doubled the electrification of the country’s homes, increased irrigated cropland eight-fold, and achieved rice and corn self-sufficiency.
Minimum daily wage rates tripled, although inflation, driven by international oil price hikes and exploding U.S. interest rates, more than wiped out these wage increases.
Enter the Economic Hit Men
This level of development—especially the capacity to free the nation from dependence on the international oil and raw materials cartels—was not to be tolerated by the international financial institutions. The contrived oil shortages of the 1970s left the Philippines, like all non-oil-producing nations, with huge debts. This was followed by the 20%-plus interest rates imposed by U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker in 1979, which doubled and tripled the debts of most Third World nations within a few years.
In 1981, Marcos lifted martial law. Also in that year, he attended the North-South Summit in Cancun, Mexico, organized by Mexican President Jose´ Lo´pez Portillo (see accompanying article) where he spoke out for a “new world economic order,” and denounced the destructive “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF in exchange for financial assistance in a crisis. Then, in September 1981, Marcos pushed through the Philippine Congress nearly $4 billion worth of priority infrastructure projects, including irrigation, drainage and flood control programs, highways, telecommunications, and airports.
This was answered in 1982 (the year George Shultz be-came Secretary of State) by an IMF report which attacked Marcos’s projects, demanding debt payment instead: “In the Philippines situation, restraint on public investment could be an effective instrument for securing an improvement in the current account deficit.” IMF Director Jacques Delarosie`re lectured that the country had set “unrealistic growth targets,” while the World Bank denounced the Marcos government for supporting national industries.
These “softening up” raids were not adequate to control the Marcos government. Shultz visited Manila in the Summer of 1983, overseeing another 20% devaluation of the Philip-pine peso, thus further increasing the costs of financing the already-illegitimate foreign debt.
When Marcos was elected President in 1965, the Philippines still had a colonial economy. He moved to establish food self-sufficiency, which brought him into conflict with the landed aristocracy left over from the Spanish imperial era. “Marcos was the first President of the Philippines who did not rise from this elite class, but was a ‘commoner’ trained as a lawyer.” Here, a shantytown in Manila.
The full-scale assault began in the Fall of 1983, with the murder of Benigno Aquino. Aquino, an opposition leader whom Marcos had allowed to leave prison in order to get medical treatment in the United States (despite facing a death sentence for murder and subversion), chose to return to the Philippines in August 1983 after three years in the United States. He was gunned down as he emerged from his plane in Manila.
Although the actual conspirators were never officially dis-covered, the assassination was immediately blamed on Mar-cos, and the economic hit men called in the “jackals” (as Perkins called those whose job was to depose or even kill world leaders who resisted the demands of the economic hit men like himself). In the Philippines, Shultz and Wolfowitz doubled as economic hit men and jackals.
As to Aquino’s view of the pending threat to his life, he had been asked by the U.S. magazine Mother Jones in January 1983, while contemplating his return to the Philippines: “What do you think Marcos will do?” Aquino replied: “He will keep me alive, because he knows the moment I die, I am a martyr, like Martin Luther King, and he wouldn’t want that.
The Aug. 16, 1985 EIR reported that U.S. Ambassador Bosworth was plotting, with Acting Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Fidel Ramos, to overthrow Marcos. “The story was based on information from reliable sources both in the Philippines and in Washington, where certain patriotic layers within the government, intelligence, and the military did not accept America’s transformation into an imperial power. . . .”
Another possibility, he lets me out, and the communists knock me off. They blame Marcos. They have a martyr and they have eliminated a stumbling block.” Aquino also understood the actual cause of the economic disaster striking the Philip-pines: “If you made me President of the Philippines today, my friend, in six months I would be smelling like horseshit. Because there is nothing I can do. I cannot provide employment. I cannot bring prices down.”
Within two months of the assassination, the remaining credit lines to the Philippines were drastically cut, and another 21% devaluation was imposed. The nation was bankrupt. Finally, on Oct. 15, 1983, Marcos was allowed to declare a moratorium on the unpayable debt, but only on condition that the big projects he had backed to modernize the nation be scrapped, while many of the industries supported by the state were turned over to domestic and international vultures (this was done under the guise of accusing the owners of these industries of being corrupt “cronies” of Marcos).
The LaRouche movement, meanwhile, was sponsoring conferences in Bangkok, Thailand, one in October 1983, and another in October 1984, on the subject of the proposal authored by Lyndon LaRouche for “Development of the Pacific and Indian Ocean Basins.” Philippines Deputy Foreign Minister Pacifico Castro attended the 1984 Conference, speaking on “Regional Economic Cooperation and Security,” joined by government and business leaders from across the region. The conferences proposed such “Great Projects” as the Kra Canal in Thailand, and the physical transformation of Asia, as the driving force behind a new world economic order.
The opponents of Marcos were soon being wined and dined in Washington, by both the right wing (Shultz and Wolfowitz) and the left wing (Rep. Stephen Solarz, Sen. Ted Kennedy, and Princeton’s Richard Falk) of the “Project Democracy” apparatus, which performed the subversive tasks assigned by the synarchist banking institutions. Salvador Laurel, the son of the quisling President of the Philippines under the Japanese occupation, headed the opposition after Aquino’s assassination, and in February 1984, visited Washington, where he was greeted by Vice President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State Shultz. Representative Solarz introduced legislation into the Congress to abdicate the treaty regulating the U.S. bases in the Philippines, cutting the agreed aid to the Philippines by two-thirds. At the same time, a nest of anti-nuclear and anti-development NGOs in the United States took up the cause of overthrowing the “Marcos dictatorship,” including a gathering of anti-nuclear forces in Manila, including Richard Falk and representatives of the West German Green Party. Stephen Bosworth, a close collaborator of Henry Kissinger, was appointed Ambassador to the Philip-pines, and from that position he would subsequently orchestrate the coup against Marcos.
By October 1984, the Philippines was forced to submit to an IMF refinancing package that included an end to price controls on rice and other staples, a float of the peso, unrestricted foreign exchange speculation, import reductions, domestic austerity, and yet another devaluation—making a total of a 63.3% devaluation in one year, nearly doubling the cost of financing the foreign debt. Ironically, the opposition, fully supported and sponsored by the IMF-related institutions, rallied support among the population by denouncing Marcos for “acceding to the oppressive conditions of the IMF.”
Marcos in 1985 greeted Gen. Mercado Jarrin, (ret.), head of Peru’s Institute of Geostrategic and Political Studies, who was part of an EIR/Schiller Institute delegation to discuss a partial moratorium on foreign debt. On Mercado’s left is then-Philippine Foreign Minister Pacifico Castro, who had spoken at a LaRouche movement conference on “Development of the Pacific and Indian Ocean Basins” in 1984.
Throughout 1985, President Ronald Reagan defended the American relationship with the Philippines and with President Marcos, despite the fact that Secretary of State Shultz and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz openly disagreed with that assessment, instead demanding Marcos’s head. The crisis came to a head in July 1984, when the U.S. Congress adopted the Solarz proposal to rip up the Bases Agreement, not only slashing the financial commitments, but insisting that the remaining aid be distributed not by the Philippine government, but by the Church, which, under Cardinal Jaime Sin, had openly called for insurrection against the government.
By November, the plans for insurrection were unveiled publicly, as the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the home of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brezezinski, carried out a “war game” against the Philippines, based on a scenario in which President Mar-cos is assassinated, Soviet “spetsnaz” commandos join the New People’s Army in taking over the Philippines, and the U.S. military goes into action to “save” the country.
The CSIS’s work in Asia was largely financed at that time by the C.V. Starr insurance empire, run by Maurice “Hank” Greenberg. Greenberg and C.V. Starr owned most of the insurance industry in the Philippines, and a number of Philip-pine politicians as well, and served as the crucial “on the ground” economic hit man in the Marcos coup.
Marcos continued fighting for the principle of a new world economic order. In November 1985, EIR and the Schiller Institute, the international association directed by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, invited Gen. Edgardo Mercado Jarrin (ret.), the head of Peru’s Institute of Geostrategic and Political Studies, to tour Asia, promoting the partial moratorium on foreign debt then being implemented by the Peruvian government. In addition to conferences in Thailand and India, General Mercado Jarrin and the EIR/Schiller Institute delegation met with President Marcos in Manila. Marcos told the delegation:
The EIR expose´e forced a public denial by General Ramos and by Ambassador Bosworth. As events proved, the warning was deadly accurate.
Marcos was finally coerced by Washington into calling new elections for February 1986, even though the Constitution mandated elections only in 1987. The opposition, in constant coordination with U.S. Ambassador Bosworth and the Shultz State Department, chose to run Aquino’s widow, Corazon Aquino, as the Presidential candidate, with Laurel for Vice President.
As still seen today in such neoconcontrolled “people’s power revolutions,” such as in Georgia and Ukraine, U.S. intelligence agencies financed and controlled the “citizen” electoral monitor organization, the National Movement for a Free Election (Namfrel), and prepared to declare “vote fraud” if the election did not go the way intended. Paul Wolfowitz in November 1985 told the U.S. Congress that there would be a “complete collapse of political confidence” if the elections were not perceived as “fair”—i.e., if Marcos were not defeated.
Indeed, on election day, the opposition was ahead in the early returns from Manila—which was expected—and Aquino was instructed to declare herself the winner. How-ever, when the rural votes came in, where Marcos was still loved for the development he had brought to the nation, Marcos overtook Aquino and won the election.
Women and children working in a small, labor intensive UNICEF project to supplement their food supply in 1986, the year after Marcos became President. Instead of this type of project, where people labor like animals, Marcos opted for extensive industrialization and infrastructure projects. Instead of seeing too many people, as did the IMF apologists, he saw unrealized creative potential.
In an astonishing public admission, former U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines William Sullivan (who had also been Ambassador to Iran when the Shah was overthrown by similar means in 1979), told CBS News on Feb. 9, two days after the Philippines election: “The facts as they emerge are becoming increasingly irrelevant, because it’s the perception that pre-vails both in the Philippines and, I think, internationally, that Mrs. Aquino won the election as far as the polling places were concerned, but the government, in the tabulation, changed the vote counts.”
As EIR had warned, General Ramos then led a military revolt against President Marcos, calling for crowds to surround the military base in the center of Manila, to create an image of “people’s power,” while the masses of the population were disenfranchised by the overthrow of their elected President. By the end of February, President Reagan had been convinced by Shultz to give up his defense of President Mar-cos, and endorse the military coup; Marcos and his family were sent to Hawaii.
The results of this subversion are still evident today in the decay of the economic and social fabric of the Philippines. Corazon Aquino fulfilled every IMF request, from the closure of the completed nuclear power facility to the deregulation and privatization of much of the economy. It was a surprise to some of Aquino’s supporters, but not to LaRouche, when the pro-IMF members of the Marcos Cabinet were retained in the new government. General Ramos took over directly in the next Presidential election in 1992, selling the nation to the Enrons of the West through corrupt, unequal contract agreements, especially in the energy sector, which left the country in absolute bankruptcy after the speculative assault on the Asian economies in 1997-98. Joseph Estrada, another “commoner,” was elected President in 1998, but was allowed only two years in office before another “economic hit man”-orchestrated coup (again with General Ramos doing the bid-ding for his foreign controllers) brought him down in January 2001.
The current President, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has generally done what was demanded of her by the neoconservatives in power in Washington. However, when she pulled the token Philippine military force out of Iraq, and then up-graded the country’s relations with China, she won the ire of her patrons, and is now facing the threat of yet another coup— with General Ramos again the neocons’ man on the scene.
LaRouche, together with his collaborators in the Philip-pines, intends to use this history of the economic hit men, in the Philippines and elsewhere, as a necessary part of the fight to end such criminality forever. As LaRouche concluded in his address to the Nov. 16 radio show quoted above: “I have had a long-standing special attachment to the Philippines, and I am very much concerned for its integrity and sovereignty and well-being today. I would be very happy, and the Philip-pines would make me very happy, by being truly sovereign, successful, growing, and peaceful again today. And you may expect that wherever I am and whatever I am doing, that commitment is very active within me, for very special reasons that I won’t bother going into, on this question of the Philip-pines. I am concerned. The sovereignty of the Philippines and the success of the Philippines as a sovereign Presidential republic is, to me, one of the necessary ingredients of a future for the whole Pacific area of the world.”
Ramtanu Maitra and Gail Billington contributed to the research for this report.
The author can be reached at email@example.com.
(Re-posted from Executive Intelligence Review Magazine in United States of America)
December 24, 2004
“Global warming is a HOAX”
Isang pagtalakay ang ginawa ng mga siyentipiko patungkol sa global warming kung saan pinag aralan nila ang tunay na sahi nito. Ang pabago-bagong klima sa mga bansa at unting-unti pagkasira ng ozone layer ay isa lamang sa mga bunga ng global warming sa mundo.
Sinabi nila na ang Global warming ay isa lamang propaganda at ito ay hindi totoo,naniniwala ang karamihan na ang sanhi ng global warming sa mundo ay dahil sa kagagawan ng mga tao itinanggi naman ng mga siyentipiko ang paniniwalang ito.
Paglilinaw nila, na hinulaan ang karagatan na tataas sa 20 feet pagdating ng taong 2100 ngunit 80% ng tubig ang sinukat ngunit, ipinakita na walang pagtaas ang naganap kaysa sa opisyal na “global average” at maraming tides ang nagpakita na walang pagtaas sa antas ng dagat at halos walang acceleration ang ipinakita sa loob ng nakaraang 20 na taon.
Ayon sa kanila ang pagtaas ng temperatura sa mundo ay sanhi ng araw bukod dito,sinabi nila na ang pabago bagong temperatura ay likas at natural lamang sa paglipas ng panahon ito ang prosesong hindi natin maiiwasan kahit noong unang panahon pa lamang.
Ang mga bagay na naiambag ng tao tulad ng mga makabagong teknolohiya at pagyabong ng Industrializations sa mundo at iba pa ay maliit lamang na porsyento.
Nilinaw din nila na ang CO2 ay hindi din sanhi ng pagtaas ng temperatura sa mundo.
Nagkaroon ng haka-haka ang media ukol sa paglabas ng problemang ito at di kinalaunan ay naging Interesado sila dito at naging sanhi ng pagkakampanya ng mga pulitiko at environmentalist upang maprotektahan ang mundo. Ang kampanyang ito ay nilabasan ng pondo upang maprotektahan ang mundo at upang maiwasan ang climate change.
Sa pagyabong ng ng Issue na ito ay binuwag ni George Bush ang mga Industrial organization at ang patakarang ito ay nakaapekto ng malaki sa mga mahihirap na tao.
Dahil sa lumalalang pagtalakay ng global warming ay tinawag itong mga siyentipiko na hindi makataong pamamaraan at dahil sa kawalan ng kaalaman naaapektuhan ang mga mahihirap at nagiging sanhi ng kanilang pagkamatay.
FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2015
———EIR Daily Alert Service———
EIR DAILY ALERT SERVICE P.O. BOX 17390, WASHINGTON, DC 20041-0390
• Eisenhower Blocked Nuclear War; Kennedy Blocked Nuclear War; Does Hillary Have the Guts?
• China Accuses U.S. of ‘Militarizing’ South China Sea; Announces Joint China-Russia Naval Exercises in Sea of Japan
• Russia Vetoes Fake UN Resolution on MH17
• The Undefined, Dangerous Nature of U.S.-Turkey Agreement on Syria
• Congressman Walter Jones Voices Strong Support for Motion To Remove Boehner
• Italy’s Mezzogiorno Has Collapsed More than Greece, according to Svimez Industrial Development Think Tank
• Italian Economist Rinaldi: Are There Secret EU Clauses Allowing the Troika Takeover of Greece?
• Corbyn vs. Blair—U.K. Unions Choosing Glass-Steagall over Genocide • BRICS $100 Billion Currency Pool Opened Today
• Turkey’s Erdogan Seeks Role in ‘One Road, One Belt,’ Membership in SCO
Eisenhower Blocked Nuclear War; Kennedy Blocked Nuclear War; Does Hillary Have the Guts?
July 30 (EIRNS)—Hillary Clinton probably has the fate of the human species in her hands. If she acts now to expose what she personally knows about Obama’s lying criminality concerning the September 11, 2012 murders of four United States government representatives in Benghazi, Libya,— then Hillary’s Presidential campaign will be at an end, because she will be forced to betray her own complicity (even if it was reluctant complicity), with Obama. But she will have saved humanity from probable extinction, in a thermonuclear war which Obama would otherwise launch against Russia and China during the month of August, with Congress out of session.
Now it is only that one voice, that of the hitherto complicit Hillary Clinton, in breaking with her own complicity, which can either throw Obama out of office during August,— or else bring him so close to impeachment and conviction during August, that he is unable to launch the war which his mistress, the British Queen, demands.
Hillary’s personal situation,— that of her awesome personal responsibility at this instant,— may be unusual, but it is by no means unprecedented. If there has been no international nuclear war since 1945, causing hundreds of millions of casualties or worse, it has been because some U.S. Presidents, and others, have passed the test which now confronts Hillary Clinton. They passed it because they came to recognize that absolutely no personal consideration, no sacrifice,— even that of their own lives and more, if it comes to that,— could remotely be compared with thermonuclear war. And today, unlike in those past decades, that war might be as short as two days, and would likely end the existence of our
Eisenhower had said in 1946, “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.” When he decided to run for President, he recognized the drift of Truman and the Truman Administration towards nuclear war, and was determined to reverse it. In the 1954 Dien Bien Phu crisis, as in the 1956 Suez crisis, he understood that descent into nuclear war was around the corner, and acted accordingly. Eisenhower inspired the institution of the U.S. Presidency for the truth, as he stated it in 1956, that “The only way to win World War III is to prevent it.”
The true facts of how close we came to nuclear war in 1962, and of everything President John F. Kennedy did to avoid it, are even today only known to very few. How he used his brother Robert as a totally-secret channel to the Soviet leadership, circumventing his contaminated cabinet and even his White House. He knew that their advice would probably lead to a devastating war.
How he persuaded the Soviets to give up a large part of their war-making capacity. For all those critical days, only that one single objective dominated him totally. But he reached that objective,— even at the cost of his life.
Nor should it be forgotten how Pope John XXIII, then just as close to the end of his own life as was President Kennedy, himself boldly intervened into that crisis, totally on his own responsibility and against the advice of his Curia.
The mention of the Pope should remind us of how the office, or, better said, the responsibility, changes the man. It should remind us of St. Paul’s conversion on Damascus Road. This change, or the potentiality for this change, is the only meaning of being human. Those who deny that Hillary Clinton can make this change are guilty of a criminal cynicism about themselves.
STRATEGIC WAR DANGER
China Accuses U.S. of ‘Militarizing’ South China Sea; Announces Joint China- Russia Naval Exercises in Sea of Japan
July 30 (EIRNS)—China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun today accused the U.S. of militarizing the South China Sea. “The U.S. side disregards and distorts the facts, and plays up China’s military threat, to sow discord between China and the littoral states in the South China Sea,” said Yang. “We firmly oppose such actions. The Chinese side expresses its serious concern over U.S. activities to militarize the South China Sea region. Such actions taken by the U.S. side would inevitably arouse suspicion from others that, does the U.S. want nothing better than chaos in the region?”
The head of U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Harry Harris this week warned China against militarizing the South China Sea (which, of course, is at least partially Chinese territory), calling the area “front and center in the tug-of-war between the majority of regional nations that want to maintain the status quo, and China that wants to change it to suit its narrow self-interest.”
China’s Yang countered this, noting that the status quo was being dramatically altered, not by China, but by the U.S. militarization, including building up alliances in the region (such as the mass deployment of advanced U.S. military forces into the Philippines), stepped-up joint exercises in the region, bringing Japan into exercises far from its borders, and increased provocative close-in reconnaissance of the Chinese armed forces.
China held a one-day live fire naval drill in the South China Sea on July 28, and will hold large naval exercises in the South China Sea between. Aug. 1-8, to mark the 88th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Liberation Army.
Defense spokesman Yang also announced today that Russia and China will hold joint naval exercises from Aug. 20-28 in the Sea of Japan and in the Gulf of Peter the Great, which lies off the strategic Far Eastern Russian port city of Vladivostok.
Russia Vetoes Fake UN Resolution on MH17
July 30 (EIRNS)—Russia vetoed a resolution at the UN Security Council yesterday, that would have established an international tribunal to try those individuals and entities allegedly responsible for the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Clearly the backers of the resolution knew that Russia opposed it and would veto it, yet they proceeded anyway. Therefore, the only purpose in proceeding with such a vote, knowing what the outcome would be, would be to push forward the drive for war against Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin telegraphed ahead of the vote that Russia would veto it. “The Russian President confirmed the unchanging position that it is inexpedient to create such a judicial body,” the Kremlin said in a statement following a phone call between Putin and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
Eleven members of the council voted in favor of the proposal by Malaysia, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ukraine, while China, Angola and Venezuela abstained.
The expected chorus of denunciations of Russia followed from the usual suspects. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power told the council that “no veto will stand in the way of this heinous crime being investigated and prosecuted.” The Australian Foreign Minister declared that “Those responsible may believe that they can now hide behind the Russian Federation’s veto. They will not be allowed to evade justice.”
Franz Klintsevich, a member of the Duma Defense Committee, told reporters in Moscow yesterday, that the purpose of the debate was to fan confrontation and hysteria rather than to get to the truth about the tragedy. “We’re dealing with a sheer propaganda action that seeks to affect public opinion, which is gradually inclining towards cooperation with Russia,” he said.
The Undefined, Dangerous Nature of U.S.-Turkey Agreement on Syria July 30 (EIRNS)—It won’t be a no-fly zone or a safe zone in Syria, three unnamed U.S. officials told reporters on a conference call on July 28. So what will it be, this zone that the U.S. and Turkey will be creating along the border in northern Syria following the July 23 agreement between U.S. President Barack Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan? “In terms of what exactly it looks like and how it will look and what the modalities are, that’s what we have to work out with [the Turks],” one official said according to a report on the Defense One news site.
They’re calling it an “ISIS-free zone,” but who will make sure that ISIS isn’t operating in the zone? The Turks don’t want any Syrian Kurds in the zone, though the U.S.-backed Kurdish YPG militia has been the most effective force against ISIS. The Turkish English-language daily Today’s Zaman notes that if the 98-kilometer-long area falls into the hands of the Kurds, Turkey will not have access to moderate Syrian rebels, because the entire border will either be controlled by Kurds or Syrian government forces. Since there will be no Turkish or U.S. troops on the ground inside Syria, “the prevailing idea is to coordinate with moderate Syrian opposition fighters for control of the territory,” but “Finding them [the so-called moderates], however, is another daunting task.”
The U.S.-backed Syrian opposition groups have lost a great deal of territory they once controlled in northwestern Syria to the al-Qaeda-linked Al Nusra Front since last November.
“Finding them” might have suddenly become even more difficult. Reuters reported, yesterday, that according to opposition sources and the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, militants from Al Nusra abducted Nadim al-Hassan, the leader of a rebel group called Division 30, and a number of his companions, following a meeting in Azaz, north of Aleppo, to coordinate efforts with other factions. According to Reuters sources, most of the 54 Syrian opposition fighters, including al-Hassan, who have gone through the U.S. trainand-equip program have been from Division 30.
U.S. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
Congressman Walter Jones Voices Strong Support for Motion To Remove Boehner July 30 (EIRNS)—Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) yesterday filed a motion in the House of Representatives to remove John Boehner (OH) from his position as Speaker of the House. In reporting on Meadows’s motion, CNN obtained comments from his colleague, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), who provided a strong explanation for the motion.
“We are sent here to represent the people of our districts,” Jones said. “Our first allegiance should be to the people we represent, not to the Speaker of the House. Too many times he has used that position to intimidate and coerce.”
Representative Jones sketched out how in the recent votes on the trade fast-track authority for the President, Boehner had taken reprisals against Republicans who voted against the bill, such as removing them from committee chairmanships.
Jones said, “We’re not here to be puppets of the Speaker of the House; we’re here to represent the people of our districts.”
One of the CNN anchors asked whether the motion was just a personal attack by Representative Meadows, who had lost a chairmanship. Jones responded, “I don’t think anyone should be intimidated because they vote their conscience. If you can’t vote your conscience, then you don’t need to be here for the people back home. You really don’t. If you’re supposed to be here to vote the will of the Speaker and not the will of the people, then you don’t need to be here. And this Speaker in my opinion has used too much force to intimidate, and that’s wrong.”
Representative Jones said in closing, “…when you’ve got a problem like we have with the Speaker of the House being so coercive, then we need to do what is necessary for the good of the people and the good of this country.”
Representative Jones has stood up against the Republican leadership on several crucial issues. He is a sponsor of the Glass-Steagall bill before the House, primary sponsor of the bill to release the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 report which reveal the Saudi role in funding the 9/11 attacks, and has fought against Obama and his Republican cohorts in their efforts to start wars across the world.
COLLAPSING WESTERN FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Italy’s Mezzogiorno Has Collapsed More than Greece, according to Svimez Industrial Development Think Tank
July 30 (EIRNS)—Italy’s southern regions, called the Mezzogiorno, roughly corresponds to the old Magna Grecia, birthplace or home of Archimedes, Pythagoras, Archytas, Aristoxenus and many other great scientists. In addition to their common heritage, it looks as though the Mezzogiorno and Greece are today suffering the same cruel victimization.
Svimez, the Association for the Industrial Development of the Mezzogiorno, has published its yearly report acknowledging that Southern Italy is facing industrial desertification and demographic annihilation.
Measured in GDP, in the 2001-2014 period the Mezzogiorno declined more than Greece: –9.4% versus –1.7%.
Of course, after 2010 and Greece’s takeover by the Troika, the Greek collapse was more dramatic. However, the decline of Mezzogiorno has proceeded at an increasing rate. GDP has been negative for seven years in a row. Whereas all Italian regions have been hit by the 2008-2014 recession, Southern Italy has cumulatively lost 13% whereas Central-Northern Italy has lost “only” 7.4%.
The industrial collapse is more dramatic: Added value has collapsed 45% in the Mezzogiorno versus 17.2% in the rest of the country. Building construction collapsed 38.7% (vs. 29.8%).
This has effected an unprecedented negative demographic trend. There have been only 174,000 births in the Mezzogiorno regions in 2014, out of a population of 20.6 million. This is the lowest figure since 1862, the birth of the Italian state itself. “Southern Italy will thus be characterized in the next years by a demographic distortion, a tsunami with unpredictable consequences, destined to lose 4.2 million inhabitants in the next 50 years,” says the report.
Italian Economist Rinaldi: Are There Secret EU Clauses Allowing the Troika Takeover of Greece?
July 30 (EIRNS)—Economist Antonio Maria Rinaldi, interviewed yesterday by the Italian online daily IntelligoNews, was asked whether there are “secret clauses” justifying the Troika takeover of Greece’s tax offices. Rinaldi was responding to statements by former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis who had said, in a conversation with British bankers reported among others in the Greek daily Kathimerini: “The General Secretary of Public Revenues within my ministry is controlled fully and directly by the Troika. It was not under control of my ministry, of myself as minister, it was controlled by Brussels. The general secretary is appointed effectively through a process which is Troikacontrolled and so is the whole mechanism within. It’s like the Inland Revenue in the U.K. being controlled by Brussels. I am sure as you are hearing these words, your hair is standing on end.”
Rinaldi stated that he had no reason to doubt Varoufakis’ revelations. Rinaldi remarked, “All this is very serious: it is a foreign interference into the sovereignty of another country. Where is it written that the EU can do such things regarding member countries? We would like to know whether there are secret clauses in the treaties that prescribe this. In such a case, Italy would undergo the same treatment.”
Corbyn vs. Blair—U.K. Unions Choosing Glass-Steagall over Genocide July 30 (EIRNS)—In an article titled: “Jeremy Corbyn Will Finally Purge ‘Virus’ of Tony Blair from Labour, Union Says,” Britain’s Daily Telegraph reports on the endorsement of Corbyn to head the Labour Party by the Communication Workers Union, which has 200,000 members. Dave Ward, the union general secretary, said: “There is a virus within the Labour Party, and Jeremy Corbyn is the antidote. The grip of the Blairites and individuals like Peter Mandelson must now be loosened once and for all.” Lord Mandelson was a member of Blair’s cabinet.
Another union, the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association, also gave its backing to Corbyn and Angela Eagle as his deputy. Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA, said: “Jeremy is clearly articulating why we must end the austerity quagmire, and that Labour’s economic policies must move on from failed neoliberalism. He and Angela also support bringing our railways back into public ownership. That is why I will be strongly urging our members to vote for Jeremy for leader and Angela for deputy.”
Corbyn already has the endorsement of other major unions including Unite, GMB, and UNISON, a public workers’ union with 1.3 million members. Dave Prentis, UNISON’s general secretary, said the union has changed its first choice to Corbyn.
The articles don’t mention Corbyn’s call for Glass-Steagall legislation, but that fact gives weight to his attacks on austerity and defense of industrial development.
Corbyn has a 17-point lead in an official YouGov poll and a 20-point lead in private polling.
THE NEW GLOBAL ECONOMIC ORDER BRICS
$100 Billion Currency Pool Opened Today
July 30 (EIRNS)—The agreement on the BRICS $100 billion currency reserve pool, the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) came into force Thursday, reported RT. “The arrangement is important, not only because it provides the possibility to quickly obtain additional liquidity, but its very existence has a positive, stabilizing effect on the market,” said Russia’s BRICS group representative. The treaty for the BRICS New Development Bank and Contingent Reserve Arrangement was made on July 15, 2014 during the Fortaleza, Brazil summit, and the CRA operating arrangement was signed among the heads of the five nations’ central banks and finance ministers in Moscow on July 8, 2015, at the same time as the BRICS summit in Ufa, Russia.
China will make the biggest contribution of $41 billion to the fund. Russia, Brazil and India will donate $18 billion each, while South Africa’s investment will be $5 billion.
Turkey’s Erdogan Seeks Role in ‘One Road, One Belt,’ Membership in SCO
July 30 (EIRNS)—Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, concluding his two-day visit to Beijing today, told CCTV journalist Yang Rui that Turkey wishes to become not only an “observer” but a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Turkey currently has “dialogue partner” status in the SCO, which a step below “observer status.” Erdogan said that he felt that the SCO would become a much more important regional organization with India and Pakistan now slated to become members. Erdogan also said that Turkey could play an important role in President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road,” as a transit nation between Europe and Asia. In reply to a question on the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Erdogan said that he thought the AIIB would be playing a major role in reviving the economies of Asia. Turkey is one of the 57 founding members of the AIIB.
In his discussions with President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang, he gave assurances that Turkey respected the territorial integrity of China and that it would make every effort to counter the activity of the East Turkestan Independence Movement, a Uighur “independence” movement aimed at splitting Xinjiang from China. Turkey, the 2015 chair of the G20, will be hosting the G20 Summit on Nov. 15, which will prepare to hand over the chairmanship of that body to China, which will head the G20 in 2016.
Both President Erdogan and President Xi addressed a China-Turkey Business Forum in Beijing. President Xi said that China was already building a high-speed rail line between Ankara and Istanbul, and that it would make more investments in Turkey in the field of high-speed rail and new energy, including nuclear, wind, and solar. Xi also said that China was interested in expanding cooperation to fields such as aerospace, finance and investment. Xi characterized Turkey as “an important hub” in the Road and Belt. Trade between the two nations is now at $27 billion and they are committed to increasing this to $50 billion.#
Michael O. Billington
Executive Intelligence Review
Posted by: Cathy Cruz