British Declare Aggressive War is Not Illegal in Britain
The British have declared openly that aggressive war may be illegal under international law — but not in the United Kingdom! The Guardian of London reports today that, in a case brought against Tony Blair by victims of Blair's illegal Iraq War, charging that Blair knowingly lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and then launching an war of aggression against a nation in no way threatening the U.K., the Queen's Counsel Jeremy Wright has intervened to dismiss the case. His argument: Blair is immune from prosecution and, most incredibly, that a war of aggression is not a crime under British law. There you have it.
Just yesterday the Sunday Times of London claimed to be speaking for the US government (from "unnamed sources" in the U.S. military) to say that President Trump is about to launch a preemptive war of aggression against North Korea, fantasizing that such an attack could take out North Korea's entire nuclear weapons capacity. Any sane person knows that an attack on North Korea would unleash a war that would not only rain terror across Asia, but almost certainly provoke a world nuclear holocaust. In fact, Trump himself and his National Security Advisor Gen. McMaster on Sunday said that pressures against North Korea would stop short of military action.
Lyndon LaRouche today pointed to Vladimir Putin, working with China and potentially with the U.S. under President Trump, as the necessary point person for bringing about a sane resolution to the Korea crisis. In fact, Putin had arranged the seed crystal of a solution over the past decade, establishing a new port facility in North Korea's northeast region of Rason, and shipping Russian coal through that port into South Korea, in league with both private and state-owned entities in South Korea (Hyundai Marine, the state steel company POSCO, and the state rail company KORAIL). This cooperation on joint development by all the countries of the region is the necessary precondition for resolving the political and strategic crisis on the Korean peninsula, and leading to eventual reunification. The recently impeached former President of South Korea Park Geun-hye, by capitulating to Obama's drive for military confrontation with China, had shut down every constructive policy between Seoul and the North Koreans, while also agreeing to the highly provocative deployment of U.S. THAAD missiles in the South — a serious destabilization of the balance of power and a provocation against both China and Russia.
LaRouche had played a crucial role back in 1992 in steps to resolve the festering Korea crisis, under President Kim Dae-jung, when on September 18, 2002, the DMZ fences were opened up and reconstruction of the rail connections between North and South Korea were restored. LaRouche had authored the concept of a "New Silk Road" in 1992, building high speed rail connections "from Pusan to Rotterdam." President Kim adopted the concept, calling the Korean rail plan the "Iron Silk Road," saying: "When the Trans-Korean Railway is linked with the Trans-China or the Trans-Siberian Railway, a train leaving London could reach Seoul and Pusan via Paris, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Siberia or China."
But that was the era of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who moved in to crush any cooperation between North and South Korea, by falsely declaring North Korea to be secretly building nuclear weapons. The IAEA inspectors were then forced to leave, and the North did in fact begin a nuclear weapons program, to the point that they now have produced 10-20 nuclear bombs. After observing what Bush and Cheney did to Iraq, and what Obama did to Libya, when those two nations voluntarily gave up their nuclear weapons programs only to be bombed back to the stone age, there is zero chance that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons program, unless the US also agrees to end its threats of military strikes and regime change.
Will Trump follow orders from London, or will he live up to his campaign promises to be friends with both Russia and China, in order to end the British Empire's division of the world into warring factions, especially East Vs. West? The potential now exists to realize LaRouche's call for a new paradigm, based on development of all nations, through the New Silk Road.
This depends heavily on the capacity of the American people, and their leaders, to identify the British Imperial hand in driving a wedge between the US and its natural partners in Russia and China, willing even to provoke a global nuclear war. Civilization depends on truth and sanity at this turning point in history. As a poster at a LaRouche Political Action Committee rally in Manhattan on Sunday said: "Get Trump Back On Track — Maglev, Not War."