Europe Should Become a Leader of the Belt and Road Initiative
The current very public dispute over whether Italy will sign an MOU with China regarding the Belt and Road Initiative, when Xi Jinping visits Italy on March 22, is significant. But the reasons being given against the MOU, from Brussels, London and apparently by some White House neo-con warhawks, are absurd.
Simply reflecting anti-China geopolitical propaganda from those "imperial" locations, they do not address the plain reasons Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and the 16 Central and Eastern European nations are interested in the Belt and Road. It is the destiny of Eurasia to have this infrastructural and scientific progress across the land and seas of the continents, and it is exactly that which has been denied all those countries since the European Union and then Eurozone were formed.
That lack of development is what has been increasingly dissolving any trace of unity in Europe, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche said yesterday. Whether or not it is true, as one blog claimed, that the New Silk Road phrase of Xi, "a shared community for the future of mankind," is what infuriated London and the neo-cons, the cooperative pursuit of that future is what is being offered to the European nations. Zepp-LaRouche embraced whole-heartedly a Global Times suggestion that Germany and France should join the Belt and Road—"the only way to unify Europe," and the prospect which Brussels and London really fear. Thirteen other European nations have already signed such memoranda of understanding with China on the New Silk Road.
At such a point, both Europe and the United States are potentially leaders, along with China, in the pursuit of the new paradigm of economic progress, scientific development, and poverty eradication represented by the Belt and Road idea. The ideas of the European Golden Renaissance, and those of the American System of economics that later raised up the greatest industrial and scientific power—these are leading features of the common future the New Silk Road wants to spread through the developing sector as well.
The essence of it came from the creator of the original "World Land-Bridge" concept 35 years ago, Lyndon LaRouche. He expressed that essence in his "four economic laws" to reorganize banking and fuel global new infrastructure by science-driver crash programs.
Had he not been persecuted, as Helga LaRouche repeated yesterday, by the same Mueller/William Weld apparatus going after Donald Trump now, "the world would be a completely different place." The New Silk Road of great projects of new infrastructure could then not be branded a "Chinese model"; it would be the World Land-Bridge of LaRouche, the new paradigm for the entire world.