THE LEAD

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

A Great Power Summit in 2020 Is the Opportunity for a New Paradigm Agenda

January 27, 2020
Russian President Putin addresses the Russian Federal Assembly. January 15, 2020 (en.kremlin.ru)
Russian President Putin addresses the Russian Federal Assembly. January 15, 2020 (en.kremlin.ru)

The January 15 proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin for a 2020 summit of the heads of state and government of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (U.S., Russia, China, France, the U.K.)—to confer on securing global peace, reflects the Jan. 3 summit proposal by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, now circulating internationally through the Schiller Institute and other networks. She calls for an emergency meeting among Presidents Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin because of the immediate danger from the U.S.-Iran confrontation, and moreover, “to establish a higher level of cooperation” to deal properly with all crises.

Though the two proposals differ on which are to be the participating nations, the concept of the summit is the same, and such an action is crucial at this moment in history. Now is the time for all nations and citizens to organize for what should be the content of such a summit. What should be on its agenda? This is the place and time for the LaRouche policies and principles connected with his view that “development is the name for peace”: A New Bretton Woods system, implementing his 2014 “Four Laws,” through such concrete means as collaboration with the Belt and Road Initiative.

By all indications Putin has gone beyond the propaganda phase of simply proposing a summit, into the active organizing phase. Potential times for such a summit were identified Jan. 24 by Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov. TASS reported yesterday that Antonov said, “such a meeting could be organized, either ahead of the May NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] review conference, or ahead of, or during, the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations Organization [in September, during the UN General Assembly]. I think the implementation of this initiative would be very useful for international peace and security.” When Putin repeated his proposal on Jan. 23 in Israel, he said Russia will send messages to leaders without delay.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in discussing the situation, stressed that such a summit is urgent, and that although people may have criticisms against one or another of the UN Security Council “Five,” it is the dynamic that counts. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly stressed that involving Russia in deliberations to solve major crises is essential. Chancellor Angela Merkel took the initiative recently regarding collaboration with Russia and other powers, to seek solutions to the Libya crisis, by holding the Berlin conference Jan. 19 and other measures.

Our task is to elevate people to understand that only through international collaboration can we solve the problems we now face, and that around the policies uniquely proposed by Lyndon LaRouche. Many people hold back because they literally “don’t know any better,” or because they have given up on transforming the world. But now is the moment to address all relevant “issues” people may have, in the largest sense, and implement optimism. President Trump’s Jan. 21 speech in Davos helps open the door to just such an approach.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

SUPPORTING MATERIAL


Grassley Turns Up the Heat on British Office of Net Assessment Nest in Pentagon Caught in Coup against President Trump

Sen. Charles Grassley sent a letter on Jan. 22 to the director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA), James Baker, requesting written answers by Feb. 5 to 14 carefully-crafted questions, along with the extensive documentation requested. Grassley’s questions cover two areas: (1) ONA’s financing of Cambridge University Prof. Stefan Halper, who played a central in setting up the illegal surveillance operation against Donald Trump; and (2) what the hell is the ONA up to in general? Grassley reminded Baker that ONA had stonewalled Grassley’s series of previous requests going back to July 2019 on the Halper matter, and suggested ONA respond in a timely fashion to this new request from the chair of Senate Finance Committee.
Grassley has picked a key target. The ONA has been at the center of British perversion of traditional U.S. military structure and strategic policy since it was set up in 1973 under Richard Nixon, under the direction of the Rand Corporation’s lunatic utopian strategist Andy Marshall. In his 42 years heading ONA, Marshall trained generations of policymakers to adopt the British imperial outlook. Shutting this nest down would go a long way to freeing the U.S. from the danger of nuclear war.

ONA paid Halper around a million dollars in “research grants.” In his letter to ONA head Baker, Grassley cites a review of Halper’s work by the DOD Inspector General which questioned if Halper had conducted his work “in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.” If the ONA accepted defective work, it may be in “violation of the law,” Grassley states.

He asks also: “Can ONA state for certain that Halper did not use taxpayer money provided by DOD to recruit, or attempt to recruit, sources for the FBI investigation into the now-debunked theory of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? Are you, or any other ONA official, aware of any other relationships Professor Halper had with foreign intelligence officers?”

Grassley demands a detailed report on just what the ONA has been funding: both all contracts issued for each of the last five years, and just what it spent the “significant amount of money” it allocated to Asia studies over the past 20 years?

Grassley demands ONA answer what U.S. taxpayers paid for two ONA studies, in particular, and how it justifies them under its legal mandate. One was for a paper focused “largely on Vladimir Putin’s neurological development and potential Asperger’s diagnosis.” And even wilder: the ONA funded a workshop “On the Nature of Americans as a Warlike People,” which concluded, Grassley reports, that “American belligerency … [is] the result of the persistence of Scotch-Irish culture in America, with its emphasis on violent responses to challenge … reinforced by slaveholding, and American Protestant religious beliefs”!


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Related