Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 4/8/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 11 Apr 93 0:7:4 GMT

EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE

   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   April 8, 1993 

   April 8, 1993 
   Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 
   ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche'' 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   
   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon
LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr.
LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 

            - SDI Offer Reported in {Izvestia} -

   Mr. LaRouche, before we begin discussing Bill Clinton's
battles with Phil Gramm, I would like to get into a very
interesting development that has occurred in terms of the SDI
[Strategic Defense Initiative]: An {Izvestia} piece which
appeared on April 2, 1993, indicated that Boris Yeltsin would
make an offer to President Clinton to have an SDI-sharing
program. 
   Can you give us some information on that, if you are
aware of it? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, this was a half-page, front-page
feature in {Izvestia.} The background on it is, to my
knowledge, as follows. 
   Through our follow-up investigations inside Moscow, the
following story emerges. 
   The writer of the story, which appeared in {Izvestia,}
which is the Russian government newspaper, on Friday, April
2, had been previously instructed to go to a representative
of {very high level} military intelligence research centers,
to receive a briefing and to write the story essentially as
given to him, by this high-level source. And that is what
appeared. 
   What the source indicated, is that at the Vancouver
summit, the Russians would offer to Clinton
technology-sharing in a joint effort to develop a strategic
ballistic missile defense system. From my technical knowledge
of these matters and my past technical knowledge of what the
Russians are doing, the following facts emerge from that
newspaper article and from some follow-up which was done on
it afterward. 
   First of all, this is what we would call in SDI language
a {terminal defense system} based on plasma techniques which
I have known the Russians to be working on at high levels for
a very long period of time. It technically would work; of
course, the field testing for all the glitches that lapse
between a laboratory test and a field test have to be made. 
   What this would mean, is that the Russians are now
reversing field; that is whereas in February 1983 in the
Soviet government's back channel message to me (I was
conducting a negotiation, of course, for the Reagan
administration), they indicated that the project was
feasible, that is, the use of modern technologies to develop
a strategic ballistic missile defense and to benefit the
economies by use of the new technologies in the economy. They
would reject it, because the United States and its allies
would beat the Russians in an economics race as opposed to
the military race. 
   And Andropov, of course, when Reagan, on March 23, 1983
announced exactly what I told the Russians was in the works,
blew his stack; and of course I became {persona non grata,}
to the point that in 1986, the Gorbachov government
specifically demanded that the U.S. government imprison me in
a demonstrative way as a condition for continuing the summit.
That occurred in the context of the preparations for the
Reykjavik summit. 
   But today, they have apparently reversed their field,
and they have now, 10 years later approximately, accepted the
offer which I tentatively broached and which Reagan actually
made, back in 1983. It is an {extremely significant
development} which can change the course of history. 
   
   Q: This new technology is described in the {Izvestia}
piece by Viktor Litovkin as something that would use
ground-based lasers and would create a kind of background to
a weapons system. It would ionize the area surrounding an
incoming ballistic missile. 
   Is this the kind of new technology that you referred to
in your proposal as ``new physical principles''? 
   MR. LAROUCHE. Precisely; and the Russians, of course,
make some reference to that, the fact that in the language of
the ABM Treaty, which Kissinger negotiated with Brezhnev back
in 1972, an exception was stuck in, that the ABM Treaty would
not ban the use of weapons of defense based on ``new physical
principles.'' 
   As I said, this is a terminal defense system. It
involves the use of phased array microwave capabilities,
which is the type the Russians are {experts} in, and other
things, to generate in the pathway of an oncoming projectile,
whether it's an aircraft or a missile, a plasmoid condition,
such that the missile or aircraft entering that particular
area of, shall we say, pre-structured space, would be in
terrible difficulties at the time it entered. 
   Essentially, it is a waylaying of incoming objects, with
a plasma, a very high-energy, ionized plasma, which would
cause all kinds of unpleasantness to an aircraft or to a
missile. 
   
   Q: What is the difference between new physical systems
and the kind of kinetic approach that was adopted by the SDI
program? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: To the layman, this becomes clearest when
you start talking about dollars. 
   If you take the building and the launching of a missile
with its warhead against a target, that represents a certain
amount of total energy invested in producing {a} missile, and
a certain amount of money invested in producing that missile
and targeting and launching it and so forth. 
   If you use a rocket to try to intercept that missile,
you run into some very embarrassing cost features. First of
all, you must build a high-speed rocket, that is, one which
is very specially accelerated to intercept the incoming
missile. And that rocket must have a certain degree of
accuracy in intercepting this incoming missile, which is a
fairly difficult object to hit in some respects at that kind
of distance and those speeds. 
   So what you end up with is, the cost of bringing down,
say, a Russian missile from the U.S. side, using high-speed
rockets of the type that were tested out with such dismal
results against SCUDs, in the recent Iraq confrontation; that
is a very high-priced operation, and it really does not work. 
   With technologies of the type we are talking about,
lasers, plasmoids, etc., what are called new physical
principles relative to military technology, we are getting
the cost of sinking a dollar's worth of Russian missile down
in the direction of, potentially, about 10 cents. 
   The issue here, is that by using new technologies, not
only is it {possible,} through development, to eliminate most
of an incoming strike; but at the same time, the cost of
destroying the strike is less than the cost of the strike
itself. So we say that economically, physically, and
otherwise, the defense begins to gain a strategic advantage
over the offense. That was the crucial feature in the concept
of the Strategic Defense Initiative itself. 

     - My Fight for Strategic Defense Since the 1970s -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, most people associate you with
politics, with running for office, for President, many, many
times. They do not associate you with having been involved in
back-channel discussions for President Reagan. Can you give
us some background on that? What was involved? What were you
doing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE. Of course, this is all news media
nonsense. As a matter of fact, very rarely--{almost
never}--has the major U.S. media reported a single thing I
have done in politics or anything else. So they simply have
these little slugging matches, these dirty words, dirty
messages, which are featured. But almost no reportage of
anything I have done. 
   First of all, I have been concerned with this process
since the middle of the 1970s. I was concerned, as a
broadcast I made in November 1976 indicates, that we were
headed toward the danger of thermonuclear war, simply by
continuing to try to develop offensive and defensive systems
or strategies, under what was called the Mutually Assured
Destruction policy of people such as Henry Kissinger and
Robert McNamara; and I warned that the incoming Carter
administration was bringing us into a very dangerous area in
this. 
   So from 1976-77 I was very much concerned with
developing a strategic defense to eliminate the insanity
which was brought on the world by the Kissinger-McNamara
policy, or the so-called Pugwash policy, of prohibiting a
strategic defense against thermonuclear missiles. 
   I worked on that; we encountered many efforts in that
direction. We put a package together in the early summer of
1979 which was part of my 1980 Democratic Party presidential
primary campaign. Some of the Reagan people were interested
in that during the transition period and later; this led to a
relationship with the government on this issue, and a few
others related to it, probably a couple of score or so of
issues on which I was working with the Reagan National
Security Council. 
   An element of the intelligence community asked me to set
up this back channel on behalf of the United States with
Russia, to set up a new back channel, and to explore some of
these questions, which I did beginning February of 1982; and
that continued until the President's announcement of the SDI
on March 23, 1983, at which point Yuri Andropov blew his
stack. I became {persona non grata.} They began calling me a
``{casus belli,}'' a cause for war, all that sort of thing. 
   But the technological background, of course, was that I
worked with the Fusion Energy Foundation, which nationally
and internationally, represented directly, or through
association, many of the leading scientists in various parts
of the world who were working closely with us on a number of
projects. And it was their knowledge and their competence in
many respects, which enabled me to put together a package
which was rather unique. 
   [commercial break.] 

       - The Implications of the Russian SDI Offer -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing this very, very
unique proposal that was made by Yeltsin, or we think was
made by Yeltsin to President Clinton at the summit; at least
it was indicated in a newspaper article that such an offer
would be made, for mutual development of a Strategic Defense
Initiative. You were discussing some of your work in this
area with President Reagan back in the early 1980s, in terms
of opening up discussions on this. 
   Why did the Soviet Union reject it in 1983, and why are
they making this offer at this time? What are the
implications of this offer? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The implications are the fact that I did
it, back then. 
   What this signals to the Clinton administration--and
also signals to the old anti-Bush Reagan people whom most
people have forgotten about, and to a lot of other people
around the world--is that the present strategic arrangements,
are breaking down. There is no hope for any part of the
world, including the United States, if we continue to make
policies under the influence of prevailing assumptions of the
IMF, the Federal Reserve faction in the United States, and so
forth. 
   The Russians are on the point of recognizing that; they
know they cannot go on the way they are going. They wish to
maintain a cooperative relationship with the United States
for many reasons; and what they did, was to take the fact
that they are ahead of the United States in a couple of
scientific areas, to make an offer whose implication is to
start this kind of cooperation in the direction of
technological and scientific progress as the basis for
relations, in direct opposition to Andropov's policy back ten
years ago. 
   Andropov's hatred against me, as well as that of his
protege, Gorbachov, which became very bitter--was partly
connected to the friends of Kissinger. That is, there were
factions of the Democratic Party, there were people among
Bush Republicans, such as James Baker III and so forth, who
were wittingly working with Moscow, to try to prevent
policies like this from being adopted. Walter Mondale, for
example, after a direct approach to his group in May 1983 in
Minnesota, by a Soviet delegation headed by a KGB man who was
a personal representative of Andropov, adopted the policy
which the Russians demanded of Mondale. As a matter of fact,
the Democratic National Committee adopted the same policy in
1983 and 1984. 
   So there were many forces on both sides which believed
that they could work out a new deal, a New Yalta agreement
between the United States and Britain on the one side, and
the Soviets on the other side, which would be successful and
would orchestrate the course of events for the next decades
or so to come. 
   What we warned, and I particularly warned--and I believe
the Reagan people of course were aware of this, because I was
working partly on their behalf--was that if Andropov were to
reject the offer that President Reagan made, that the Soviet
and Warsaw Pact economies would collapse within about five
years or so. They did actually collapse, of course, in 1989,
exactly as I warned them they would. 
   That was a great opportunity for peace. The Bush
administration and Thatcher in England ruined it; have put us
on the track toward a new thermonuclear confrontation--not
necessarily a thermonuclear war but a thermonuclear
confrontation--with Russians who are extremely angry about
the betrayal they sense they have suffered because of the
murderous and stupid, ruinous policies of people like
[Harvard professor] Jeffrey Sachs and the cruel and stupid
policies of the International Monetary Fund. 
   Under these conditions, the Russians recognize that I
was right and the Soviets were wrong in rejecting Reagan's
policy back then. And they want to get back in, from a
Russian standpoint, on the kind of arrangement with the
Clinton White House, which Reagan offered in 1983 in his
speech and follow-ups on that. The Russians are signalling
very much that they want that kind of deal now, that a great
mistake has been made in the past 10 years, and we have to
correct that mistake. 

   Q: The Jeffrey Sachs and [Yegor] Gaidar policy is a
de-industrialization policy. I think it would be correct to
describe it that way, and if you think differently, please
come in and correct it, but if it is so, as a
deindustrialization policy, does that mean that this approach
is a rejection of the Gaidar/Sachs policy? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense it is. It reflects a reproach. 
   Remember, this did not come from Yeltsin as such; it
came from the highest levels of the Russian scientific and
military-scientific community. Yeltsin carried the ball, and,
to the best of our knowledge, this was actually discussed at
Vancouver. There was an umbrella, which involves Russian
Prime Minister Chernomyrdin as well as Vice President Gore,
for talks to continue in this area. There are probably other
channels of discussion. 
   But remember: Since 1989, under the influence of the
policies of people like Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF, the former
Warsaw Pact region--eastern Europe, Poland, and so
forth--{have gone through the greatest catastrophe since
World War II.} 
   The Polish economy, for example, has dropped to about 30
percent {or less} of its agricultural and industrial output
of 1989; and similar effects exist throughout the eastern
European region, the former Warsaw Pact states of eastern
Europe, and similar effects are being experienced in Russia,
in Belarus, in Ukraine, in the Baltic states--{everywhere.} 
   So this IMF package, these policies, we might say, of
people like Sen. Phil Gramm, have proven to be the greatest
disaster imaginable in the former Warsaw Pact nations, just
as they are showing, if people would pay attention to it, to
have been the greatest disaster imaginable inside the United
States and Britain too. 

  - Why the KGB Considered me to be a ``{Casus Belli}'' -

   Q: You indicated something earlier on the show, which is
extraordinary in its implication, that Gorbachov and Andropov
were both interested in putting you in jail, or at least
Gorbachov was interested in putting you in jail, and was
instrumental in doing so. 
   What evidence is there to this effect? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Oh, lots of it. 
   But primarily, just take the Soviet official press.
Remember that Fyodor Burlatsky, the man who spearheaded this
attack on me in 1983, who called me a ``{casus belli}'' in
print, in the Russian official press, was not only a former
high-ranking KGB official, but he was a personal
representative of Gorbachov. Sometimes people call him an
adviser to Andropov. He was not an ``adviser'' to Andropov;
he was a personal errand boy, a representative, a mouthpiece,
for Andropov. 
   Then, in the Soviet press, again, of course,
{repeatedly,} the Soviet press would demand of the Reagan
administration, as in 1984, {specifically} demand that
President Reagan {personally} distance himself from me as a
condition of negotiations with Moscow. 
   Then at the beginning of 1986, Soviet intelligence
worked together with several people in the United States,
including the Anti-Defamation League, to spread the hoax
alleging that I had been behind the assassination of [Swedish
Prime Minister] Olof Palme; and that was a KGB dirty trick,
as has now been exposed, as we knew at the time. 
   But in the same year, there was a saturation campaign
from all of the leading Soviet press demanding that the
Reagan administration commit itself to imprisoning me as a
demonstration of good faith for the upcoming summit
negotiations. 
   Then, when we got to the summit--remember, on Oct. 6,
1986, a 450-man raid was done demonstratively in Leesburg,
Virginia, against firms associated with me to demonstrate {to
the Russians} that there was a commitment to put me in
prison. Around the time that raid was coming off, the
Reykjavik summit was being held in Iceland [Oct. 10-12,
1986]. 
   We knew the SDI was the hot issue of the summit. The
international press and all the advisers--the {sherpas,}
so-called, said, ``No, the SDI is dead.'' Then George Shultz
came out at the end of the extended meetings between
Gorbachov and Reagan, and announced that the negotiation
agenda had collapsed, because Reagan refused to accept the
Gorbachov demand that the SDI be given up. 
   The center of the Soviet hatred against me, essentially
involved these SDI negotiations and the pre-SDI negotiations
which I had been conducting from February 1982 through
February 1983. 
   So that was the issue, and it was all over the Soviet
press. No single person who was not a head of state in modern
history has ever been subjected to the intensity, virulence,
and extent of the Soviet attacks that were extended against
me as an individual during that period. 
   [commercial break] 

            - The SDI Offer Is An Alternative -
   - to the Deindustrialization of Russia and the U.S. -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing your particular
negotiations on the SDI that took place back in the 1980s. We
have been discussing the new Yeltsin offer on the SDI. 
   Why should Bill Clinton accept this offer? What does it
do for the United States? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Let's take a look at something, skip ahead
to big breaking news in the United States this week. 
   We have an old adversary of mine, I must say a very
dangerous idiot--and I used the term idiot in a qualified
sense--Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas. 
   Phil Gramm started out as a university professor in,
shall we call it, ``Brand X'' economics, the type that he
preaches at the top of his voice to this day. 
   He became a Democratic representative in the House of
Representatives, and then he became a ``boll weevil''
Democrat; and then he completed his transformation into a
Republican and became a Senator as a reward for jumping ship
to the Republican Party. 
   Gramm is obsessed with the triumphant sound of his own
incompetence. He insists that deregulation, radical free
trade, radical monetarism, and so forth and so on, is the
cure for everything: It is real snake medicine. 
   Now, the problem for the United States, and for our
allies as well, is that if we continue to apply
Dr.-Professor-Senator Gramm's snake-oil medicine to eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union in the form of IMF
conditionalities, in the form of Jeffrey Sachs' snake-oil
medicine from Harvard, and so forth, we are very soon going
to come to the point, that the former Soviet Union will
emerge in the form of a Russian empire--not a communist
system but a Russian system. It will not be making direct
thermonuclear war against us, though it will have the
capability virtually to do so. It will have all those
thermonuclear warheads and boomer submarines and so forth,
all that kind of stuff. 
   There will be an adversary relationship again, like that
which existed, say, back in the 1970s, and back in the early
1980s. Then the world will be torn apart by this conflict, by
extensions of wars like those in the Balkans or Transcaucasus
or in Central Asia, Africa, South America, and so forth,
together with a general economic collapse of the U.S. economy
and the British economies, which is already going on. 
   There is no economic recovery. There is an ongoing
{collapse,} a physical collapse. There is a recovery in terms
of some financial aggregates, but not in terms of economy. 
   In Washington, as Secretary of State Warren Christopher
has indicated, this Russian conflict is at the center of a
whole host of conflicts globally, including our domestic
economy policy. {If} we can reverse, hopefully, the disaster
which was brought upon us by the idiocy of Margaret Thatcher
and the lunacy of George Bush, who took the greatest
opportunity for peace and gave us a crisis instead, we can
get out of this mess. 
   To do that, we have to utilize scientific and
technological progress, an investment boom based on that, to
get the U.S. economy and other economies moving again. This
economic policy, which is being used to wreck Russia and
eastern Europe, has already wrecked the United States
economy; and people like Phil Gramm, who are opposing even
the petty, token policy of job stimulation which President
Clinton has put forward, are the flies in the ointment. 
   We have to get this crowd out of the way; we have to get
the Thatcherites out of the way, and get back to traditional
American emphasis on scientific and technological progress
and investment along those lines. This Russian offer can be a
kind of stimulant, a catalyst, which {eliminates} the danger
of a renewed conflict between West and East, and which, at
the same time, as an intellectual and scientific stimulant,
will help to push us in the direction that Phil Gramm wants
to prevent us from going. 
   But Phil Gramm is, believe me, a fanatical nut, and we
have had too much of that sort of stuff all along. Now the
price to pay, would be too great. We cannot afford Phil Gramm
any more. 

          - How Economic Prosperity Comes Out Of -
         - Scientific and Technological Progress -

   Q: When you spoke of the SDI program in the early 1980s,
there were two features to it that you emphasized. One was
the war-avoidance aspect of it, and we can understand that
this technology would create a nuclear shield against
ballistic missile weapons; but the second was economic
development, economic spinoffs. 
   What are the types of economic spinoffs that we can
expect, and would they be fundamental in terms of turning
around the economic depression that we see in this country? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Of course they would be fundamental. 
   Remember that all true, sustainable profit in the long
run comes {only} from scientific and technological progress. 
   It is very simple. We go out and we work, we produce
things with our labor; and the number of people who work per
household, of course, is actuarially limited. So that labor
sustains society. 
   If we can produce more with that labor, than it costs us
to produce that labor--that is, paying for the families, the
infrastructure, everything that goes into producing a new
individual who goes to work--if we can produce a lot more in
terms of physical wealth, than the physical wealth and so
forth consumed in producing in net effect a family and its
labor component, then that difference becomes profit. 
   If we continue to proceed without technological
progress, we use up those categories of natural and improved
resources, on which that technology depends; and thus you
have a marginal depletion and a decline in profit and then
you get into a negative profit situation, where there is a
collapse of the economy. 
   So therefore, all profit ultimately comes from increases
in physical productivity of labor arising from what we call
today scientific and technological progress. 
   If you make a leap by taking new scientific developments
and turning them into machine-tool designs and putting them
into production, you will have a leap in physical
productivity which will result in a leap in productivity and
profitability; and that is the way you get growth. 
   It is on that principle that the United States was
founded, as some of the writings of George Washington's
Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, indicate. That is the
principle: that the SDI contains, in terms of technologies
used, the most advanced scientific technologies now coming
into feasible use. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the economic
spinoffs of an SDI offer and the implications for the Clinton
administration should President Clinton adopt such a
proposal. The President is in the middle of a battle now with
Phil Gramm and others. 
   What can the SDI do for him? 
   MR. LAROUCHE. As I said, scientific and technological
progress is the only ultimate source of real physical
profitability of an economy. If you do not have it, you are
going to die; if you do not invest in it when you do have it,
you are going to die. And the only intelligent policy for a
nation, as has been American policy from the time of the
American Revolution and earlier, up until most recent times,
say, 20 or 25 years ago, has been an unquestioned commitment
to investment in energy-intensive, technology-intensive,
capital-intensive investments. That is what kept the United
States economy growing, that is what gave us a high standard
of living, that is what gave us our economic power. 
   We have thrown that away. 
   The SDI contains new technologies, which, as I said, if
they are turned into machine-tool principles, become the
greatest catalyst for increase of the productive powers of
labor in the forms of qualitatively new products, a much
lower cost of doing things that are necessary, and so forth,
and a better standard of living for the United States. 
   They become also the basis for a worldwide economic
boom, a real, physical-economic boom, not a paper speculation
boom. So that is what the SDI offered; the Soviets recognized
that back in 1983, but said, we [the U.S.] would win that
race, which probably we would have. But nonetheless, that is
the fact. 
   We could do that now; we need it desperately. Without
that kind of program, it is probable that the United States
will begin to disintegrate during the latter part of this
decade, as a result of the economic and social effects of
piling on the kinds of austerity which fanatics and
incompetents like Phil Gramm--as I say, he is a professor of
economics, but there is nothing worse than a professor of
incompetence, because he is really good at it [laughs]--have
proposed. 
   If we do not get what Phil Gramm represents, and what
Jeffrey Sachs represents, out of our economic policy-making,
and get back into this kind of traditional American policy,
this country will disintegrate as a result of the
impoverishment and social effects of that, and the inability
to meet cultural demands and so forth. So that is where we
stand. 

   Q: Clinton is in a big fight now with Phil Gramm over
the $16 billion job stimulus program. What would you say in
terms of that policy? Is it adequate? Is more needed? Clinton
at this point is running into massive opposition. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is only a token program. But it is a
foot in the door, which utilizes heavy pressure from
constituency groups to get some jobs going. 
   We had Robert Reich, who is now Secretary of Labor, who
has indicated that if we do not see some job increases to
match the fairy tale of recovery which has been coming out of
Wall Street, then we are going to have to take some action.
And Clinton is taking very modest, token action, putting his
toe in the water, so to speak, to get {a} kind of jobs
program going. 
   That is all right. By no means is it enough. We are
{way, way, far from} anything that will actually turn the
situation around. But the interesting thing is to look at how
pitiful the Clinton program is, in terms of a need, and to
see that {at this point} fanatics like Phil Gramm realize
that this {is} a toe in the water, and that if they do not
stop it now, that this is going to build up and we are going
to have an actual major job-creating program--real jobs--not
the kind of phony sandwich-flipping jobs at minimum wages, on
which some people are trying to support families and can't.
But a real recovery will be in the works, and that Gramm does
not want. 
   I don't think Gramm even cares about the United States
economy; I think he cares about the credibility of the kind
of hogwash which he preaches as a professor of economics
formerly at a university, and now from the halls of Congress. 

    - Italian Parliamentarians Call For Investigation -
                - Into Jailing of LaRouche -

   Q: You had indicated earlier in this show, that
Gorbachov was behind the effort to put you in prison, to get
you out of the way. There are a number of very prominent
statesmen, Flaminio Piccoli from the Christian Democracy in
Italy and the secretary of the Radical Party in Italy, who
are calling for an investigation and calling for your
freedom. 
   Why are these individuals and other parliamentarians who
have signed on to this effort, doing this? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It should be obvious if people had had an
honest newspaper to read over the recent years, that over
particularly the past 15-20 years, especially the past 15, I
have been a very significant influence internationally, in
some leading circles around the world. Flaminio Piccoli, a
leading senator of the Democracia Cristiana in Italy, was one
of those, for example, I met back in 1976. We have known him,
he has known my policies since that time. 
   There are people throughout Central and South America
and various parts of Asia, who have respect for and have
worked with my policies--scientific policies, some technical
policies, economic policies. Many of these people were
supporters of the Strategic Defense Initiative back in 1982,
before Reagan formally adopted it. I was recruiting people at
the top of the French and German military, and the Italians
and so forth to this. 
   So I am well known; and it is now well recognized that
all the policies of my opponents, those who joined with
Gorbachov in saying ``Stick him away in jail,'' that all of
these people who wanted me out of the way, have failed
catastrophically and are ruining the world. 
   [commercial break] 

 - The World Is Looking to See Whether President Clinton -
          - Can Provide a New Kind of Leadership -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing a very
interesting development in Italy and other parts of the world
where parliamentarians have been calling for your political
freedom. You were discussing this and telling us a little bit
more of the background. Can you continue? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is now apparent to these people, that I
was right, and that my opponents, not only on the Soviet side
but also in Europe and the United States, were wrong. 
   There is also throughout the world a rising abhorrence
against the collapse of politics and justice inside the
United States, and a horror about the collapse, particularly
under Bush in the last year or two of the Reagan
administration and under Bush, and then of course under
Thatcher in Britain in the same period, of all effective
leadership from the United States and the United Kingdom. 
   At the same time, there has been a terrible erosion into
weakness of the governments of continental Europe and other
parts of the world. 
   So here is a world sliding into catastrophe; no one is
manning the ship's bridge, except lunatics like George Bush
and Margaret Thatcher, who are putting us on the rocks; and
leading people around the world, are looking for help in
getting the world out of this mess. 
   Naturally, they look to Washington, where there is a new
President, who is not that lunatic George Bush. And they know
the President is pragmatic; they do not see him as a great
innovator, but they see him as a man who would like probably
to be re-elected and would like to find some real answers to
some of the problems which are plaguing the world. And they
hope they can convince the United States to take the right
turn in providing some leadership to help get this world
turned around. 
   They see what is done to me by Bush under Gorbachov's
orders, and things of that sort; they see that as an example
of {what must be eliminated} from the United States if the
United States is going to {even begin} to become a sane
nation again, providing viable leadership, even of the
quality of leadership they had under Reagan back in the early
1980s. 
   So while these people know me, respect me, consider me a
person who has proven my case, know that the jailing of me
was a complete frame-up--they know that; but the reason they
do this, was not only out of consideration or kindness or
fairness or justice to me; but they know that if Clinton, or
the Clinton administration, eliminates the travesty that was
done against me, that will signal a turn in the United States
back to the kind of policy-making which could mean that the
United States might once again begin to provide some of the
leadership which they know the world as a whole needs at this
time. 

  - Serbs Sued in the World Court for Genocide by Bosnia -

   Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If
people want to send questions in for Mr. LaRouche, they can
reach us at ``{EIR} Talks with Lyndon LaRouche,'' P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
   Mr. LaRouche, one of the recent developments we are
looking at at this point, is a case of genocide that has been
taken up at The Hague in Holland on the issue of Serbia and
its attack on Bosnia. What can you tell us about that, what
is the significance of these developments in that case? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: We have known, it has been understood,
that as long as the winter was going on, in the former
Yugoslavia, that the United States and some others were not
going to intervene in the situation actually, and therefore
certain forces--the holdovers from Bush, such as Eagleburger,
Scowcroft, that kind of policy, together with the
Carrington-Thatcher policy from London--would allow that to
continue. It is pragmatic, it is evil and so forth, but that
represented what became known as the Vance-Owen effort, which
really was buying time, letting the Serbs run loose with
their maniacal murders and whatnot. 
   But we knew that the Serbs were going to do something in
April, once the snows began to clear and military operations
on the ground became more feasible, the weather cleared. And
that is now happening. 
   Among the things that happened, is that The Hague, which
is the World Court, now the World Court for the United
Nations Organization, has accepted a brief by a Professor
[Francis] Boyle, a leading humanitarian attorney, on behalf
of the government of Bosnia for war crimes committed by the
former or the rump government of Yugoslavia, against the
Serbs. This is mass rapes, mass murders, the whole business. 
   The Serbian government tried to prevent that; The Hague
has rejected that delay, and is proceeding. If a finding of
genocide or something like that comes out of The Hague very
soon, this will be a material part of a process of some
allied intervention to give relief in part to the Bosnians,
but also to bring to an end this dangerous and spreading
Balkan war in that region. And the month of April is the
month in which we expected that this sort of thing would
begin to happen. And, happily, something is beginning to
happen, finally. 
   
   Q: Will this create political conditions that will allow
the lifting of the embargo? I know that we do not have much
time left, but maybe you can just finish up with that. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: If you are going to do an operation on the
ground against the Serbian fascists, who are worse than
Nazis--and this is a Holocaust that is going on there.
``Ethnic cleansing'' is nothing but genocide, it is a
holocaust. We have to fight it now. 
   You would have to get some arms to the people on the
ground who want to defend themselves. You cannot start
sending in foreign troops and solve every problem in the
world by sending in foreign troops on passive populations.
These people are prepared to fight for their own dignity,
their own freedom. They have a right to defend themselves;
they {are} governments; we recognize them as {governments};
they have the right of self-defense. This has been interfered
with much too long. We {have to} lift the embargo on these
countries, the victims of Slobodan Milosevic's fascists. Then
we will probably have to take some form of intervention to
supplement the self-defense by these forces to bring this
holocaust to an end. 

                           - 30 -
 - ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

   The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
   Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
   The above transcript is from a weekly hour-long
interview formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
   To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
   Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to
carry the program. 
   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide
weekly tapes for broadcast. 
   For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]