This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The Choice between the difficult decision and the fatal one. Zaid Hamid
The enclosed paper by The Schiller Institute Germany is explosive, provocative as well as thought provoking. For geo-political analysts and National Security Planners, this is NOT a conspiracy theory but a factual breakdown of the most fearsome and complex global geo-political drama unfolding in the present times. The fact that it was written in 1996, much before the launch of the present wars in the world, makes it even more stunning. Today, 16 years on, we see the events unfolding exactly in the same pattern as predicted in this brilliant analysis of British-American foreign policy. Though the author does not use the word Neo-Cons nor talks about the Israeli connection to the British-American foreign policy, the events on ground today need no further elaboration on the fact that how Zionist Jewish lobby controls the global finances and by extension the geopolitics and wars. The paper also explains why Pakistan is in a state of war today and what are the stakes involved for the state, people, faith and the very integrity of the country. This is exactly what the government and even the armed forces do NOT understand. The enormity, risks, threats and the stakes involved are still hidden from the national policy makers. The issue, if ever is debated, is only being done within the petty intellectual context of War on terror, Constitution, democracy, military rule or the supremacy of law while the existential war continues to demolish the very state with impunity. Today, Pakistan is already in the last stages of an existential war, fighting an asymmetric high intensity war within its own borders against an Indian backed terrorist insurgency with a religious facade, which is based in the remote tribal regions bordering Afghanistan, but is waging a ruthless, decentralized war against the State as well as the civilian population in the mainland, urban environment. In the last 3 years alone, on the average, Pakistan has suffered a suicide attack, a bomb explosion, or an attack on the security forces, almost on daily basis. Hundreds of the finest officers and soldiers, as well as thousands of civilians have given their lives in a war, which has cast a staggering toll on Pakistan‘s economy and society. At least 3 serving Army Generals, many Brigadiers and other senior military officers have died in ambushes, suicide attacks and assaults by the insurgent militants on military and civil installations in major cities of Pakistan. Regional offices of Pakistan‘s military led Intelligence agency, ISI have been attacked. Even GHQ was targeted for an audacious attempt at targeting military leadership. On another axis, on a lesser intensity, CIA, RAW and Afghan RAMA have stirred up another insurgency in Baluchistan by supporting the Secular Marxist Pakistani Baluch Separatists, seeking to break Baluchistan away from Pakistan. The mode of operations against the State include, blowing up gas lines, destroying power cables and State infrastructures as well as attacking security forces and assassinating non-Baluch settlers from the rest of the country. Apart from the two, above mentioned, active armed insurgencies, there are secular political parties which have armed wings and also have separatist agendas and have been involved in urban violence, especially in Karachi. Both MQM and ANP maintain armed militias in the city and though they hold positions in the government also, are waging a ruthless and brutal war of assassinations and counter assassinations on the streets of Karachi. For now, while they remain in power politically and are allies of the PPP government, they are also playing the assassination game in a turf war and are keeping their armed wings as insurance against any government or military operation against them in the future. The Memo
scandal has further exposed the treacherous role of a government at war with its own country and hell bent upon destroying the national army. The crisis of existential threat and balkanization which Pakistan faces today is not unique to Pakistan. The entire Middle East to the Eurasian region is being torn apart under a new doctrine to maintain the hegemony of the British-American power in the world. From War on Terror to Arab Spring to Af-Pak to 4GW to Cold start to Azaad Baluchistan, the wars have many names but the agenda is singular – Creation of failed headless balkanized small nation states which must remain in constant state of war, preventing the cooperation on the landbridge from China to Central Asia to Russia to Germany and from Tashkent to Kabul to Islamabad to Iran to Istanbul to Germany. Redrawing Middle East! In June 2006, (almost 10 years after Muriel Mirak-Weissbach exposed British plan for global hegemony) Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters, of the US Army, presented a ―solution‖ for the Middle East crisis. The redrawn maps, and subsequent events in Middle East and Pak-Afghan region establish the fact that plan, essentially, remains the same. In 20th century the main protagonist was British Empire while in 21st century the driving seat has been taken by Zionist Neo-Cons in American power corridors!!
Consider the challenge at hand to retain the freedom and sovereignty under this global war by Neo-Cons and then measure the insanity and ineffectiveness of the responses built so far. See the larger geopolitical picture of the 21st century and note the blindness of the crippled pygmies who pass as our rulers. When rulers commit treason, it is the compulsion of patriotism to rebel against them! There is absolutely no doubt now that a massive civil unrest will engulf the country soon, Allah forbid, dragging the army into an urban war unless we do what must be done. All our security assessments, threat analysis and study of geo-political developments convince us that with present deployed response
strategy, the critical threshold of instability has been crossed and now the army would not be able to respond to the unprecedented threats under 4GW, Af-Pak and Cod start. The ongoing economic collapse and recent audacious corruption in the Senate elections has made it clear even to the blind that if the general elections take place in the coming months, the country would be engulfed in a civil war on provincial, ethnic and insurgency axis. The collapse of the state organs is now total. With the present deployed failed response strategy it is not the question of ―if‖ but ―when‖ would the end phase of the deployed 4GW would begin! It is expected that Pakistan army would read the enclosed paper and make radical policy adjustments on literally war footings. The war theatre is already raging and the mid-war theatre course correction would be difficult indeed but not impossible. Not doing it is not an option anymore. It is a choice between taking difficult decisions or by default entering into the suicidal mode. We are already late… May Allah protect Pakistan and guide Pakistan army to lead the nation out of this suicidal war for a strong, prosperous and united Pakistan.
Zaid Hamid BrassTacks
The External Dynamics Affecting Central Asia
By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach (The Schiller Institute) Presented at
Institute of Regional Studies Workshop Nov. 25-27, 1996
Mr. Chairman, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thanks the institute of regional studies for its kind invitation to this seminar. Lyndon LaRouche, whom the institute invited to address you, regrets that he is not able to be here personally today, due to a scheduling problem. I find myself, therefore, in difficult position of stepping in for Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, who certainly would have contributed much more to the discussion here than I am able to do. That said, I will do my best to represent the views of the Schiller Institute on the issues debated here. In particular, I would like to consider some external dynamics affecting Eurasia.
In 1989-1991, with the collapse of communism, the greatest potential in modern history was opened up, for the development of Eurasian continent. The newly liberated Central Asian republics, like the captive nations of Eastern Europe, found themselves in the position of being able to fully develop as sovereign nation-states, building up their economies, which had been locked into soviet system of looting and monoculture, as national economies, in cooperative arrangements with other states of the continent, for mutual benefit. A grand scheme for continental development was already government policy of the people‘s republic of China, which, from 1985, had pursued the construction of the Eurasian Landbridge. With the opening of the borders in Central Asia, the obstacles to rebuilding this, the modern, revived Silk Route, were gone.
Image Source: Schiller Institute
Had this potential been fully realized, we would be living today in a period of unprecedented economic boom, not only in the region, but throughout the world. Instead, we are in the midst of the gravest worldwide economic depression in modern history, and the nation once part of the USSR, especially the Russian Federation itself, are on the brink of total social and political implosion due to economic collapse. The reason why this occurred has little or nothing to do with internal process within Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Rather, it was due to the outcome of a policy fight in the West, around the issue, how should the West relate to the unfolding, dramatic developments. In 1989, there were political figures in the United States and Western Europe who had a very clear commitment to mobilizing the industrial potential of Europe, to build up modern infrastructure across Eurasia, thus generating economic development. One such personality was Alfred Heerhausen, the chairman of Deutsche Bank, formally Germany‘s leading industrial bank. Heerhausen had prepared a speech to be presented in New York, in which he would announce a grand design for the establishment of a development bank, modeled on highly successful Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau, the financial institution which had mediated credits for West Germany‘s spectacular reconstruction. Heerhausen proposed the new institution be used to develop Eastern Europe and former USSR. Heerhausen was assassinated before he could deliver his speech, officially by the ―third generation‖ of the BaaderMeinhoff terrorist, in Germany. The American political figure and physical economist, Lyndon
Alfred Heerhausen Assassination: This mysterious murder is believed to have been a political assassination, but the identities and motives of the assassins are still unclear. Alfred Herrhausen, the head of Germany‘s biggest bank, Deutsche Bank, was ambushed in November 1989 by a group of very professional terrorists who used a sophisticated bomb linked to an infrared beam to destroy his bullet-proof Mercedes and mortally wound him. The bomb was deliberately targeted at the most vulnerable part of the car ― the door next to where Herrhausen was sitting ― and required split-second timing to overcome its armor plating. http://www.businesspundit.com/10-ceos-who-were-murdered-in-cold-blood/ LaRouche, on Octber 12, 1988 had called for the reunification of Germany, and the commitment of reunified Germany, to help transform Poland into a modern industrial nation, as a model for the rest of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In 1989, as the perspective for the German reunification came closer, LaRouche and his associates issued a concrete program known as the Productive Triangle ―Paris-BerlinVienna‖, for revolutionizing the technologies of this area, the highest concentration of skilled labour and industrial capacity, as the means to extend ―development corridors‖ of advanced infrastructure across the Eurasian continent. Later, in 1993, then President of the European Union Commission Jacques Delors, presented his white book ―Challenges and Ways into the 21st Century,‖ for the Trans-European Net (TEN) of high-speed rail transport, from Western Europe east. The project, which echoed LaRouche‘s concept saw a key role to be played by unified Germany.
The Paris-Berlin Vienna Development Triangle, and it's Spiral Arms
None of these projects was allowed to materialize. Heerhausen was killed, LaRouche was incarcerated by the Bush regime, and Delors‘ was terrorized, his plan left on the drawing boards for alleged lack of funds. The power behind this sabotage was in London, and there were no doubt about it. As then-Prime Minister, now Lady Thatcher, made clear in her memoirs, the prospect of a reunified Germany was something she was determined to smash. She expended every effort to ensure that then – President Gorge Bush would support her. It was through the Ridley Affair, that Thatcher‘s policy became famous. Trade minister Nicholas Ridley warned on July 12, 1990 in the ―Spectator,‖ that reunified Germany would soon turn into a ―Fourth Reich,‖ which would threaten the entire world. Although Ridley later resigned, his warning signaled the decision at the highest echelons of British Establishment, to torpedo the potential of Germany to contribute to Eurasian development.
Original Article source: http://digitaljournal.com/article/279060
One must glance back into history, to fully grasp the reason why Thatcher explicitly stated, that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been the ―greatest catastrophe for British policy,‖ and why the British have intervened since 1989 to the present day, to thwart efforts at Eurasian continental development. One must recall the strategic writing of the father of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder, who predicted the continuing supremacy of the British Empire, on its ability to maintain a balance of power on the continent, by playing of one part against the other. Russia, China, France and Germany were to be set off against one and other in eternal strife, so as to prevent economic cooperation, which would have so strengthened them as nation-states, that they could overwhelm the power of the Empire. Above all, cooperation must be prevented between the powerful Western European nations and the key nations of China and Iran. British geopolitics held as its premise, that whoever controlled what it called the Eurasian Heartland, would control the world. Thus, as Britain intended to maintain world control, it must control the heartland. Thus, when, at the dawn of this century, French Foreign Minister Gabriel Hanotaux, Russian Finance Minister Sergei Count Witte, father of the Trans-Siberian railway, along with his collaborator, the scientist Dimitrij Ivanovitch Mendeleyev, worked to forge a continental European coalition between France, Germany and Russia, and later the U.S. , to break the grip of British balance of power, the British responded with the policy of ententes, creating alliances with one power against the other, and eventually, created the conditions for the outbreak of world war I. the planned continental alliance aimed at joint development of infrastructure for Eurasia, which would have broken Britain‘s control over world seas and world trade and financial flows. One leading factor in pushing the British to ignite war, was the Berlin-Baghdad railway project.
In the aftermath of World War I, at Versailles, reparations conditions were imposed on Germany, which ensured its economic devastation, and ultimately led to the rise of Nazism in the country. It was the
British, again, who sought to play Hitler‘s Nazi Germany against the Soviets in a war, which London hoped would devastate both sides. Thus, British geopolitics has been the cause of two world wars in this century. Only through division of Europe into East and West, enforced through the reign of nuclear terror, at the end of the war, could the Empire, albeit in a new form, maintain its control. There was no more efficient means of preventing cooperation across Eurasia, then by dividing the entire continent in two.
When, therefore, the Berlin wall fell, and the entire postwar order collapsed, it was the British historical nightmare come true. London responded, as I mentioned, by demonizing reunified Germany, sponsoring the assassination of those spokesmen for Eurasian cooperation like Heerhausen, and igniting, ―splendid little wars‖ in the old colonial fashion, to distract financial, industrial and politia efforts from the grand design of the Landbridge. First came the war against the Iraq, which was decided upon during Margaret Thatcher‘s August meeting with Gorge Bush. Hardly had the war against Iraq ended, and in April 1991, the Balkans were exploded, and a permanent conflict in Southern Europe meant that infrastructure developments there was impossible. More important, however, than the political and military measures taken, were the policy decisions imposed at the same time in the financial and economic realm. Instead of Heerhausen‘s cooperative approach, the British and their American counterparts under Bush, succeeded in forcing through the International Monetary Fund‘s so called The building of the Parliament of Bosnia and ―shock therapy‖ program on Russia, Ukrine, Poland, the Herzegovina burns after being hit by Serbian tank fire (1992). other Eastern European countries and in the West as well. The modern-day carpetbaggers, like Gorge Soros and Jeffery Sachs, moved into Eastern Europe, to advise the victim governments, on how best to close down their industries, sell off plant and equipment, cut budgets by lifting subsidies, and abolishing pensions etc. Soros spent millions to buy up companies, foundations and individuals who could promote his speculative frenzy in eastern European. The effect of this so-called ―reform‖ policy was that 30-50% of the industrial capacity of the victim countries was eliminated. Through ―free market‖ privatization, productive capacities fell into the hands of local mafias and Western speculators. Domestic consumer goods were wiped out by the influx of Western goods. Russia has been reduced to a third world raw materials exporter. The average life expectancy of the Russian man has dropped to 57 years. Because the same ―free market‖ ideology and IMF policies have been accepted in the West as well, instead of progress, we are facing economic breakdown. Due to the massive speculative flows increasingly over the past ten years, into junks bonds, derivatives, and the like, the entire financial system is on the brink of collapse. The gap between decreasing production of real goods and services, on the one hand, and skyrocketing monetary values, in derivatives, for example, means that the system as a whole is doomed to early collapse. Those who, in the city of London and elsewhere, detain control over these immense financial flows, know that the system is about to explode. For this reason, they have been moving into control over raw materials, precious metals and commodities, including food, to remain in control, even when the banking structures literally cease to function. In marked contrast to this downward dynamic, the dynamic originating from China is of growth, expansion, cooperation and optimism. It is in the success of this perspective, the Eurasian Landbridge,
that hope for the future of humanity lies. At the same time, the Landbridge is today the primary target of British geopolitical assault. First, let me briefly recall to mind what this magnificent project will bring to the nations and peoples of this great continent. (Map)
The Eurasian Landbridge, as it was presented at a conference in Beijing in May, 1996, sponsored by the Chinese government, stretches from the ports of Lianyungang in Jiangsu Province, to Rotterdam, in Netherlands, creating one immense integrated economic zone. To the east, it extends to Northeast Asia, South Asia and can proceed across the Bering Strait to the United States. Moving westward, it passes through Alataw Pass to Aktogay, and then, through Almaty to Tashkent. One route runs through West Kazakhstan to Moscow, then Minsk, into the Balkans, and to western European. Another route, which the Schiller Institute Eurasian Development plan has included as its southern route, goes through South Asia: Kunming, Mytkyina, Delhi, Lahore, Sukkur, and then hooks up to the route through Iran. Plans exist for a rail link between Iranian Meshhed to Afghanistan‘s Herat, and beyond, to the southeast, around the mountains to Kandahar, to the Pakistani border city of Chamen. From here, there is the link to Quetta, thence to both Hyderabad and Lahore, both with connections to India. (Map)
The rail routes outlined here, which revive the ancient Silk Route, are projected to become high-speed railways, which will maximize the efficiency of transporting goods and persons across this vast area. But this is no mere transportation grid; rather, like the old Silk Route, these new routes will become development Corridors, the lines along which thousands of new cities will be built, with the levels of population and energy density required to achieve industrialization. Nuclear-powered, urban industrial complexes, known as ―nuplexes‖, will grow up along the railways, surrounded by intensive agriculture, which can benefit from nuclear technology for irrigation and fertilizer production. This land area, considering a 50-kilometer corridor on each side of the rail routes, encompasses between 800 and 900 million people, about 25% of the population of the Eurasia and 50% of its industrial work force. Since three-fifths of the world‘s population lives here, this Eurasian Landbridge concept represents the basis for reconstruction of the entire world economy. It also represents the impulse for a vast cultural renaissance. It is easy to recognize that this ambitious project of the Eurasian Landbridge is the hope for the future. It is, however, no future pie-in-the-sky dream. From the 1992 opening of the Landbridge between China and the CIS, to historic opening in May of this year, of the Meshhed-Saraks-Tejed link, the Landbridge is a reality. The far-reaching contracts signed between Turkey and Iran, as well as the several ―swap‖ deals organized by Iran with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, illustrates the direction in which this process can go. But, -- and this is the central point of my remarks—there are two ways to read a map. The maps we have seen so far, are designed from the standpoint of physical economy, and are articulated according to what
infrastructure projects can most benefit the development of individual nation-states, in cooperation with others. The same map, from the geopolitical standpoint, will be read and marked in a different manner. And here we come to the question of political disruptions in the region. It is a historical fact, as I have tried to identify, that British geopoliticians see control over Eurasian Heartland as crucial to continuing British power. As one geopolitical strategist recently, said, in commenting on the Landbridge, ―We have come full circle, now in the 20th century. It began with a Eurasian geopolitical threat, and is ending with one. This requires us to revive Halford Mackinder … what worries me most, is the economic multiplier effects of building railways … in logistical infrastructure … This must be monitored very closely.‖
What does it mean, today, to ―revive Mackinder‖ ? It means to revive the Great Game in a new form, to play the ethnic card against the nation-state, to generate , promote, ignite conflict along ethnic and religious lines, to create turmoil where development should take place. From this standpoint the map of Eurasia looks very different: (Map)
This is the map of the people identified by the UNPO , the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, founded by Lord Ennals, a former British foreign and defense minister, and a member of
the House of Lords and the Queen‘s Privy Council until his death in 1995. The UNPO, a key institution in the global apparatus of Prince Philip, is dedicated to the task of exacerbating strategic crisis, around support for separatist tendencies, as identified by the ethnic groups on the map. Michael van Walt van Praag, the secretary general of UNPO, has been a long time promoter of the Dalai Lama, Tibetan independence, and what UNPO calls ―East Turkestan,‖ meaning the Uighur-populated region of China‘s northwestern Xinjiang province. It was from the standpoint of ethnic conflict breaking up a nation, that UNPO Viewed the Chechnya war, considering it a precedent for breaking off 14 other pieces. To ―revive Mackinder‖ means to destabilizing the Persian Gulf region, whether through activation of the ―Kurdish question,‖ – (again, historically, a British geopolitical plaything), —or continuing containment of both Iraq and Iran, through the UN sanctions and the new D‘Amato bill. The same geopolitical thrust is behind the restarting of the war in Afghanistan; again, looking at the map, it is clear that the southern route of the Eurasian Landbridge can pass through Afghanistan, with obvious advantages for all the Central Asian republics, only if political stability exists in the country. There is no need here to review the tragic history of manipulation, by the British, and the Americans, in the creation of weapons and drug smuggling through the Afghansi networks. With the war restarted, these drug flows continue to destabilize neighboring countries. Whatever the protagonists and supporters of the recent military developments may believe they are pursuing or achieving, in the Taleban movement, it is from the higher standpoint of the geopolitical string-pullers that the situation should be viewed.
Baluchistan shown as occupied territory by UNPO along with Sindh
What is threatened here is the break-up, not only of Afghanistan, but of several nations, into precisely those ethnic entities which British intelligence has sponsored for centuries. This is what geopolitician Bernard Lewis meant with his Arc of Crisis policy, which was put into operation in 1979 and continues today: ― . . . not only would the Soviet Union fall to pieces, but all the countries of the region—from the Middle East to Central Asia to the Indian Subcontinent – would crack up into their ‗constituent‘ parts: Pushtunistan out of Afghanistan and Pakistan; Azerbaijan out of the Soviet Union and Iran; Kurdistan out of Iraq, Turkey and Iran, Persia out of Central Asia; Turkmenistan out of Iran, Russia and China; Punjabistan out of Pakistan and India; independent Kashmir out of India and Pakistan; and the Sindh out of Pakistan. In this way, the nation-states of the region would be destroyed, replaced by powerless straps
of British intelligence and finance.‖ (EIR, 12.4.96) This is what Lewis meant by ―Lebanonization‖ of Central Asia, in Foreign Affairs, 1992: ―If the central power is sufficiently weakened there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or over-riding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes and regions.‖ (EIR, 12.4.96) There is, however, a way out, a way to defeat the revival of Mackinder. The global financial crisis I mentioned earlier, is on the horizon. Not only LaRouche, but recently, scores of financial insiders of major European press, have acknowledged that the inevitable crash is coming and soon. What must occur at that point, is that the U.S. president wield the powers given him by the Constitution, to reorganize the internal banking system, and at the same time, convene an emergency conference to organize new world monetary structures. This time, the new system must be based on national banking methods, capable of generating long-term, low-interest credits, for infrastructure development. LaRouche has proposed that President Clinton urgently seek agreements with China and Russia on the creation of a new system, and on commitment to realizing all the potential in the Eurasian Landbridge perspective. This means redefining U.S. foreign policy, freeing it from geopolitical thinking, and charting a course for world recovery. It means freeing the world, finally, from oligarchical control, exerted through pitting one group against another, and entering an era of cooperation among sovereign nation-states.
Thanks you. Muriel Mirak-Weissbach Schiller Institute
The Schiller Institute
(In their own words) The Schiller Institute is working around the world to defend the rights of all humanity to progress -material, moral and intellectual. It is named after Friedrich Schiller, the great 18th-century German poet and playwright, whose works have inspired republican opposition to oligarchic tyranny worldwide. In America, the Institute, a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington, D.C., was founded in May 1984. The Schiller Institute is also established in Australia, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, and has a growing influence in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Helga Zepp LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute internationally, is also Chairman of its Board of Directors in the United States. A German citizen, Mrs. Zepp LaRouche is wife of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., statesman and economist, who, with his wife, is a true citizen of the world, in Schiller's sense. In her Founding Message for the American Schiller Institute, in 1984, Chairman Helga Zepp LaRouche outlined the Institute's objectives as follows: The clock of mankind has advanced to a point where the old lackluster ways will no longer work. According to all established criteria, mankind has gambled away all its chances for survival. Too many catastrophes are crowding in upon us, the entropic process has proceeded too far and the rift between the U.S.A. and Western Europe is all but accomplished. For precisely this reason, we are founding the Schiller Institute. We do so not only because there is a vacuum we need to fill with institutions willing to revive the spirit of the American Revolution and the German classical period. We are founding the Schiller Institute because Schiller's special method of approaching world-historical problems is the only one which can still bring about a solution today. The kernel of this method can be defined in Schiller's own words: Man is greater than his fate. Even if the objective situation looks almost hopeless and desperate, we, like Schiller, are sure that a courageous spirit and human reason will always be able to find the higher level where the problems are solvable.... "The Schiller Institute will work for this perspective. You, dear citizens of America, are called upon to help in this process. We can win, but. as Schiller stated, 'world history is the world's court of justice!'''