Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

MAJOR LAROUCHE INTERVIEW ON BRITISH RADIO

September 1, 2007 --—LYNDON LAROUCHE WAS INTERVIEWED BY MIKE MENDOZA OF TALKSPORT, THE MAJOR COMMERCIAL RADIO STATION IN Britain, with 6.3 million listeners a week.

MIKE MENDOZA: Good morning to you. Well, we heard the news last week of an arrest of an American, working in Washington, spying on behalf of the Israelis! That does seem rather strange to me, because I always thought the Americans and the Israelis were "as one." Let's face it, if it wasn't for the Americans, I guess, Israel wouldn't be in the situation it's in now.

Well, I will talk about Israeli spies, and what's going on in the Pentagon right now. Let's talk to Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon was so many times a Democratic Presidential candidate, and a very good morning to you sir!

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Good morning!

HOST: Thank you for joining us.

Now, I really thought that Israel and America would have no secrets from each other.

LAROUCHE: Well, this is not exactly a friendly act, because there are many people in Israel themselves, who would not wish the consequences of a preemptive strike, by Israel or by the U.S., on Iran, for example. Because, this would take an unwholesome mess, and make it into a monstrous mess. Therefore, there are people, in the United States—in the institutions, not just odds and ends hanging about—who are concerned to prevent this. They're concerned to prevent Israel from going to what is called a "breakway ally syndrome," the kind of thing which was discussed by the RAND Corp. back during the 1970s; or would they wish the United States itself, to be pulled into such a war, at this time, either in support of Israel, or independently. So therefore, the thing was blown. It's, in a sense routine. It's important. It's legitimate, but it blown, as other things have not been blown, because some of us here, are very much concerned to prevent a worsening of the general strategic situation, by such adventures at this time.

HOST: This is not the first time, that there has been a problem with spies, from Israel in America, has there? I mean, there's the Pollard affair, of course.

LAROUCHE: Oh, yes. But, this is particularly the type, where these neo-conservative types, who are long on tooth and short on brain—they do tend to go wild. And they are a terrible nuisance to us, and to Europe, as to other countries.

HOST: In which way?

LAROUCHE: I couldn't quite get you clearly.

HOST: You said they are a nuisance. In which way?

LAROUCHE: Well, the point is, they're crazy: They are wild utopians, they have wild imperial dreams which make no sense. We've had them around, significantly, since the end of the war, with people like James Jesus Angleton and Allen Dulles and so forth, have helped breed this lot, some of whom actually have a pedigree, which is the Nazi rat-line types, that we've taken over into the Western Hemisphere.

HOST: Right. Now, as far as Israel is concerned, do you think Israel would survive without America?

LAROUCHE: No. But, I think that our disposition would be—my disposition—but I think that many others who share my views, was that Israel should not be a menace to its neighbors. But, we prefer its existence, its security. And we prefer, or should be preferring, probably a two-state solution for the Middle East now. But, that will require also some economic back-up and support, in cooperation with Europe. And, I don't think that's quite the situation we have yet.

HOST: Am I right in saying, that you believe that the Iraqi war was very much influenced by—let me say—the Jewish lobby, and Israel lobbying President Bush?

LAROUCHE: I think that is a mistaken view of the situation. There are certain people on our side—you have some of them in Britain, too—who want a kind of new empire of sorts, an Anglo-American Empire or something of that sort. And they want to use these kinds of power games, picking targets to use, to intimidate the world. For example, right now, the danger is not Iraq. Iraq was only one part of the same thing, as was Afghanistan, the targetting of Syria—which may be partly in Israeli interest, but it's also that; the targetting of North Korea, and playing games with China, which might lead on calculation to a war estimatable to break out about 2007. So, this is the kind of game, of preventive nuclear-armed warfare, which is actually, what we call technically "asymmetric warfare," which theses "blokes" (if you want to put it that way) are turning loose in the world.

HOST: Going back to 1998, didn't we hear—I've got the doctrine in front of me, so I think it's been produced by your office—that in 1998 the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a concerted effort, in league with Netanyahu, or the Netanyahu government in Israel, to get America to attack Iraq then?

LAROUCHE: Well, that's not quite true. You have to have a corrected practical view of these things. I despise Sharon. I despise Netanyahu more! They did come up with this kind of thing in 1996, in particular, with the so-called "Clean Break" thing, which was concocted for them , for Netanyahu, here, in the United States. And, once Netanyahu had received that particular piece of advice, he came to the United States, addressed the Congress, and proposed it to the U.S. Congress! You have creatures like Rafi Eitan, who is a notorious fellow, whose people are still running around loose. They just skipped across from the U.S. border into Canada, because of the heat that's going on. So, you have these things.

But, we, as serious people, who have to think of the long pull, have to deal with these fellows, and deal with them sometimes on a very nice basis, in order to secure the future for the rest of us, and for humanity, and for the people of their country, who they are misleading.

HOST: Why is it, that Clinton refused to take any action, yet Blair—or, yet Bush, did?

LAROUCHE: Well, you mean Clinton, in particular? Well, Clinton is a very interesting fellow. He's probably one of the most intelligent Presidents of the 20th Century, in particular. He's reflective; once withdrawn—he doesn't take counsel publicly, but he does think. And he is a little bit more shrewd than some of these other impulsive fellows, who don't think as clearly.

HOST: Looking at the general events of September, and the bombing of the Twin Towers, surely that must of have convinced Americans—it certainly did—convince Americans, that there is a terrorist threat from the Middle East.

LAROUCHE: I don't think it's only from the Middle East. I think it's much more general.

Look, we're in a period, as we all know, of a general breakdown of the present world monetary-financial system. In its present form, we can't go on this way, much longer. We might have a major blowout as early as October: We're in that kind of period, where you can't predict where something is going to happen, exactly, but you know you're in that kind of weather pattern. Therefore, in these kinds of periods, in history, we have generally found, especially over the three centuries, since the various treaties—since the 18th Century, rather—we've been in this kind of thing repeatedly: Wherever you get a general monetary-financial crisis, or similar kinds of conditions, you get some very nasty political things tending to erupt, and we're in that kind of period.

HOST: Do you think Bush has been a good President?

LAROUCHE: No! There's a book, by Justin Frank, he's a rather famous (now) psychiatrist; matter of fact, he's in the American tradition of Melanie Klein, in his work as a profession. He's done a study of the behavior of the President, of the type that Gerald Post used to do—you know, the old CIO studies of leading figures. And I've read the book, and his assessment of the President, as a mental case, is pretty much what has been my own, but he gives a lot more documentation to it.

HOST: [chuckling] And do you think Kerry would make a good President, there?

LAROUCHE: Kerry's a Hamlet: That is, he's a very brave soldier. But, like Hamlet, when he faces the challenge of great power, in times of great international, and national crisis, he's going to need a lot of help. A lot of advice, and counsel, and strengthening, not to be a Hamlet in practice. He may have that tendency. Many people do. But, we must intervene, to help him, to prevent him from becoming the Hamlet he potentially could become.

HOST: You've been a candidate on more than one occasion for the Democratic Party, nomination as President. Why haven't you succeeded?

LAROUCHE: [laughing] Well, because I've been considered a little bit too dangerous, by some people, who consider me an advocate of policies they oppose! And they've done a fair to good job—they do that, you know; in various countries, this is done.

But, I've been effective, if not successful in one sense, I've been quite effective. Because, you know, my little job called the SDI stirred up quite a fuss, you know.

HOST: Yeah, I can imagine.

You said before, that you despise Sharon and that you despise Netanyahu, even more. Have you actually respected any leader of Israel? Yes?

LAROUCHE: Oh, I've got lots of people in Israel—for example, Rabin is a hero! He was a very brutal fellow, but, in the end, it was shown that he was completely rational and brave, and he was not a Hamlet. He acted, to try to save Israel. He was one of these fellows of the Labor Party tradition, that kind, who would fight like a tiger, for Jewish and Israeli interests, as he saw them. But, he was not a fool. And saw the time had come, in the Middle East, that no longer could Israel continue to maintain this posture, of Palestinian-Israeli conflict: That peace must be accepted.

There are many people in Israel who think that way. The old Labor Party people I knew, back in the 1970s, when I was working with them, on trying to get a Palestinian-Israeli peace, as a Middle East peace. They agree. So, actually, the picture in Israel is that, you know, Shimon Peres and I used to be on friendly terms.

So, there are good people there. There are good people, who are frightened, but they don't quite now, have the power to do what they would like to do. And if they were going to do it , they would need our support. And, they—I would support enthusiastically. Sharon or Netanyahu, I would deal with reluctantly, but necessarily, for the sake of peace.

HOST: Um-hmm. As you mentioned, you are fairly outspoken. You don't really hold your punches, when you do make your comments. What are your thoughts on Tony Blair?

LAROUCHE: I think Tony—it's a miracle, and I think not an accident—that he has been kept in place this long.

The problem we have—you look at the situation across Europe, as we see it from here. There is not a stable government, presently, in any major country in continental Europe. You see the situation in Germany; you see the situation in Italy; you see the instabilities, which are coming in against Chirac in France; you see the situation in Spain; you see the situation in the United Kingdom: It's all part of a pattern. In a period of history, in which we have a terrible situation, and we have many inadequate leaders.

My opinion, from here, is that, if Britain had what it perceived to be a capable replacement for Tony, a clear shot, I think that Tony would be replaced.

HOST: If you were President, would you make war, or would you make peace? Would you go around talking to people, or would you rather ignore people?

LAROUCHE: There a—I think probably the best answer is, there's a simple way to define the situation internationally. In my view, and the view of others, the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, established international law. I see that kind of international law, not as a globalization process. But I see it as a set of relations among cooperating nation-states.

The opposite tendency today, is to say, "We repudiate the Treaty of Westphalia," as in the Middle East situation. I say, that's wrong.

The division for me, is simply that: That we must understand, after this long period of religious wars, from about the period of 1511-1648, that we finally learned to have a system of law among nations. What we must fight for, is not victory, in the sense of one over the other, as the people learned through the Thirty Years' War. We must fight, to secure a system among nation-states, which is civilized. And that's it. That should be the objective, not winning or losing, otherwise.

HOST: Thank God, America and Britain are both democratic countries, and we choose who leads us. There's been a call for both Blair and Bush to be taken to trial as war criminals. What's your thoughts on that?

LAROUCHE: I don't think that's a profitable thing. See, the question is, when you get to these ad hoc solutions to problems, you miss the point. Look, how did Bush get to be President? Well, I don't think he was properly elected President, but he is President. And, so that's the institution; we have to support the institution. But, the point is, what do we leave to our posterity? How do we deal with the problem from the standpoint of how will it affect our posterity? Yes, we're in a mess, now. Do we want to take a cheap shot, and get out of the mess by some drastic action which "pleases" us, like the executioner satisfied when he's killed the poor bum. Or, do we want to do something, which is going to be a precedent, for future times, which will be useful to our posterity?

I think the point is: Get the rubbish out of the White House. Get something in that's manageable, even if it's not perfect. Support it, build it around an institution. Think about where we're going.

I don't like drastic actions; I don't like hangman solutions, for problems where the people themselves played a part in bringing bad rulers on themselves. And it is the people themselves, who must learn the lesson, and change their habits , not find a scapegoat, as a substitute for their negligence.

HOST: Is there a place for you in the Kerry government? Or, are you retired now?

LAROUCHE: Oh, I'm never retired. I'll be around after I'm dead! I'm that sort of person.

No, I'll be a significant factor in fighting for his election. And I will be a factor in the institutions of the United States, in shaping the presentation of options, of policy for the incoming government.

HOST: Has he discussed with you, a proper position? A title?

LAROUCHE: Well, I haven't met with him personally. But, naturally, my people have met with his people.

HOST: Yeah—as they do, yes.

LAROUCHE: That's the way things normally go!

You know, over here, we do have a whole crowd of people, rather diverse, who are associated with the Presidency, or traditionally associated with the institutions of the Congress. And we are one wont. We have our differences, but we get along. And when the United States does something good, it's usually by bringing these fellows together. And I think the time has come, for bringing together a lot of people who haven't been cooperating the way they should, in past times.

HOST: It's been a pleasure talking to you. I wish you the best of luck. And let's hope we speak again, some time.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Thank you.