RE POSTED from EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW  (with added emphasis) April 24 2009, Vol 36 No 16


Kick the British Out of Africa!

by Lawrence K. Freeman

Lawrence Freeman is the EIR Africa desk chief, and a regional coordinator
of the U.S. LaRouche movement. He gave this address to the Conference
of the General Union of Sudanese Students, which took place in
Khartoum, April 5-7, 2009.
It is good to be back in Sudan and to enjoy Sudanese hospitality.
I want to thank the organizers of this conference for inviting my colleagues
and me to this most important conference regarding the unlawful
actions by the International Criminal Court. First of all, let me tell
everyone here at this conference, that Lyndon LaRouche has deployed our
association to dissuade our newly elected President, Barack Obama,
from supporting the ICC indictment against Sudan’s President, Omar
Hassan al-Bashir. The ICC is not a legitimate court,
and has no standing in law to intervene against the sovereign nation of Sudan. If President Obama were to be manipulated into giving credence to the actions of the
ICC, by listening to uninformed or deliberately misleading advisors, the United States would not only lose credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, but it
could potentially set off a new round of warfare in Sudan and the Horn of Africa, which would result in a level of destruction beyond most people’s imagination.
So far, President Obama has not allowed himself to be sucked into this British trap, but in the interests of Darfur, Sudan, the United States, and the rest of the
world, we must overturn this indictment, and dissolve the ICC.
The United States has no principled conflict with the people of Sudan or President Bashir.

The British do. I am referring to the British Empire as it exists today as
the center of oligarchical financier interests, which controls the financial and commodity cartel conglomerates that dominate trade and finance around the globe. It is
absolutely no exaggeration to identify the ICC as a creation of the British Empire.

The two individuals most responsible for bringing the ICC into existence are both
servants of the British Empire: George Soros, a financial mega speculator and the world’s biggest drug pusher who, in his youth, collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of Hungary; and Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister of State in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office for Africa, Asia, and the UN. This so-called “world court,” created by the British duo of Soros and Malloch-Brown, has no lawful jurisdiction to arrest a sovereign head of state: This action by the ICC is in violation of recognized natural law, which respects the inviolability of the modern sovereign nationstate.

The purpose of the ICC is to act as an imperial court, to crush any resistance by nations to the kinds of fascist economic policies that the British intend to impose in response the present breakdown of the financial system. We should rightly see the existence of the ICC as an abomination, opposed to the welfare of all nations, and it therefore should be dissolved immediately.


President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Yalta
summit, 1945. The two wartime allies conflicted sharply over postwar policy toward
the colonies. FDR insisted on their independence, and “increasing the wealth of a
people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them
sanitation—by making sure they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.


Lawrence Freeman told the conference of Sudanese students that “Lyndon
LaRouche has deployed our association to dissuade our newly elected
President, Barack Obama, from supporting the ICC indictment against
Sudan’s President, Omar Hassan al-Bashir.”
There Is a Solution to the Global Meltdown
The policy decisions that the United States will make regarding Sudan (and all other
countries), as well as those that the nation of Sudan will have to consider, are bounded by
the ferocious rate of economic collapse that is causing untold suffering in both developed
and underdeveloped countries. Ultimately, it will be nations—in opposition to the so-called markets—that will have to intervene to reverse this collapse, or the world will continue to devolve into a New Dark Age. Thus, it is in the interest of all nations on this planet not to allow this British-created ICC to have the power to ride roughshod over the sovereignty of nation-states.

Many people may honestly believe that they are accurately depicting the present financial-
economic crisis, when they describe it as the most severe since the Great Depression
of the 1930s. However, they are wrong. It is much worse than that. What we are living
through, is the breakdown of the financial system, which is the end-point of the last 40
years of wrong headed policy following the burying of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods system by President Richard Nixon on Aug. 15, 1971. After two decades of hyper-inflationary liquidity pumping, initiated by former Federal Reserve Board chairman
Sir Alan Greenspan, our global financial system has turned into a gigantic bubble of fictitious monetary values with $1.4 quadrillion in unsecured, that is, worthless,
derivatives. Contrary to the vast number of articles and reports claiming that no one saw this crisis coming, Mr. La- Rouche forecast the precise nature of this economic
breakdown on July 25, 2007, in an address to an audience in Washington, that was broadcast over the Internet.
He said the following:

There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system—none! It is finished,now! The present financial system can not continue to exist any longer under any circumstance, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. . .  Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction collapse. At what speed we don’t know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable! And the longer it goes on before coming to an end, the worse things will get.

Three days later, the financial system began its meltdown,
with the outbreak of the subprime mortgage crisis, which was merely the weakest point in the system.Here we are, 20 months later, and the world continues to slide—faster and faster—into economic hell!

Now we must leave this dead system of fictitious monetary values for a new, living system, based on physical-productive values, if the nations on the planet are to survive this decade. Mr. LaRouche has proposed such a new system of economic relations—a New Bretton Woods system—to replace the failed policies of free trade and globalization administered by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and other kindred institutions.

The measures that must be taken immediately by the
Obama Administration, as prescribed by Mr. LaRouche,
are the following:
Conduct an orderly bankruptcy reorganization of the insolvent banking system, in accordance with U.S. law, as President Franklin Roosevelt did in 1933. Instead of issuing trillions of dollars to bail out worthless derivatives and related debt, cancel these worthless obligations from the books of the banks. At the same time, provide government backing for those debts arising from legitimate, productive activity that is in the economic
interests of the nation.
Establish a National Bank, as prescribed by Alexander Hamilton, to take responsibility for assuming the legitimate bank debt of chartered banks.
Re-regulate the banking system through the Federal government.
Issue government-created credits for domestic and global long-term infrastructure projects, which will be the primary means for rebuilding national economies throughout the world.
• Create a New Bretton Woods system, anchored by an agreement among the four major powers of the world— the United States, Russia, China, and India—to establish
new trade and credit arrangements for all participating nations, with agreed upon, fixed rates of exchange.
These measures, put forth by Mr. LaRouche to deal with the financial crisis, have a precedent in U.S. history. They resemble the executive actions taken by President Roosevelt, in the immediate hours after he took the oath of office, on March 4, 1933. Those emergency measures were taken by Roosevelt because he was steeped in the unique tradition of the American System of political-economy, which became the foundation
of American economic policy, beginning with the inauguration of Gen. George Washington, guided by the genius of his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
I have been asked to respond to the ICC from an American perspective. I will rather give a response that flows from the principles of the American System, as they relate to what our foreign and economic policy should be towards Sudan and the whole of Africa, which is diametrically opposed to that of the British System of empire.

Roosevelt’s Vision To End Colonialism
Since the victorious revolution of the United States over the British oligarchy in 1783, the United States has been viewed as the primary enemy of, and obstacle to, British geopolitical domination of the planet. Unfortunately, since the death President Roosevelt—the last U.S. President who knew the British were our enemy, and acted on that understanding

the United States has, for almost the entirety of the last 64 years, been
controlled by an Anglophile tendency, emanating from the financiers of Wall Street, who still take their marching orders from the City of London.

Roosevelt’s American System opposition to British “free trade” imperialist policies was a source of constant irritation to Prime Minister Winston Churchill during their wartime discussions, in which Roosevelt argued that, after Hitler’s Nazi army was defeated, the world must be free of British, French, and Dutch colonialism. In their meeting off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, in August 1941, Roosevelt forced Churchill to accept the Atlantic Charter, which outlined the principles of freedom and economic development for all nations and all peoples, in a world free of colonialism at the end of the war.In these meetings, Roosevelt told Churchill:
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward people. How can this be
done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods.”
Churchill objected: “Who’s talking eighteenth-century methods?”
Roosevelt responded:

“Which ever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation—by making sure they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”

Discussing the conditions in Africa, Roosevelt pointed out that, by bringing water from the Mediterranean Sea to the desert, “The Sahara would bloom for hundreds of miles.” He continued: “Wealth. Imperialists don’t realize what they can do, what they can create!
They’ve robbed this continent of billions, and all because they were too short sighted to understand that their billions were pennies, compared to the possibilities! Possibilities
that must include a better life for the people who inhabit this land.”
After visiting British Gambia, Roosevelt was outraged at the British for their slave-labor policy of paying Gambians 50 cents a day for their work. After the death of President Roosevelt, only President John Kennedy shared President Roosevelt’s concern
for the development of Africa. However bad U.S. policy has been toward Africa since the election of President Nixon in 1968, America has never been an empire, nor ever had the proclivities to act like an empire. What did happen, was that after the assassination of President Kennedy, the

Nixon regime adopted the centuries-long, British racist policy of genocide against Africa, with the completion of the infamous National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200),initiated and authored by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Kissinger’s study,Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,”

was completed at the end of 1974, but remained
classified until Dec. 31, 1980.classified until Dec. 31, 1980. The two primary tenets of the study are:

1) The West must have an uninterrupted supply of strategic minerals
and vital natural resources which are deposited in large quantities in the countries in the “underdeveloped sector”; and

2) these countries must be forced to practice population reduction to ensure that these resources are not used up by the internal growth of their economies. 

Thus, as NSSM 200 demanded, the West intentionally enforced underdevelopment and economic backwardness, and did so by banning any long-term investment in necessary categories of infrastructure. To eliminate resistance to the looting of these natural resources by the West, it was also necessary to keep the governments of these countries weak, and the people divided by internal conflicts, to prevent the emergence of strong, true nation-states.

One experienced former American diplomat admitted that the United States had not invested in any infrastructure in Africa since the early 1970s, and, only recently, became concerned by the large scale of infrastructure projects undertaken by China in Africa.

Consider the following two passages from NSSM 200:
“Rapid population growth is not in itself a major factor in pressure on depletable resources (fossil fuels and other minerals), since demand for them depends more on levels of industrial output than on numbers of people. On the other hand, the world is increasingly dependent on mineral supplies from developing countries, and if rapid population growth frustrates their prospects for economic development and social progress, the resulting
instability may undermine conditions for expanded output and sustained flows of such resources. “Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources supplies and to the economic interest of the United States [and the West].”

This is a policy of genocide and enforced economic prostration.

Thirty years after the death of President
Roosevelt, U.S. policy towards Africa and the “Third World” ceased to be American and became British, with adoption of Kissinger’s NSSM 200. It is therefore intelligible
that Kissinger, speaking at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London in 1982, proclaimed his support for Churchill over Roosevelt, and announced that, as White House national security advisor, he kept the British Foreign Office better informed than the U.S.
State Department.


The crucial issue for Sudan, and much of Africa, is providing infrastructure to supply water.
Sudan’s new Merowe Dam, discussed in an accompanying article, is a splendid example—but  only the beginning.
The British ‘Game’ in Africa
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, is lying—and she knows it—when she says that the government of Sudan is responsible for “ongoing genocide” in Darfur. This falsehood is part of a “Big Lie” campaign to whip popular opinion into a mindless frenzy in support of the ICC, and, potentially, a military assault on Sudan, in the form of an aerial attack on Sudan’s small air force. There is not a shred of evidence— none—for the claim that thousands of people are dying in Darfur today. And the claim that 300,000 to 400,000
have died in Darfur as a result of the conflict, since the insurgency erupted in February 2003, is a great exaggeration. Counting on the short attention span and complete ignorance of the population and of government officials, this “Big Lie” campaign has effectively covered up the real cause of genocide:

the implementation of NSSM 200, through the deliberate withholding of investment in life-saving categories of infrastructure, most especially infrastructure for water.

The people of Darfur, like those of the bordering areas of Libya, Chad, and the Central African Republic, living in this arid and inhospitable region, depend on marginal quantities of arable land and water for their very survival. The overwhelming majority of deaths in this whole desolate region, which includes Darfur, are not caused by injuries from combat, but from disease, starvation, and illnesses like diarrhea, which are due to a lack of potable water. We face similarly threatening conditions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but on an order of magnitude worse, with 6 million Congolese dying in the last decade. Roosevelt, in 1943, had the vision to see the future “blooming of the Sahara,”
but just the opposite has occurred. Who is responsible for the failure to bring one single
additional drop of water to Darfur, especially since the severe droughts of the early 1980s and the spreading desertification? Why don’t we name those individuals and institutions guilty of genocide of tens of millions of Africans? To seek to arrest President Bashir, when the real crimes against humanity have gone unpunished, is
worse than hypocrisy; it is downright evil.We must insist—over the objections of those shallow-minded empiricists who live only in the present—that one cannot understand what is going on in Sudan and the rest of Africa today, unless one knows the history of British imperial policy towards the continent.

As in Sudan, the events taking place in Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and South Africa today have evolved from the
successes and failures in the history of their struggles to free their nations from British colonial rule.

British imperial control over Sudan was consolidated by two crucial events in September
1898, which have multiple effects on the Darfur crisis today. Sudan first became an independent state after defeating British mercenary Charles “Chinese” Gordon in 1885. The Mahdiya state existed for 13 years until Lord Herbert Kitchener on Sept. 1, 1898, with
25,000 troops, gunboats, cannon, and the Maxim machinegun, defeated the Mahdi, and returned Khartoum to Britain’s control. Winston Churchill, then a soldier
and journalist, watched with excitement the slaughter of tens of thousands of followers of the Mahdi, as they were mowed down by the superior firepower of the
British troops. Kitchener then immediately raced up the Nile to Fashoda to confront a French force led by Maj. Jean- Baptiste Marchand. Marchand’s much smaller numbers
had slogged eastward across Central Africa from Senegal in an attempt to limit Britain’s domination of East Africa. The armies met in Fashoda on Sept. 19. The French were trying to connect their empire east to west, while the British sought to consolidate their empire under imperialist Cecil Rhodes, from Cape Town to Cairo. The  Nile River system was the “prize” that each empire sought, which would give the conqueror geopolitical control, from the Horn of Africa, south to Uganda.
The French caved in to the British out of consideration for future alliances in Europe that eventually led to World War I. In return, they were allowed all of that expanse of territory west of Darfur, and northward to the Mediterranean, that was not yet occupied by another European power. As a result of Kitchener’s twin victories, the Anglo- Egyptian condominium was signed in 1899, placing Sudan under the suzerainty of Egypt, on behalf of the British Empire. Do the people who repeatedly babble about genocide in Darfur or chant “never again,” know even this much? The people of the Chad/Darfur region are the same Africans on two different sides of an artificial border, manipulated to wage war against each other, based on British imperialist machinations from more than a century ago. To understand how conflicts like the one in the Darfur region are created and nurtured, one must know the history of the continent. After colonial troops were removed from Africa in the years following British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s 1960 “Winds of Change” speech, the primary tools for maintaining control were two:

the rigging of currency valuations and terms of trade for commodities; and, using profiled responses by various ethnic, tribal, religious, and geographical groups to foment inter-tribal rage against each other, rather than allowing them to work together to create sovereign nations.

Was not Nigeria, established under British Lord Frederick Lugard, created in such a way as to intensify divisions between the Hausa, Ibo, and Yoruba, which still undermine that nation today? Look at how the British ripped apart Kenyan cultures with their Nazi-like
persecution in the 1950s, which has generated homicidal rage between the Kikuyu, Luo, and Kalinjin ethnic groups over control of the land—rage that is still boiling over today. Was it not the British themselves who, in the 1920s, created the division between northern and southern Sudan? These are but a few examples of how African nations were intended to remain divided and weak after their formal independence from British rule. As a result
of more than two centuries of imposed backwardness, Africans have been forced to live in almost subhuman conditions.
The greatest fear of the Britain-centered financial oligarchy is that African nations will fight back, and emerge as independent, economically viable sovereign nations. That potential—for Sudan to develop its economy, especially its capability to vastly increase its export of agricultural products through increased use of technology—has earned Sudan the hatred of the British, and has marked it for dismemberment.
A Real American Policy for the Future of Africa
What should be the principles of a real American policy for Africa, once we thoroughly reject the hideous Malthusian ideology of NSSM 200?

First, we must keep people alive by increasing the material standard of living for all.

The death of several million children
under five years old, each year in Africa, is a loss to mankind.

Every child is precious because he or she possesses
the intangible, but nevertheless ponderable
power of creativity, which is a universal quality shared
by all human beings.

Democracy is sophistry if it does not promote the general uplifting of the economic conditions of life necessary for families to raise their children free from poverty, disease, and famine. The single most important contribution that can be made, and should have been made decades ago, is the investment in infrastructure for African economies,
which is precisely why Kitchener, Lugard, and Rhodes, among others, consciously avoided building nationwide and regional infrastructure grids. Kwame Nkrumah, the first President of Ghana, from his education in the United States, was well aware of the importance of infrastructure in uniting and developing Africa, which is why he called for the “United States of Africa.”
Africa has an abundant quantity of fertile soil for farming. The production, transportation, and preservation of food products would be increased by a least one order of magnitude, if the farmers, even on small, under-capitalized farms, operated in an environment saturated
with roads, rail lines, electrical power, and irrigation. A relatively modest investment in these categories of infrastructure would yield an increase in agricultural productivity.
What would be the effects on Africa if we applied the most scientifically advanced, capital-intense technologies, such as nuclear power, water desalination, and magnetic levitation rail lines? To resolve the crisis in Darfur, step outside of Darfur
and Sudan. Let your eyes focus on the eastern end of the Horn, where Djibouti, Somalia, and Eritrea meet at the Gulf of Aden. Now move westward across Eritrea and Ethiopia to Sudan through Khartoum, continuing west through Northern Darfur into Chad. We have now traversed some of the most uninhabitable, desolate territory on the planet. We continue our journey into West Africa, through Nigeria. Traveling toward the Atlantic
Ocean, we pass through several more countries until we end at Senegal, the western tip of the African continent.Now, imagine a high-speed train or, better yet, a magnetically
levitated train, traversing the entire width of the continent, with an electrical power grid and gas pipe lines running parallel. How much freight tonnage could then be transported across the continent, creating new levels of commerce, new manufacturing centers, and
brand new cities? The economies of western Sudan and Chad would undergo a revolutionary transformation. Let us think about using nuclear-powered desalination
plants along the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Gulf of Aden to created billions more cubic feet of water, equal to the volume of the Nile. With the installation of South African-built, 200-megawatt pebble-bed modular nuclear power plants, Africans could finally have sufficient amounts of a continuous flow of electric power to light their homes and streets, and power their industries. Now let us think about constructing rail lines to connect Southern, Central, and North Africa, which will then cross into Europe through a new tunnel between Morocco and Spain, and a tunnel from Tunisia to SicilyIf we have the vision and the will to implement these quite feasible, but long-term projects, Africa will bloom and develop as part of an expanding world economy. We could end all of the manipulated conflicts in Africa that are borne from shortages of the necessities
for human life. The conflicts arise because people are not permitted to live with the full rights and dignity that each human being is entitled to. Some may say that the
kind of generational long-term infrastructure projects that I have just outlined are a dream, a mere nice idea, but that it is impossible, that it will never happen. Others may ask, what good does it do for us now? I maintain that it is the only hope for Africa.
First of all, it is the only way to guarantee a future for the children who will be born tomorrow, and a generation from now. This approach to infrastructure as a driver is necessary to stimulate our minds, to get us to think big thoughts, to dare us to imagine a continent where people’s daily existence is not dominated by simple survival. Yes, we need to survive, and do what is necessary to maintain our existence, but we must do it
with a vision of the future that provokes our imaginations, and stimulates our minds.
It is this future for Africa, seen with clarity in our mind’s eye, that must guide our actions in the present.

I would like to conclude on a personal note. For the entirety of my adult life, I have never accepted that human beings should perish needlessly when there are no objective reasons for the premature loss of life. For children to die in large numbers in Africa from malnutrition and preventable diseases such as diarrhea, is the most hideous example of the complete disregard for human life by the Western governments and institutions. All wealth flows from the unique human ability to discover new scientific principles that create new technologies, which transform our economic mode of activity to constantly higher levels of productivity and physical output.

Any economic policy that does not promote the development of human life is not only immoral and economically insane, but is in violation of the laws of the universe, and will fail.

This is the only way forward. We must choose this path. Therefore, we cannot allow this fake “world court,” created by drug-pusher George Soros, to foment the break-up of Sudan in violation of the principle of national sovereignty. If we were to permit this to happen to Sudan, that would be a crime against humanity, because then, no nation would be protected from such an intervention by an outside supra-national institution.