Monthly Archives: June 2020

Rosatom Reaffirms Commitment to Africa’s Nuclear Energy Future

re posted from                                              EIR DAILY ALERT SERVICE

Rosatom Reaffirms Commitment to Africa’s Nuclear Energy Future

June 29 (EIRNS)—In the wake of the challenge it issued to the world May 7—for any company to develop and produce ten 250 MW small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) for the country—South Africa has continued its public commitment to nuclear power, as part of its “clean energy” mix for COVID-19 economic recovery program.

In an article June 24, South Africa’s Engineering News spoke with Rosatom Central and Southern Africa acting CEO Ryan Collyer, who confirmed Russia’s commitment to South Africa’s and the African’s continent’s energy development. “We are working hard to highlight the true potential of nuclear power to become a catalyst for sustainable development in Africa,” he highlighted. “We all understand that nuclear will play a vital role in achieving the United Nations sustainability goals, not only in Africa, but across the globe.”

A big hurdle to cross is the production of the small and affordable SMRs. “Africa, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa, has never been viewed as a robust market for nuclear power,” Collyer observed, “However, with the emergence of small modular reactor technology, nuclear increases its chances of being considered as a feasible option to address regional energy needs in a low carbon and stable energy generation, with predictable costs.”

The daily further states that Rosatom has “400-reactor-years” of experience, especially in SMR research.

Source: EIR Daily Alert Service

https://larouchepub.com/

Le New Deal vert : Sortir du piège de la finance verte

re posted from                                        SOLIDARITE ET PROGRES

https://solidariteetprogres.fr/nos-actions-20/analyses/le-nouveau-dossier-de-s-p-un-gros.html

Le New Deal vert : Sortir du piège de la finance verte 

Qui aujourd’hui ne se dit pas vert et écologiste ?

Pourtant, rares sont celles et ceux qui connaissent l’origine réelle d’un paradigme devenue nouvelle religion ?

continue a lire ici: Source:

https://solidariteetprogres.fr/nos-actions-20/analyses/le-nouveau-dossier-de-s-p-un-gros.html

 

Creativity Is The True Source of Economic Wealth

The title of Mr. Kabanda’s book caught my eye, because it provocatively alters the title of Adam Smith’s well known, wicked book, “The Wealth of Nations.” Contrary to what is commonly accepted by the majority of my fellow citizens, and what is taught in our institutions of learning, the United States was not founded on the tenets of Adam Smith. In fact, no economy ever was, or ever could be successful by following Smith’s canons.

re posted from                                AFRICA AND THE WORLD

Creativity Is The True Source of Economic Wealth

June 26, 2020

Creativity Is the True Source of Economic Wealth

Lawrence Freeman

(I promised Patrick Kabanda over a year ago I would write a review of his book, “The Creative Wealth of Nations: Can the Arts Advance Development?” and I always keep my word.) 

With his book, Patrick Kabanda makes a significant contribution to examining the subject of economics with a new and refreshing approach. Rather than being stuck in a maze measuring monetary values, he looks beyond the financial structure of prices and export-import figures, to the relationship of the human mind to economics. While I do not agree with everything in this book, its principal value to me is that it elevates the discussion of the importance of creativity in economics. The title of Mr. Kabanda’s book caught my eye, because it provocatively alters the title of Adam Smith’s well known, wicked book, “The Wealth of Nations.” Contrary to what is commonly accepted by the majority of my fellow citizens, and what is taught in our institutions of learning, the United States was not founded on the tenets of Adam Smith. In fact, no economy ever was, or ever could be successful by following Smith’s canons.  President George Washington and his brilliant Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, rejected Smith’s doctrines, as did every follower of the American System of Political Economy, including many American Presidents and foreign leaders. (Read Alexander Hamilton’s Credit System Is Necessary for Africa’s Development)

continue reading Here: Source:

Creativity Is The True Source of Economic Wealth

Nations Must Study Alexander Hamilton’s Principles of Political Economy

re posted from                                    AFRICA AND THE WORLD

Nations Must Study Alexander Hamilton’s Principles of Political Economy

Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles Of the American System of Economics      By Nancy Bradeen Spannaus

A Review by Lawrence Freeman-March 28 2019

For those followers of our beloved Alexander Hamilton and for those new to his writings, this book is for you. Nancy Spannaus, in her just-released book Hamilton Versus Wall Street, makes a unique contribution to the existing volumes written on Hamilton’s political and economic thoughts.  In her relatively short easy-to-read book, she weaves together Hamilton’s revolutionary ideas on political economy that served as the pillars for the creation of the United States, their legacy in the next two centuries of America, and their influence internationally. Throughout her treatise, Spannaus also provides constructive historical analysis of the battle inside the United States to adopt Hamilton’s concepts. This book is a valuable complement to Hamilton’s economic reports and will aid those unfamiliar with his seminal texts. *

continue reading Here: Source:

Nations Must Study Alexander Hamilton’s Principles of Political Economy

Alexander Hamilton’s Credit System Is Necessary for Africa’s Development

re posted from                                AFRICA AND THE WORLD

http://lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com/2019/10/04/alexanders-hamiltons-credit-system-is-necessary-for-africa-development/

Alexander Hamilton’s Credit System Is Necessary for Africa’s Development

October 4, 2019

Below is a half hour video presentation on the importance of Alexander Hamilton’s credit policy for the development of Africa. The forum was organized by Watch Democracy Grow, an organization promoting democracy and development in Africa, and was filmed Afrique Today.

As I discuss in the video and article below, African nations need long-term and low interest lines of credit to finance trillions of dollars necessary for infrastructure projects across the continent.  Government backed authorities or the government itself can issued public credit in the amounts required. To provide credit for the newly united colonies, Hamilton designed the National Bank of the United States in 1791 at the request of President George Washington. It was a corner stone of the successful American System of Political Economy. Similar institutions are appropriate for African nations to finance vitally needed infrastructure today.  Applying the Hamiltonian model, the Belt and Road Initiative, promoted by China, is helping Africa build and finance infrastructure that is essential for African nations to industrialize and expand their agriculture and manufacturing sectors.

Read my article from March of this year: Nations Must Study Alexander Hamilton’s Principles of Political Economy

Source:

http://lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com/2019/10/04/alexanders-hamiltons-credit-system-is-necessary-for-africa-development/

 

Africa’s Development Requires Twenty-Fold Increase in Electricity, 7,000 New Nuclear Power Plants

re posted from                             EIR DAILY ALERT SERVICE

Africa’s Development Requires Twenty-Fold Increase in Electricity, 7,000 New Nuclear Power Plants

June 26 (EIRNS)—Preliminary work by the LaRouche Economic Task Force has found that in order to counter the imminent fatal effects on Africa of the COVID-19 pandemic and famine, as well as to secure and develop Africa’s future, the continent requires a twenty-fold increase in its net electricity-generating capacity—the power equivalent to the building of 7,000 new nuclear power plants.

This electricity would not only be necessary to power hospitals, but to run the whole economy: water purification plants and irrigation, manufacturing plants, high-speed rail systems, homes and apartments, etc.

In 2017, the populations of Africa’s 54 nations collectively consumed 683 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. For a continent of 1.2 billion people, this is gravely insufficient. The LaRouche Task Force used the United States’ per-capita electricity consumption annually as a provisional standard, i.e. the total electricity used for the total U.S. economy—manufacturing, agriculture, housing, etc.—expressed per person. To reach that working standard, Africa would require raising electricity consumption to 14,450 billion kilowatt-hours annually, for all purposes of the economy, an increase in electricity consumption of an additional 13,770 billion kilowatt-hours. This is a twenty-fold increase.

To meet this standard for Africa, were the electricity to be supplied primarily through nuclear power, this would require the construction on the continent of 1,400 new thousand-megawatt nuclear power plants, joined by 5,600 new 60-megawatt small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs): a total of 7,000 nuclear plants. The 1,000-megawatt plants would be sited in cities and large urban areas; the SMRs would be situated where energy need is less geographically intense. This power equivalent could be produced also by a combination of nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and gas- and coal-fired plants.

Because nuclear plants take five to seven years to build and install, the construction of a string of gas-fired plants, with a 150 to 500 megawatt capacity, should be started immediately, with construction times of 12 to 24 months, with abundant gas supplies on the continent itself. Russia should float 60-megawatt SMRs to Africa as quickly as it can produce them. At the same time, there must be an eye toward Africa participating in the construction of nuclear plants, hydroelectric dams and gas-fired plants.

Ultimately, African nations should be able to produce these plants themselves. This is a critical part of the LaRouche plan to create 1.5 billion new productive jobs.

Source: EIR Daily Alert Service

https://larouchepub.com/

China’s Long March Out of Poverty

re posted from                       EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

https://larouchepub.com/

This article appears in the June 26, 2020 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

China’s Long March Out of Poverty

[Print version of this article]

Public domain
Deng Xiaoping, who put China firmly on the path of “reform and opening up.”

June 18—With the initiation of the policy of “reform and opening up” in 1978 by Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who had taken the reins of power not long after the death of Mao in 1976, China began to reestablish its relationships with the rest of the world. It also embarked on its first really successful attempt at developing its economy based on the promotion of science and technology.

Far from following some overriding “game-plan” for achieving “world hegemony,” a notion being foisted on the general public by China-bashers like Michael Pillsbury, who in his 2016 book, The 100 Year Marathon—China’s Secret Strategy To Replace America as the Global Superpower, depicts the process of “reform and opening up” as a conscious effort by China to develop into the world hegemon, China really made its way to where it is today only through a rather arduous process of “crossing the river by feeling the stones” as the Chinese adage says. Contrary to Pillsbury’s rather paranoid—and simplistic—view of history, the process of “reform and opening up” was far more complicated—and far more erratic—than anyone might imagine.

View full size

Like other early leaders in the CCP under Mao, Deng and his family were made victims of the Cultural Revolution. Shown is Deng (l.) with Mao Zedong.

Charting a New Course

With the death of Mao in 1976, the Chinese government and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could dismantle the disastrous Cultural Revolution, an attempt by Mao to maintain the Mandate of Heaven after his disastrous Great Leap Forward debacle. While the Cultural Revolution had wrought havoc with much of what was then China’s intellectual elite, who had been trundled off to the countryside for “rehabilitation,” or killed, Premier Zhou Enlai, himself a subject of ire for the Cultural Revolution’s “storm troopers,” the Red Guards, had assisted those who were victims, to survive the ordeal.

During the worst days of the Cultural Revolution, Zhou did his utmost to maintain a certain sector of Chinese high-tech production in the area of space and in the nuclear industry, which had been created under Mao’s program of “two bombs [atomic and hydrogen] and one satellite.” Zhou had in 1963 already formulated the famous “four modernizations” and, at the last Communist Party Congress he attended shortly before his death in 1976, he reiterated their importance as the basis of Chinese policy. The “four modernizations” referred to modernization in industry, in agriculture, in national defense, and in science and technology. And this was taken up in a most determined manner by Deng Xiaoping.

Although Deng Xiaoping would not himself become Communist Party Secretary or China’s president, or even premier, he was one of the Eight Immortals, the name given to those who had been involved in the struggle of the Communist Party since the Long March to the mountains of Shaanxi in 1934, to escape the wrath of Chiang Kai-shek. And like Zhou Enlai but unlike Mao, Deng had been one of those who spent time in France as a factory worker during the First World War.

Topwar.ru
Many party cadre and intellectuals were subjected to public humiliation, ostracism, and beatings by the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

Once he had overcome the opposition to his leadership, his position was fairly solid, although not completely unopposed. He began immediately to rebuild the nation from the devastation it had undergone. In 1977 he reinstituted college exams and reopened the schools, which had been largely closed during the Cultural Revolution, made only accessible, and on a limited basis, to those with the correct “class background.” Most of the professors had been sent to the countryside. They were now brought back to the classroom.

public domain
Zhou Enlai, a target of the Red Guards, was able to use his position to help those they victimized.

He also opened the door to the outside world, intent on accessing the necessary scientific and technical know-how to enable the country to rebuild. Deng laid stress on the advancement of science and technology as the motor force for economic development. This was the long-term perspective. In the short-term, however, it was not totally evident to Chinese scholars how they should proceed in order to move forward. And a major period of consultation, deliberation, and experimentation began in the search to find the right “development path” for China.

Deng Xiaoping Announces the New Policy of ‘Reform and Opening Up’

In December 1978, the 3rd Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China met. It was preceded by a month-long discussion at a preliminary Working Conference. It was at these two meetings in which Deng and his allies—many of whom only recently returned from disgrace and even internal exile as a result of the purges of the Cultural Revolution—took control of the leadership of the Communist Party and set China on a new path.

At the time, the Chinese economy was totally dependent on state-owned industries. This had been the Soviet model and it was this model that the Chinese Communist Party had, by and large, followed. Even with the abandonment of the autarchic policy of the disastrous Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and opening the door to trade with the Western nations, it was still unclear how China was to transform its command economy into a functioning modern economy without devolving into chaos and anarchy.

One thing was clear from the beginning, however, and that was the need for a revival of China’s scientific capabilities. Even before the 1978 Third Plenum, Deng was aware that the revival of education and science was of the utmost importance. Within a month of his return from a visit to Southeast Asia, Deng convened a Forum on Science and Education in 1977, to begin the reorganization and expansion of scientific institutions. In addition to reviving the Academy of Sciences (CAS), he founded a new Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). He reinstated the State Science and Technology Commission and ordered the drafting of a new Seven-Year Science Plan. Speaking at that forum, Deng said,

We must create within the party an atmosphere of respect for knowledge and respect for trained personnel. The erroneous attitude of not respecting intellectuals must be opposed. All work, be it mental or manual, is labor.

With regard to areas of study in institutions of higher learning, there should be a unified plan to specify which ones should be merged or divided, where new ones should be added or reductions made, and which ones should be abolished….

The United States has 1,200,000 scientific research people. The Soviet Union had 900,000 the year before last, and the figure has grown since. We have only about 200,000….

Nevertheless, as some comrades have pointed out, this small number of researchers can undertake more projects and achieve greater successes than the same number in capitalist countries, if only we take advantage of the superiority of our socialist system and organize our efforts in a unified and rational way….

Then on December 13, 1978, Deng announced at the closing session of the Central Working Conference of the Third Plenum, the policy of “reform and opening up.” The method to be followed would be based on the concept that “Practice Is the Sole Criterion for Judging Truth.” This was in direct contrast to the prescription given by Deng’s predecessor Hua Guofeng, who had formulated the doctrine of the “Two Whatevers”: Whatever policies Mao supported, and Whatever instructions Mao gave, should still be followed.

Deng told the delegates:

To make revolution and build socialism we need large numbers of pathbreakers who dare to think, explore new ways, and generate new ideas….

At present, most of our cadres need also to apply themselves to three subjects: economics, science and technology, and management. Only if we study these well will we be able to carry out socialist modernization rapidly and efficiently. We should learn in different ways—through practice, from books and from the experience, both positive and negative, of others as well as our own….

While these words seem to ring of common sense now, this was such a break with the old ways of doing things that there were many in the audience who doubted the wisdom of moving in the direction Deng indicated, and many who felt that this ultimately would undermine the leading role of the Communist Party by introducing reckless “experimentation.” In fact, Deng’s radical shift in policy no doubt preserved the role of the Communist Party which was losing support as a result of the disastrous policies it had followed during the previous two decades.

But there was great excitement in the nation as a whole. The students who had been sent to the countryside to work, when the universities were closed, were now back in the classroom. Intellectuals who had been exiled and harassed were now brought back to revive the education and science centers of the nation. The Chinese Communist Party, which had previously shunned intellectuals who didn’t have a pristine “proletarian” background, were now openly recruiting them into the party.

‘Crossing the River by Feeling the Stones’

But the road ahead was still somewhat unclear. Two things were key. China must open itself to the outside world, the world where science and technology was advancing rapidly. And it must find a way to tap the creative capabilities of its own people by opening the door to some form of market economy. While state-owned enterprises could continue to be the mainstay of the Chinese economy, a niche had to be found in which private enterprises could have the freedom to experiment and develop.

But how to move from a dirigistic “command economy” into a more “open” economy that could tap more effectively into creativity and innovative ideas—and tap into experimentation, which could not be done in a rigid top-down structure—was not so clear cut. Chinese scholars, reflecting on their own experience, also went to the books to look for answers. And they began to invite foreign scholars to China to examine how things worked in other countries.

Initially Chinese scholars started to look at other attempts to reform the old Soviet model in the East European nations. CASS began a study of the Yugoslav and Hungarian experiences in “market socialism.” They also began to study the New Economic Policy that had been practiced in the early days of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. And the work of Soviet economist Nikolai Bukharin, who had been purged and executed by Joseph Stalin after Stalin’s launch of the forced collectivization, became a hot item for economists.

Shaanxi People’s Publishing House
Xi Zhongxun addresses the crowd at a mobilization meeting in Xi’an, in June 1949.
View full size

public domain
Xi Zhongxun, Xi Jinping’s father, a leading figure in the Communist Party from the end of World War II, was also humiliated, as shown here, and sent to the countryside during the Cultural Revolution.

But Deng had already set things into motion himself. In 1977 in Guangzhou province, which sat across from the British enclave of Hong Kong, officials complained to Deng that many youth were fleeing the province and attempting to swim to Hong Kong. Deng realized that simply imposing stricter control measures was not enough. The problem was the discrepancy between the standard of living in Guangdong and in Hong Kong. The officials also complained about the lack of foreign currency for purchasing foreign technology in order to realize many of their construction projects.

Deng encouraged them to export their fruits and vegetables to Hong Kong in order to acquire more foreign currency. He also encouraged them to build a hotel and encourage foreign tourism in the province. Then in April 1978, Deng appointed Xi Zhongxun, Xi Jinping’s father and himself a comrade from the early days in Ya’nan in the 1940s, to head the province in what would become the “critical experiment” in reform and opening up. Xi, like Deng, had also been under a cloud during the Cultural Revolution and had been exiled to manage a remote factory.

Even before the Third Plenum, Deng had already begun his own exploration of different economic models in foreign countries, traveling in 1978 to Singapore, to Japan, and to Malaysia. The success of the Asian tigers, Japan, South Korea and Singapore, countries which had largely developed according to Hamiltonian rather than free market principles, also served as models for development. During his visit to Singapore, Deng examined and was favorably struck by the tremendous development in the city-state since the time of his first visit there on his way to France in 1920 to participate in a work-study program.

The visit to Japan in 1978 was ground-breaking. Deng had been in touch with Japanese colleagues during the early 1970s and was aware of developments there. He was also eager to change the tense relationship which had existed between the two nations since the first Sino-Japanese War in 1894, and to build on the commonalities that had earlier existed between these two Asian powers.

On his visit to Japan, Deng was accompanied by Liang Chengzhi, who was born in Japan and educated through primary school in Japan, and then later at Japan’s Waseda University. Liang was also a veteran of the Long March and was the son of Liang Zhongkai, who had been one of the leading candidates to succeed Sun Yat-sen as leader of the Kuomintang, until he was assassinated by rivals in 1925.

Government of Japan
Takeo Fukuda, Prime Minister of Japan (1976-78), was sympathetic to Deng’s attempt to modernize China.

Deng met with Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda as well as with the Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, and many of the leading political and economic figures in the country. He was particularly impressed by Japan’s effective industrial management. Here also was a nation like the United States, which had a long history of practicing Hamiltonian economics spurred on by the Japanese translations of American economist Henry Charles Carey and Carey’s disciple, E. Peshine Smith, who spent many years living and working in Japan. The Hamiltonian system was not a British “free trade” system, but rather a system in which private industry was nurtured, promoted, and encouraged by measures taken by the central government. Perhaps here was a model for China to transform its own system without losing control of its direction.

The American System of Economics was brought to Asia by followers of Henry C. Carey (left), such as E. Peshine Smith (right), who participated in Japan’s modernization.

While Deng was in Japan, the two countries signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship, thereby establishing formal relations. Deng also took a trip on the Shinkansen, Japan’s high-speed railroad and envisioned high-speed rail as a future transportation mode for China. Deng’s visit also opened up China to Japanese investment, which would take off the following year and would play a major role in helping China in building up its own industry and infrastructure during the Deng years.

The First Special Economic Zone

In January 1979, one month after the Third Plenum, Xi Zhongxun in Guangdong was given the green light to formally accept foreign direct investment and became China’s first Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Fujian province, situated across from Taiwan, would become the second.

As the SEZ experiment began to show results, there were now considerations of using more of the coastal areas, which had easy access to the export markets, as engines of growth for the entire economy. Deng’s much-cited slogan to people involved in the process, “Let Some People Get Rich First,” dramatically characterized the seismic shift in the Chinese economy.

View full size

White House/Jimmy Carter Library
Deng Xiaoping’s visit to the U.S. in 1979, after the establishment of diplomatic relations, was instrumental in changing America’s views of the People’s Republic of China. Here Deng is welcomed by President Jimmy Carter.

The process did not always go so smoothly. There was opposition in the ranks from those who felt that this introduction of “capitalism” into the Chinese model would have a corrupting influence and be detrimental to the system and the authority of the Communist Party. The emphasis on export from the coastal regions also left the central and western parts of the country still in the grip of poverty as the coastal regions became more prosperous. This stuck in the craw of the traditional, egalitarian approach of the Communist Party.

And, of course, for the party leadership, the ongoing changes were often a matter of safely piloting the ship of state between the Scylla of a straight-jacketed command economy and the Charybdis of chaotic—and dangerous—free-market chaos. And, in addition to many well-meaning people in the Western nations, there was also the lure among the more avaricious of the Western capitalists of grabbing a piece of the China market and China’s resources.

By 1985, a variety of Western academics in the field of economics were being brought over to China to discuss the issues at hand in order to find a solution to problems that arose in the process. In addition to the variety of economists from Eastern Europe and its practice of “goulash Communism,” there were also many Western economists who were invited to come and discuss and make proposals, including the radical von Hayek “free-marketeer” Milton Friedman.

Dialogue with LaRouche

It was around this time that Chinese officials came into contact with economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche had come to the attention of Chinese scholars particularly with regard to his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative, which had been adopted by President Reagan in March 1983. LaRouche organizers were invited to China to discuss LaRouche’s economic ideas and then later, a group from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade came to visit LaRouche and took time to get a briefing on LaRouche’s economic development model, the LaRouche-Riemann model.

In 1985 there was also correspondence between Mr. LaRouche and Professor Huang Zuwei, a leading Chinese rocket scientist at the Beijing Institute of Space Systems Engineering. Dr. Huang had some specific questions with regard to the effects of space research—and the SDI—on economic development. At this time, Chinese scientists were mulling over the implications for China of possible SDI cooperation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Caught in the middle as a major power, China felt that it must start to gear up its own scientific potential with respect to this major development between two countries, both of which had earlier been adversaries.

LaRouche wrote an extensive and profoundly philosophical reply to Dr. Huang, which outlined the history of technology and political economics from the Golden Renaissance to the present and his own ground-breaking notion of increasing energy-flux density as the key measure of economic development. He also dealt with the key issue of space exploration and the colonization of Mars:

If we can construct new cities on Mars, then we can more easily employ the same technologies to construct rich habitations in such deserts as the Sahara and the Gobi. Apart from the fact that we have concrete scientific-economic needs to proceed with space-colonization, the creation of task forces which must solve each and all of the problems of spaceflight and space-colonization, in a coherent way, forces mankind to make scientific breakthroughs at a much more rapid rate than would otherwise occur. Science requires a concrete task orientation, which focuses the powers and self-development of science on those kinds of practical objectives which require development of the principal frontiers of scientific inquiry….

I would recommend to you, your colleagues, and your government, that China consider concentrating much of its physical science under institutions integrated by a common mission assignment respecting the colonization of the Moon and Mars. For reason of the nature of the primary and auxiliary technologies that mission-assignment implies, not only space-research and BMD, but every frontier of scientific inquiry is implicitly subsumed in the most efficient way under that mission-assignment. This would foster the highest ratio of scientific benefit in every field, per average scientist and technician employed.

It should be noted that LaRouche’s advice was given seven years before China would commit itself to a program of manned space exploration! Dr. Huang was also interested in inviting LaRouche to China to discuss his ideas, but for logistical reasons, this never came about, no doubt to the detriment of China as the next few years would show.

One Step Back—Two Steps Forward

At this point the Chinese Government of Zhao Ziyang unfortunately went with the disastrous “free market” recipe laid out by Milton Friedman. The rapid push for free market opening moved a bit too quickly and inflation—and speculation—was starting to take off. This growing economic dilemma together with the growing impatience among the youth for more rapid change, fueled by the concerted efforts of certain forces in the West eager to utilize the uncertainties in Chinese decision-making to foment a “color revolution,” led to the tragic events of June 1989, which created a temporary hiatus in China’s relationship with the West and a temporary hiatus in the “reform and opening up.” There was now a shift back to a more stringent control of the economy while the “dust settled.” Stricter controls were implemented to curtail inflation, and for a short period it seemed the reform policy would be scrapped.

But the aging Deng was not going to let that happen. In January 1991, Deng visited Shanghai, and after a briefing by Shanghai mayor Zhu Rongji (whom Deng would soon bring to Beijing to head the newly established Economic and Trade Office), he visited some aeronautic and automobile factories. Deng reiterated his own earlier expressed desire to make Shanghai a special economic zone, but Chen Yun, a conservative economist, who had been the virtual dictator of Chinese command economy policy in the People’s Republic of China since its founding in 1949, opposed the move and prevented it from being implemented at that time.

Then in 1992, Deng again traveled to Guangdong province to visit the first SEZ. This trip became known as Deng’s “Southern Journey,” and it was his final decisive intervention in securing permanence for the changes initiated in 1978. Throngs of people came to see the aging leader. He encouraged them to do more to make the region a hub of economic development and to follow the lead of the four Asian “dragons”—Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan. A New Year’s phone call from the new Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin to Deng while on his trip indicated that Jiang also was leaning in the direction of continuing the “reform and opening up” policy.

By this time, some of the restrictions after Tiananmen had been lifted. Jiang Zemin visited the United States and met with President Bill Clinton at the APEC conference in Seattle, Washington in November 1993. The U.S.-China relationship was starting to get back on track and the new U.S. President seemed eager to re-establish close ties with China. There was also an increase in the number of Chinese students who were able to attend American universities, a process that had been promoted by Deng Xiaoping.

Economic policy was now largely in the hands of the new head of the People’s Bank, Zhu Rongji. Zhu had been one of the younger economists who had been present in the discussions with the Western economists in the 1980s. From 1993 on, Zhu was in charge of the People’s Bank of China and in 1998, with the death of conservative Premier Li Peng, he was named China’s premier.

public domain
As head of the People’s Bank of China, Zhu Rongji worked to transform the command economy of China into a socialist market economy.

Zhu’s major task in 1993 had been to get the overheating Chinese economy under control. He took radical measures to bring order into the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and in eliminating some of the waste and inefficiency in the public sector, a measure that would draw the ire of many of the leading bureaucrats running those enterprises. He was also intent on dealing with the endemic problems of corruption. In 1993, the idea of a “market socialist economy” was inserted into the Chinese Constitution. Zhu instituted a tough policy of curbing the issuance of currency, limiting bank lending, and imposing order on the rather chaotic investment—important temporary measures needed to cool down inflation.

Zhu was also concerned by the extravagance of local governments intent on spending money to build new Disneylands, while the rural population was still living in conditions of extreme poverty. Even before the anti-poverty campaign in the countryside, initiated by President Xi, fighting poverty was also a matter of long-term concern for the government.

When the Asian financial crisis hit in 1997, Zhu was at the helm, directing a policy of aggregate spending in order to help counter the collapse of the Asian financial markets. He kept the exchange rate stable in spite of the pressure to revalue the RMB vis-à vis the other Asian currencies. He also used the crisis to overcome some of the conservative opposition to further economic reforms

China Agrees to Join the WTO

As the dust settled after Tiananmen, President Jiang Zemin was eager to stabilize China’s relations with the Western powers. He felt that if China could join the World Trade Organization (WTO), the successor to the post-war General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which the People’s Republic of China was never able to join, it would help secure China’s ties with the West. While this would necessitate tough changes that would seriously affect the Chinese economy, particularly prices and employment, it was felt that it would be better to be inside the organization and have a say in setting the rules for the world economy, rather than being outside and having the rules imposed on China.

As head of the People’s Bank, Zhu Rongji had shown little interest in WTO membership since his main concern was to bring about a reform of the top-heavy SOEs, in order to make them more competitive, before opening up more widely to foreign products. But given the tough resistance from the SOEs to his reform project, he felt that WTO membership and the forced entry of foreign competition into China would force the SOEs to make those reforms. So when he was appointed Premier in 1998, he took the lead in negotiations for membership.

The Clinton Administration—and Wall Street—were also interested in bringing China into the WTO in order to gain access to the huge Chinese market and to bring China into the West’s “rules-based order.” Perhaps they could keep this economic giant in a trade-based “straight-jacket,” they figured.

View full size

Government of China
Zhu’s visit to the United States helped create support for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and establish permanent trade relations between China and the United States. Here, Zhu is pictured with U.S. President Bill Clinton during his visit, April 6-14, 1999.

The situation looked auspicious when Zhu traveled to the United States in April 1999 to negotiate an agreement. But there was opposition from some in the Clinton Administration, who wanted guarantees for labor unions and protection for U.S. industries, like textiles, that would be directly threatened by the Chinese competition. When these demands were leaked by the U.S. side before negotiations were terminated, Zhu came under heavy fire from conservatives at home, who felt that he had gone too far in the concessions that he was prepared to make. Nevertheless, President Clinton, realizing the missed opportunity, renewed negotiations—leading finally to an agreement on Chinese entry—which were finalized shortly before he left office.

Both Wall Street and the business community generally approved of the agreement, smelling the profits that could be made in China. They were successful in bringing enough congressmen on board to ratify the agreement in the U.S. Congress. But Congress was not about to give up its “prerogative” of taking China to task on human rights and other sundry issues through a blanket waiver on trade with the United States. The “straight-jacket” had to remain in place. So as a part of its agreement to grant China Permanent Trade Relations (PTR), Congress mandated the establishment of a committee, the Congressional-Executive Committee on U.S.-China Relations, which had to report each year on China’s “human rights” and military spending, thereby preserving the ability to throw a monkey-wrench into U.S.-China relations on a regular basis, which still created a serious impediment to full normal relations between the two nations.

kremlin.ru
President Xi Jinping used the success of China’s “reform and opening up” to offer a path of development for other developing nations in his landmark Belt and Road Initiative.

China Assumes Its Role on the World Stage

By the time Xi Jinping assumed the post of Party General Secretary and China’s President in 2013, it was clear that China, under “reform and opening up” had become a major economic power. And the progress it was making in alleviating the endemic poverty in the rural districts showed the power that could be achieved by a developing country with a government intent on improving the conditions of life of its people. It was clear that China would also expect a say in the question of global governance, with a unique perspective from its own history and philosophy, and a strong commitment to helping other developing nations that had never succeeded in overcoming poverty in the post-Bretton Woods financial structure.

View full size

Clockwise from upper left: CGTN, CGTN, CGTN, CNSA;
Economic development, driven by continual advances in science and technology, has made China a leading producer in many fields. Clockwise from upper left: Middle school students learning English, an automobile factory, a Chang’e lunar lander, and the Lanzhou-Xinjiang high-speed railway.

And as the largest developing country, China has maintained its commitment to the developing world. Xi Jinping’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative was a clear declaration that what China had achieved in its ascent out of poverty could be done by any other developing country—and that China was prepared to help in that endeavor. And while the Belt and Road Initiative has also benefited many of the developed countries through its improvement of the world transportation grid and increasing the velocity of trade worldwide, it retains its primary role as the way out of poverty for countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. And the role China played in hosting the Hangzhou G20 Summit in 2016, clearly indicated that it was hard at work to create a more just international financial system, which President Xi has named “a community of shared future for mankind.”

While the rise of China has caused some consternation among the ruling Western powers, there is no fundamental contradiction between the development of China and the development of any other country, including the United States. To the extent that the U.S. has been on a downward spiral during the last few decades, this has been due to a loss of direction among our own governing elites, as President Trump himself has indicated, and most particularly, the loss of a clear national commitment to a program of development based on the advancement of science and technology. And while the needed principles of development have been so eloquently elucidated and promoted over the last half century in the prolific works and political efforts of economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, his voice has been largely ignored by the short-sighted political elites of his own nation.

View full size

Since the Deng era, China has remained committed to “reform and opening up” as the path forward for its economy.

China achieved mankind’s first landing on the far side of the Moon and is embarking on an entirely new phase of Lunar exploration, offering its cooperation with other countries eager to explore these new frontiers. We now have an opportunity to reflect, on the occasion of the May 30 launch of Falcon 9, on our own glorious history in space during the Apollo era. Perhaps we can return to the “better angels of our nature” and revive the spirit of innovation, which has long characterized our nation. And we can—and must—do this in collaboration with China, which has so successfully learned the lessons of economic development, and implement these lessons for the benefit of all mankind. And in this respect, the recent publication of Volume I of Lyndon LaRouche’s Collected Works could serve our nation’s leaders well in reviving the true American spirit.

PUTIN`S DISCUSSION OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR COULD PREVENT WORLD WAR III !

re posted from                                THE SCHILLER INSTITUTE

https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/06/24/putins-discussion-of-the-second-world-war-can-prevent-world-war-iii/

On June 24, 2020, the following statement was issued today by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder of the Schiller Institute.

Vladimir Putin’s detailed and very straightforward article on the background to the Second World War, which he substantiates with important historical documents, and his speech to the June 24 military parade in Red Square to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Soviet victory over fascism, are urgent must-reads for every politician and politically aware person around the world. At the same time, one should definitely watch the entire military parade, but keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the Russian population had already read Putin’s article as they followed the parade on television.

What comes across is an approach to understanding why May 9 is the most important holiday in Russia, and that the same almost superhuman determination that enabled the Soviet population to survive the barbaric attack by the Wehrmacht and to achieve victory over Nazi Germany despite the loss of 27 million people, still exists in Russia today. But Putin also extends an olive branch to the West by calling on all countries to publish the still secret historical documents from before and during the Second World War, and to use them together with the testimonies of contemporary witnesses to launch a truth-seeking debate among historians. Reflecting on why World War II came about should cause political forces in the world today to draw the necessary lessons and rudely awaken the world to the escalating war danger so as to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Given the gigantic destructive power of the two world wars of the 20th century and the almost certainty that mankind would not survive a third world war, this time thermonuclear,, it is useful to realize the point at which these world wars could no longer have been prevented. Putin answers this question very clearly regarding World War II by saying that it was the “Munich Betrayal” as the Russians truthfully call it—called the “Munich Pact” in the West—that triggered the war.

Putin’s article also responds to various historical misrepresentations, such as the European Parliament’s declaration of September 19, 2019, which gave equal blame to the Nazis and the Soviet Union for the Second World War, or numerous accounts that mention all the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition with the exception of the Soviet Union, or the claim that it was primarily the United States and Britain that defeated the Nazi war machine. There is no longer any public awareness in the West of the fact that the Soviet Union, in reaction to the blitzkrieg attack carried out with never before seen destructive power by the Nazis on June 22, 1941, carried out an unprecedented evacuation of people and production facilities to the east. Within a year and a half, the Soviet Union had surpassed the military production of Germany and its allies.

As quoted in the 1945 report by the International Reparations Commission headed by the Russian diplomat, Ivan Maisky, the number of soldiers deployed by Germany on the Soviet front was at least ten times greater than on all other allied fronts, four fifths of the German tanks were deployed there, and about two thirds of the German aircraft; in total the Soviet Union accounted for about 75% of all military operations. Roosevelt’s Fireside Chat presentation to the American people on April 28, 1942 is quoted: “These Russian forces have destroyed and are destroying more armed power of our enemies—troops, planes, tanks and guns—than all the other united nations put together.”

Moreover, Churchill wrote in a letter to Stalin on September 27, 1944, that “it is the Russian army that tore the guts out of the German military machine.” Putin expresses gratitude for the efforts of all the countries and peoples who fought on different fronts and the eventual support of the Allies for the Red Army through the provision of ammunition, food and equipment, that accounted for seven percent of the total military production of the Soviet Union. It follows that one of the most important corrections to be made in the accounts of the Second World War is to emphasize, contrary to what is done today, the outstanding role of the Soviet Union in the victory over fascism.

Putin makes a clear distinction throughout between the German population and the National Socialists, who skillfully exploited the intention of the Western allies to rob Germany under the conditionalities of the Versailles Treaty and drove Germany into a new war. He notes that the Western states, especially political forces in the United Kingdom and the United States, directly or indirectly made this possible; certain financial and industrial circles invested very actively in German factories that were producing military products, and there were many supporters of extreme right-wing nationalist movements among the aristocracy of western nations and political establishments.

One could add to that that Hitler was extremely “socially acceptable” in these same circles: The New York Times fully supported Hitler until 1938, and Time magazine declared him “Man of the Year” that same year. What Putin states only summarily here, has been documented in great detail by Lyndon LaRouche and authors associated with him—from the support for Hitler coming from Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush to that of Montagu Norman, head of the Bank of England, as well as the American eugenics movement’s open support for the Nazis’ racial teachings. Prescott S. Bush’s banking partner Fritz Thyssen, in his 1941 book I Paid Hitler, openly admitted that he was Hitler’s most generous supporter. Putin also mentions the deliberate setting of arbitrary borders under the Treaty of Versailles (one could add Sykes–Picot and Trianon), which were intended to be time bombs for geopolitical manipulation.

Putin hits a particularly sensitive point when he addresses the fact that politicians in the West do not like to be reminded of the Munich Pact, in which under the guise of an appeasement policy, the booty was divvied up. Czechoslovakia was betrayed by its allies France and Great Britain, and war between Germany and the Soviet Union was in principle pre-programmed. It was absolutely clear to the British and French geopoliticians that “Germany and the Soviet Union would inevitably clash and bleed each other white,” Putin writes.

Documents are also cited that show how the British and Polish sides tried to prevent the formation of an anti-Hitler coalition, and that the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact, which in fact made the Soviet Union the last country to sign any such treaty with Germany, took place against the backdrop of the real threat of war against the Soviet Union on two fronts, as Japan was already involved in fierce fighting on the Khalhin-Gol River.

That France and Britain clung firmly to their plan to have Germany and the Soviet Union destroy each other, became even clearer when, after Hitler’s invasion, neither country came to Poland’s aid at all, moving militarily a few kilometers into German territory, to give the appearance of warlike activity, a farce called the “phony war” (Sitzkrieg in Germany and drôle de guerre in France). Putin quotes General Jodl during the Nuremberg Trials saying that Germany did not lose the war as early as 1939, only because the 110 or so French and British divisions, which were up against 23 German divisions in the West, remained completely idle during the war with Poland.

It will not please those in the West who have been writing a revisionist history of the Second World War, and its prelude, for some time now, but Putin has outlined in this article the essential process of these maneuvers that created the greatest catastrophe in history to date. He is now calling on all states, each of which is to blame in varying degrees because of their geopolitical interests, to cooperate in this historical reappraisal. Each believed they could outsmart the others, as Putin writes. But in the end, it was the short-sightedness of refusing to create a system of collective security, that sealed the road to the great war.

Putin’s call to create a comprehensive archive of the history of World War II, and the pre-war period, in which all film and photographic material, all documents already published and documents yet to be released would be available to historians, must be realized without delay.

I have been deeply convinced for a long time that the German population, for example, will never gain internal freedom and their sovereignty until they understand that Hitler and the Nazis were not a purely German phenomenon, but a project that was supported for geopolitical reasons by British and American circles. For this reason, I published The Hitler Book back in January 1984, which goes into some of the background that led to the Nazis, one among the many tendencies of the Conservative Revolution which was supported by the international oligarchy.

Such a public international debate is also urgent because thinking people can quickly recognize the parallels to politics today. The plan at that time, which was to let Germany and the Soviet Union bleed each other white, is now a plan to encircle Russia and China, and to bring about regime changes against the governments of both of nations, and in the United States it is the ongoing “Maidan” against President Trump, who waged his 2016 presidential campaign with the pledge to establish a good relationship with Russia, and who was building, at the beginning of his Presidency, a good relationship with China.

President Putin ends his article with a reference to the summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which he has proposed, and which the other four heads of state have already agreed to. This summit, he says, should frankly discuss, among other things, issues of preserving peace and in particular, of overcoming the economic crisis which has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. How severe the impact of the pandemic will be, he points out, depends decisively on the ability of these countries to work together, as real partners, in an open and coordinated manner, and to revive those high humanist ideals and values for which their fathers and grandfathers fought shoulder to shoulder.

Such a summit must be supported by all peace-loving nations and people, because only the combination of the United States, Russia and China can implement the needed reorganization of the hopelessly bankrupt financial system through a new Bretton Woods credit system, and hopefully, the desolate state of the world will convince France and Great Britain that they have to give up their colonial and imperial traditions.

Vladimir Putin’s initiative to use the 75th anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War to launch an international discussion about the historical truth of the causes of World War II is a brilliant flank, which may possibly prevent the world from sleepwalking once again into a new world war.

Source:

https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/06/24/putins-discussion-of-the-second-world-war-can-prevent-world-war-iii/

Russia Active in Africa Nuclear Industry and Space Expansion

More than 8,000 people are now employed in the African space industry, and discussion is increasing about the establishment of an African Space Agency—a project first raised in 2010—with five countries having already volunteered to host it.

re posted from                          E.I.R DAILY ALERT SERVICE

Russia Active in Africa Nuclear Industry and Space Expansion

June 22 (EIRNS)—Russia is at the center of two scientific advances in Africa making headlines last week: The launch, later this year, of Tunisia’s first satellite, and the development of a nuclear research facility in Rwanda.

The Rwandan Center of Nuclear Science and Technology—which received the official go-ahead from the country’s Chamber of Deputies on June 15—is a project which was first agreed to at the Russian Conference on Africa, held in Sochi, on Oct. 24, 2019. Some 50 Rwandan nuclear scientists are currently training in Russia, partly because there is no domestic infrastructure to support this. As Minister of Infrastructure Claver Gatete explained, “If we do not have skills in such areas, it becomes a big problem. That is why we want to build the prerequisite skills, which requires laboratory and trained people.”

One of the first projects on which Rwandan authorities anxiously have their eyes is food preservation by irradiation. Beyond that, the center is additionally expected to develop an integrated nuclear energy perspective for the entire country that will be beneficial to the advancement of several sectors of the economy, including education, sciences, and industry.

In Tunisia, an AP story highlighted the upcoming launch—now set for November—of Challenge ONE, Tunisia’s first satellite, an agreement reached in July 2019 between Tunisian Telnet and Russian SPUTNIX and GK Launch Services. Challenge ONE will be Tunisia’s first satellite, but if all works well, it is quickly expected to be part of a fleet of 30 small craft.

Africa’s space market is now said to be worth more than $7 billion, according to the 2019 African Space Industrial Report, with eight countries now having launched a total of 32 satellites since 1998 and three more launched by regional entities. More than 8,000 people are now employed in the African space industry, and discussion is increasing about the establishment of an African Space Agency—a project first raised in 2010—with five countries having already volunteered to host it.

Source: EIR

https://larouchepub.com/

TRANSAQUA : Transform Africa

“The [Transaqua] Project is expected to directly bring economic development to 7 African countries and, indirectly, benefits to 5 more countries associated with the Congo and Lake Chad basins……..The consequences of the drying up of Lake Chad and the loss of source of livelihood in the Sahel is affecting human security through southward migration and conflicts towards Central Africa and Congo, insecurity of lives and property in the Sahel, Lake Chad region and West Africa in general, as well as negating the stability of Central Africa in the long term.

So this is a gradual thing since 1973 ( when Lake Chad began drying up) those who have assets, those who have cattle, they have been moving away from the Sahel, they have been going toward the centre of Africa, that is where the grass is greener. They are trying to protect the assets, the little assets, that they have by moving southward. This migration is taking them to a new region where they meet people with different cultures, with different languages and this is what causes, the main cause of the problem in the Central African Republic.

So we have concluded that if we don`t revise the situation this southward migration in Africa will cause more problems in the regions that are already experiencing internal conflict. And also this loss of livelihood is causing the young in the Sahel region to move outward, to Europe.”

Mohammed Bila, Expert Modeler, Lake Chad Basin Commission.

a presentation given by Mohammed Bila on how the Transaqua Project will transform not only West and Central Africa but will create an entirely different future for the entire continent. The presentation was given at a conference held by the Schiller Institute in 2018 entitled

Panel II: How the Belt and Road Initiative Is Changing Africa

Source: Schiller Institute

Opening remarks, A Role for Europe in the Belt and Road Initiative Hussein Askary, Southwest Asia Coordinator of the Schiller Institute 3:26 Wang Hao, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China to the Federal Republic of Germany, 1st Secretary for Economy and Trade 14:45 After the Transaqua Breakthrough, Nigeria Comes to the Fore H.E. Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to Germany 24:22 The Impact of Transaqua on the Future Development of Africa Mohammed Bila, Expert Modeler, Lake Chad Basin Observatory, Lake Chad Basin Commission 38:30 What Pan-Africanism on the Silk Road? Amzat Boukari-Yabara, African Historian, General Secretary of the Panafrican League Umoja 1:01:18 Current Situation and Challenges for Peace as Precondition for Reconstruction of Yemen, Representative of the Yemeni Association Insan for Human Rights and Peace 1:21:12 Operation Felix : Yemen’s Reconstruction and Connection to the Belt and Road Hussein Askary, Southwest Asia Coordinator of the Schiller Institute 1:41:00 Greetings to the Conference from Prof. Michele Geraci, Newly Appointed Undersecretary of State to the Ministry for Economic Development, Italy 2:10:52