|
- World and National Mission-oriented Recovery Programs -
page
27
This is in our interest in the United States, to have that kind of system which is stable, because, with that kind of system, and by building up the Americas, we can tackle the problem of Africa, and justice there.
Take the case of Korea. Why is Korea strategically important? If you link the rail systems of Northern and Southern Korea, divided Korea, together, with a modern rail system, you have linked Pusan, at the southern tip of Korea, which is, of course, relevant to Japan, to Rotterdam, by two routes. One, the Siberian route, one, the so-called Silk Road, both as depicted on the charts there.
That means that the unification -- I don't think that the government of China {likes} the government of North Korea. I don't think the Russian government likes the government of North Korea. But that's not important. Whether you like a government or not, is not important! Whether you think it's troublesome or not, is not important. You have to pick your long-range mission, in terms of what you're going to do, in effect of the next generation, and a generation after that. You must take a strategic long-range view.
{Our interest} is to unite, in cooperation, if not immediately unified, North and South Korea. {That's the vital interest of the United States!} Anything that threatens that, or impairs that, is a nuisance; it is not a cause for going to war. We have to learn that kind of thing.
Cooperation among Russia, China, and India is in the vital interest of the United States. We recently had in Phnom Penh, a meeting on the subject of the development of the Mekong River Project. This goes, southern China, all the way through Southeast Asia. It's one of the largest water projects in South Asia, it's extremely important for future development in that area. It is in the interest of the United States that it occur.
This is something in which China and India are both involved, that is, by commitment. And something that Russia and Japan are involved in by implication.
In Africa, we've got a special problem, especially in Southern Africa. In 1974, Henry Kissinger issued a memorandum, through the National Security Council. It was called National Security Study memorandum 200. Under this proposal, Kissinger argued, that the raw materials of South America, Africa, and elsewhere, must be preserved for the future benefit of the United States. Therefore, we must not have these resources being used up by the inhabitants of those countries! Therefore, we must keep them poor, and backward.
Also, we must reduce their populations, so they don't consume those resources. That is a policy which is not original to Kissinger, but it's one he expressed. It's the same policy that Brzezinski put forth as Global 2000, and Global Futures. It's a policy of deliberate genocide against Southern Africa! Which has been the policy of the United States {since that time}. It is the reality of so-called population policy. There must be no development, there must be no technological progress to speak of, except for military power, or similar kinds of domination of the world. We must not allow the population of world to eat up the resources that we may want in the future. This is oil, this is mineral resources, and so forth.
This is why the United States, Britain, and Israel are heavily engaged in genocide against the populations of the southern part of Africa. And until the United States changes its policy, that will continue. So therefore, the government must change its policy. We must be against genocide. pplause]
Within the Americas, I've already said, what the situation is generally. I proposed in 1982, which was a critical point in the history of the Americas, at the time that the 1971 looting began to kick in, and this -- show this chart; it's on this bankers' debt issue.
All right. What happened is, as a result of 1971, the London market, together with the United States, pulled a great swindle against many countries, including those of South and Central America. It's a debt swindle. What they did is, they would have a run on a particular targetted currency on the London financial market. The currency would be driven down in value, exchange value, on the world market. Then people would go to the country which had been targetted, and say to the government, "Well, your problem can be solved, you know. Call in the IMF or, in some cases, the World Bank. And if you accept those terms, I think your problem will be solved."
Next Page
|