In Search of Universal Love

  Rolf A. F. Witzsche

The Canadian Prime Minister's Global Vision

A World of Sovereign Nation-States

[source: Globe and Mail, Toronto, Saturday, Mar 1]


(see below for Ari Fleischer's White House briefing).

Prime Minister Chretien said that the United States can't just wander the world changing regimes it doesn't like. Chretien, on an official visit to Mexico, reacted with dismay when told of the White House's unflinching insistence on regime change. "Myself, I think that the consequences can be very grave when we go for a change in regime," the Prime Minister said. "When are we going to go elsewhere? Who's going to be next?... This is a very dangerous concept." Chretien went on, "If I read [UN Resolution] 1441, it's talking about the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, it's not talking about the regime change."

Chretien praised the latest findings of chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, who is to report this weekend that Baghdad's decision to start destroying outlawed missiles is "a very significant piece of real disarmament."

The Prime Minister took a telephone call on Feb. 28 from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was interested in finding a way out of the UN stalemate, according to Canadian officials. "He is looking for a compromise," a senior official said. The official said Blair expressed interest in a Canadian proposal that would give inspectors more time, while also setting a firm deadline for Iraq to destroy its most serious weapons.

Chretien also spoke with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos, who said he was "frustrated" that so much pressure was being placed on smaller nations to bridge the divide between the United States and France. Chile is one of six small nations on the UN Security Council that may decide the fate of a new draft resolution that opens the door to war. [rss]  (by LaRouche Organization)

From the Prime Minister's Website: (March 19, 2003)

The following is Prime Minister’s Jean Chrétien’s response to a question on Iraq during Question Period in the House of Commons today:

"I want to set out the position of the Government of Canada. We believe that Iraq must fully abide by the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. We have always made clear that Canada would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign.

Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action.

Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful.

If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate.

We have ships in the area as part of our participation in the struggle against terrorism. Our ships will continue to perform their important mission against terrorism."

- 30 -

PMO Press Office: (613) 957-5555

From the Government of Canada Website

Our Policy

As the Prime Minister stated on March 17 in the House of Commons, Canada's policy is that Iraq must fully abide by the UN Security Council resolutions. Canada has clearly stated that we would require the approval of the Security Council if we were to participate in a military campaign. Over the last few weeks the Security Council has been unable to agree on a new resolution authorizing military action. Canada worked very hard to find a compromise to bridge the gap in the Security Council. Unfortunately we were not successful. Canada will not participate in military action without a new Security Council resolution. For more information on Canada's policy, please visit the background section.



List of all resolutions


The stand for international law and the principles of civilization by the Prime Minister of Canada is reflected in many different ways around the world, as per examples below in the global fight for peaceful solutions to conflicts. 

It also reflects LaRouche's fight for the rights of humanity to "life, liberty and happiness" which is a long cherished universal principle, prominently laid out in the Preamble of U.S. Federal Constitution. These, and the general welfare principle of the same document, are some of the universal principles that LaRouche has been calling on the world to replicate at least in spirit, as a minimal commitment to their own humanity.

[Source: New Straits Times, Putrajaya, 03/01/2003]

DR. MAHATHIR SLAMMED AUSTRALIA'S PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD, ACCUSING HIM OF BLINDLY BACKING A WAR ON IRAQ with no thought for civilian casualties. In an interview conducted in his Putrajaya office with Australia's {Canberra Times,}, Malaysia's Prime Minister said: "We are very much opposed to this war because the basis is not sound. You don't go to war to kill the people you want to save. You say you want to save Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, but war will mean killing the Iraqi people before you can kill Saddam Hussein," he said.

"When people like Howard seem not to care for the lives of people in a war that is not actually connected to Australia, it is something that we cannot understand, but we certainly condemn." Dr. Mahathir complained that Howard was "not sensitive ... there are about 200 million people who ordinarily would be opposed to war, but as Muslims, we are particularly opposed, because it is not really about the fight against the terrorists. It is terrorizing the world," he said. [ggb]


[Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, February 28]

THE `AXIS OF PEACE' AS THE BEGINNING OF A GREAT EUROPE -- RUSSIA, FRANCE AND GERMANY DEMONSTRATE, THAT THEIR POSITIONS ARE NOT DIRECTED AGAINST AMERICA is the title of a signal article, published in {Nezavisimaya Gazeta} by Igor Maksimychev, a leading researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Europe.

Comment: The article reflects in many ways Lyndon Larouche's long standing policy of the European Productive Triangle that was originally perceived as a political and economic integration of the European industrial powers, for their mutual development, and for their industrial capacity to be able to serve as the development engine to serve the entire Eurasian area, and beyond that, to aid the development of the world.

Here are excerpts from the Nezavisimaya article:

"The lightning visit of German Chancellor Schroeder to Moscow triggered much speculation around the world. Almost nobody realized the most natural answer to the question, why a simple telephone call could not have been sufficient: namely, that it was necessary, at such a dramatic moment of the crisis around Iraq, to be completely convinced, that one's partner would not waver. Because very big stakes have been placed, above all on the reliability and credibility of the leadership of Europe's most important countries.

"The point is, all three participants in the European Axis of Peace -- Russia, France and Germany -- are under the most extreme pressure.... The biggest attack has been against France, for whose position Jacques Chirac is responsible. But it is also being alleged about Vladimir Putin, that he, when push comes to shove, would chose to `be on the side of the winner', which Washington considers to be its own side.

"From reliable sources it has become known, that Schroeder left Moscow extremely happy: neither he, nor Putin, nor Chirac are considering changing their rejection of the military plans of Washington. And China is supporting them. The possibilities for a peaceful disarmament of Iraq have not been exhausted, and until then, Russia, Germany and France, and also China, are not ready to share with the USA the responsibility for the possibly catastrophic consequences of an invasion of Iraq....

"(But) this time, the Security Council is not just considering this or that formulation of an American-British proposal, but will be able to choose between two conceptions of the future development of the world....

"The extremely close coordination in the positions of the three countries, on questions of international affairs, has still another aspect, not less important than the effort to find a way out of the mess, that the U.S. has gotten itself and the whole world into. It is the beginning of formation of a universal European identity, without which our continent would have no future. A Great Europe from Reykjavik to Vladivostok was declared and promised in writing, at the moment that the Cold War was ended, by common efforts, without the use of force....

"Today France, Germany and Russia have taken the step toward becoming the initiating group for creating a Great Europe. The composition of the group is optimal -- it is composed of the strongest and most influential nations of the continent, who, in the last analysis, will determine its future. If France were not to participate, then the cooperation between Russia and Germany could easily be portrayed as a `rebirth of Rapallo'. (Although the original Rapallo Agreement of 1922 contained nothing but a rejection of territorial claims connected with the First World War and the Russian Revolution, the French politicians at the time succeeding in frightening Europe with the image of a `German-Soviet threat'.) If Germany were not to participate, then it would suffer the fears of being surrounded, as did German policy from the time of Bismarck's `nightmare coalition'. Without Russia, this group would not have an all-embracing European character, which, indeed, defines its essence.

"The notion of a beneficent triangular cooperation for the continent, is nothing new in European politics. Attempts to create a `triangle' Paris-Berlin-Moscow, that could determine the fate of Europe, were also made in the 1990s. It didn't work then, because the Russian leadership was not able to elaborate a suitable policy toward Europe (or in any other direction). Today the situation has changed. At the moment there is no guarantee of success, but the chances of success have increased." (jbt)

LaRouche talking about his own involvement.


February 26, 2003 - 

The Bev Smith Show airs out of Pittsburgh, on the American Urban Radio Program, and is broadcast on over 100 black radio stations throughout U.S

SMITH: How've you been these days? We haven't talked in a while. It's been a while.

LAROUCHE: Oh, I've been up to things. I've been trying to stop a war that some people thought was inevitable, and things like that, and had some effect to that effect. We haven't won yet, but we're still fighting.

SMITH: For people who don't know who you are, how do we describe you? You're referred to as "the perennial candidate"; you're referred to as "an international controversial political figure"; some Democrats call you "the spoiler of the 2000 campaign"; what do you call yourself?

LAROUCHE: Well, I'm sort of someone who fits the image today, of what Franklin Roosevelt represented under conditions of depression and post-depression recovery in the past. I represent that today. There are many other people, still around, who want that, but none of the leading politicians is consistently outspoken in favor of that. So therefore, I represent the Roosevelt Democrats, and the voice for a lot of people who are silent in the background.

Complete Transcript


 Home Index: