At what point is one comforted by the argument, “Oh, they would never launch nuclear missiles at us”? Perhaps one should ask, “What is on the mind of those who make such assurances?”

If you have to ask, the answer is worse than those who provide assurances that your home values will always go up, your social security will always be there, and $35 trillion in national debt won’t destroy you or your child’s life.

Today, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov made a new contribution to the latest national sport of Russia, trying to figure out how to wake up their nuclear counterpart, the United States. Recent and sober contributions have included making a demonstration nuclear explosion, one not involving injuring anyone, just to jolt Westerners as to the physical reality of the event. Another objects that nothing less than a single, live action, tactical nuclear bomb with massive casualties, would do the trick. Russian President Vladimir Putin had responded to Britain’s latest escalation, to have Ukraine use Western weapons to hit deep into Russia, with a more limited response, that Russia will target the military facilities of the particular Western country, those inside of Ukraine and those elsewhere.

Ryabkov’s new wrinkle addressed the fantasy life in Washington, keeping those driving the country over the cliff from seeing the road. He stated: “I’d like to warn American actors against miscalculations that can lead to fatal consequences. For some unclear reason they underestimate how serious a response they could face.” American policymakers need to “spend some of their time, which they probably waste on computer games, judging by their air-headed approach to serious issues” on considering what Putin actually said.

German Gen. Harald Kujat (ret.), former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr (2000-2002) and former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (2002-2005), is not one given to hyperbole. Today, interviewed by Switzerland’s YouTube radio broadcast “Weltwoche,” Kujat stated: “I fear that the war in Ukraine will become the primal catastrophe of the 21st century.” He added that everyone is simply watching and/or joining in on the incitement and warmongering. He remarked grimly: “We will simply get what we deserve.”

One U.S. Senator yesterday, David Vance, tweeted: “I think the risk of nuclear war is higher now than at any point in my lifetime. Biden is sleepwalking into World War 3.” A Politico article that got Vance’s attention explained that no matter how “limited” and “defensive” Biden’s permission to Ukraine to strike inside Russia is portrayed, it “highlighted, once again, how Biden often changes his mind on once-taboo Ukraine policy ideas after battlefield conditions shift or, most persuasively, allies move first. That was especially true when the U.S. followed Britain and France in sending long-range missiles for Ukraine to use deep behind Russian front lines.”

Today, one American, the former Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott Ritter, was off to attend Russia’s annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), to do his best in his campaign to wake up Americans as to the danger we find ourselves. The U.S. State Department, with no explanation, with no charges alleged, actually physically stopped him from boarding his plane and had his passport seized. Is there any desperation in their actions?

Have Ryabkov’s computer games—or virtual reality exercises, good, old-fashioned hard liquor, or the more popular marijuana-induced fantasy life—allowed you or your leaders to slip into the death of civilization comfortably?

Those who whisper, “We can push our enemies past every ‘red line’ they draw,” are simply saying that they have a serious, serious addiction and a desperate situation. Whatever they are selling is guaranteed poison.

Perhaps the 70,000 New York citizens who put Diane Sare on the ballot as an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, or the similar mobilization of 10,000 in the Bronx CD 15 putting Jose Vega on the ballot for U.S. Congress, as actual human beings who can think, and can lead, and are not addicted to fantasies, can inject some life in the old republic yet. One big healthy step into reality involves wrapping your mind around a solution to the misery in Gaza, to the debasement of the Israeli population: The LaRouche Oasis Plan.

The late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche concluded his 1977 document, titled “What Really Are the Labor Committees?—The Lessons of Erasmus and Franklin,” with the following paragraph: “Let it be understood, therefore, that if you are a humanist, the Labor Committees are in that sense your organization—whether or not you are a member. If you are for technological progress in the expansion of industry and agriculture, and define the vital interests of nations in those terms, and if you regard man’s power to create and assimilate scientific knowledge for the perfection of our species as the inviolable distinction between man and the lower beasts, then the Labor Committees are an indispensable aid to the cause you espouse, whatever political affiliation you have.”

Nearly 50 years after that was written, independent candidates that have rejected bankrupt, moribund political parties, such as New York’s U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare and Bronx Congressional candidate Jose Vega, are part of a growing international movement away from the predatory military-financial complex. Those in the trans-Atlantic sector calling for a return to advanced technological progress and an increase in the productive powers of labor, in alliance with the emerging nations of the Global South, are on the cutting edge of world politics today. War, even total war, will not stop this progress, if an international coalition for peace, linked together by a 24-hour “symposium” process, can operate as an intellectual clearing-house for policy deliberation.

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche June 5, 11am Eastern/5pm CET in her Weekly Live dialogue and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.org or ask them in the live stream.

May 31, 2024 (EIRNS)—Today’s meeting marked the one-year anniversary of the International Peace Coalition, with 52nd consecutive online weekly meetings. Participating were people from more than thirty countries. Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche announced that the meeting would concentrate on Ukraine, due to the extreme danger represented by the three attacks by that country on early warning radar installations in Russia. These installations are unrelated to the war in Ukraine, but integral to the strategic defense systems of Russia. The Schiller Institute circulated an emergency warning on these developments, and the story subsequently broke into the mainstream media, but is still not getting the attention it deserves.

What followed was a panel discussion by military, scientific and diplomatic experts, including nuclear weapons expert Dr. Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Colonel (ret.) Prof. Dr. Wilfried Schreiber, Senior Research Fellow at the WeltTrends Institute for International Politics in Potsdam, Germany; Lt. Col. (ret.) Ralph Bosshard of the Swiss Armed Forces, consultant on military-strategic affairs; Col. Richard H. Black (ret.), former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon and former Virginia state senator; and former Ambassador Chas Freeman, U.S.-China diplomat and scholar.

The Attack on Russia’s Strategic Defense System

Dr. Postol led off the panel by explaining the function of Russia’s early warning radar system. These installations would enable Russia to detect an approaching nuclear strike. If the U.S. were to lose one of its own land-based early warning radars, it would still be able to look down from space, using its system of satellites, but Russians do not fully have this capability yet. Satellites can detect a missile launch immediately, whereas radar “fans” don’t detect missiles until they reach a certain altitude. Disabling one of these “fans” reduces the amount of time Russia has in which to decide how to react, i.e., whether to launch a nuclear counterstrike, by crucial minutes. Colonel Black added that the attacks on the Russian radars could not happen without explicit U.S. approval, and “serve no other purpose than to blind Russia’s nuclear deterrence.” Furthermore, “we don’t have the ability to preemptively destroy all of Russia’s nuclear defenses,” which include submarine-launched missiles, Black said. “We can destroy Russian civilization, but not their ability to shoot back.”

The sobering implications of an attempt to “blind Russia’s nuclear deterrence” were discussed in-depth by the panelists. Former Ambassador Chas Freeman, in a video interview which was played during the meeting, said that no great nuclear power can afford to undermine the balance of nuclear deterrence, but Ukraine, acting as a proxy, is doing precisely that. Colonel Black asserted that the greenlighting of the attack on the radars, combined with the delivery of nuclear-capable F-16 aircraft, means that the U.S. and NATO are putting in place the framework for a possible nuclear strike against Russia.

Colonel Black asked the participants to consider the contrast in U.S. and Russian doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. has no prohibition on first use, a nuclear “sneak attack.” “On the other hand,” he said, “the Russian nuclear doctrine is exclusively defensive.” Colonel Bosshard said, “In order to remain credible, NATO must threaten Russia with the use of nuclear weapons, not the other way around.”

What Were They Thinking?

There was discussion of the mindset of Western officials; what could possess them to flirt with the use of weapons that could annihilate all of humanity? Helga Zepp-LaRouche called this the “flabbergasting question.” Bosshard said, “Politicians in the West are apparently unaware of the risks they are taking,” and suggested that they think Putin is bluffing. Postol added that, in contrast to career professionals who are familiar with these issues, elected officials come into office with little or no understanding, and a preoccupation with politics. Black attributed Biden’s recent actions to his faltering re-election campaign: “President Biden recognizes that the Ukraine project has collapsed…. The more anxious the White House becomes about the upcoming elections … the greater the risk of a very high-risk military gambit.”

The role of the media in fostering this environment of brinkmanship was also examined. Ambassador Freeman acknowledged the importance of the circulation of the Schiller Institute’s emergency warning, contrasting it to the “military and strategic illiteracy of the current crop of journalists.” Zepp-LaRouche responded that the media are not simply incompetent: “Mass media are absolutely in the hands of those who are pushing this confrontation.” She described how leaders who challenge the pro-war “narrative,” such as Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico, become targets for harassment and even assassination, and she referenced the now-notorious “kill lists” of the Ukrainian “counter-disinformation” agencies.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche raised the issue of how Biden has recently given permission to Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike targets within Russian territory. Some European leaders, such as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, had previously resisted that idea, but “this morning, all of a sudden, he agreed because Biden agreed.” Colonel Black insisted that the U.S. dominates Europe, and runs NATO, of which he said, “the time has long passed since it was defensive in nature. It has become a very aggressive global organization.”

Colonel Schreiber mentioned some of the new dimensions of warfare that have emerged in his lifetime, saying that digitalization opens a new horizon in war policy: cyberspace warfare. The possible military uses of electromagnetic pulse also represent a new quality of warfare.

Diane Sare’s U.S. Senate Candidacy

Diane Sare, the LaRouche-affiliated independent candidate for U.S. Senate in New York, reported that she had submitted close to 70,000 signatures for ballot access, significantly exceeding the 45,000-signature legal requirement. She said that many voters in her state are preoccupied with the various court cases against Donald Trump, and marveled that while you might think that during a presidential election we would all be focusing on the strategic danger, many people are fascinated instead by the “pornographic, infantile spectacle” of a former President being tried in a case about paying off a prostitute from the wrong bank account. She displayed for the participants her palm card, emblazoned with the slogan, “Let us beat swords into plowshares.” She reminded everyone that Lyndon LaRouche had once said that “wars of retribution and revenge” are the stupidest, and they blow back on the nation that launches them.

During the discussion period, French Schiller Institute leader and former French Presidential candidate Jacques Cheminade requested assessments from Col. Alain Corvez (ret.). Corvez replied: “I am counting a lot on China and Russia…. We have to realize that Putin has shown enormous reserve in his actions…. China can’t allow this attack on Russia to continue, because China realizes that they will be the next target.”

A brief video comment was shown from international human rights lawyer Prof. Francis Boyle, who spoke on the situation with Israel and Gaza, saying that the International Criminal Court prosecutor had requested arrest warrants for war crimes, but he should have also requested warrants for genocide; South Africa has presented carefully documented evidence. The three ICC judges are under enormous pressure, including blackmail, threats, and intimidation, to not issue warrants.

In conclusion, Zepp-LaRouche reminded the participants of the upcoming June Schiller Institute conference, saying that the Peace of Westphalia is a good historical reference. She praised the new China/Brazil initiative to end the war in Ukraine, adding that it must be combined with a Renaissance of the best cultural traditions of all nations, to achieve a new paradigm to create the basis for a lasting peace. 

The 51st meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) saw a fruitful colloquy among some of the U.S.’s foremost intelligence experts: former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson; former U.S. diplomat, CIA official, and Islamic scholar Graham Fuller; and former CIA analyst and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) co-founder Ray McGovern; all in dialogue with Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s strategic analysis—and proposed solutions—presented in her opening remarks. (See extended transcript of opening remarks. https://eir.news/2024/05/news/international-peace-coalition-meeting-intelligence-specialists-speak-out-as-war-looms/)

If you would like to join the IPC Friday at 11am EDT, please email questions@schillerinstitute.org

Agenda:

• Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder Schiller Institute
• Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst
• Graham Fuller, former U.S. diplomat, CIA official, and Islamic scholar
• Jose Vega, Candidate NYC Bronx, Interventionist
• Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst

Over the course of Wednesday night and Thursday morning [May 22-23], Ukrainian drones struck the Armavir Radar Station in Russia’s southwestern Krasnodar Krai region, a part of Russia’s early warning radar system designed to detect an incoming ICBM attack. This radar is one of the pillars in Russia’s nuclear posture system which, along with other such installations, plays an existential role in the strategic security of the Russian Federation. Far beyond escalating tensions with Ukraine alone, this attack has now brought the world another step closer to the verge of a thermonuclear war.

Russian Senator and former Roscosmos head Dmitry Rogozin responded to this development by noting that, while one could imagine a Ukrainian were behind this, in reality it is Washington that has “hired an irresponsible bandit” to carry out its dirty work. “Thus, we stand not only on the precipice, but on the very edge, beyond which, if the enemy is not stopped in such actions, an irreversible collapse of the strategic security of nuclear powers will begin,” Rogozin wrote on his Telegram channel.

This madness must be stopped now. The Armavir attack occurred just days after Russia carried out high-profile tactical nuclear military exercises, as if to declare to President Putin: “You are bluffing.” Playing a nuclear chicken game while threatening to destroy a nuclear superpower which is already at war, threatens to annihilate the entire human species.

Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in addressing a meeting of the International Peace Coalition on May 24, drew people’s attention to the solutions to the crisis. She insisted we must end the West’s belief in geopolitics, which has made people believe that Russia and China are our enemies, and instead establish a new security and development architecture that respects the interests of all nations. “If that cannot be overcome, I’m afraid that the chances we will end up in World War III are approaching 100%,” she said.

Numerous military and intelligence specialists consulted by the Schiller Institute have expressed their grave concern over the meaning of the Armavir attack and its consequences:

The Russian satellite-based early warning system is very limited and cannot be used to cover the blind spots created by damage to the radar. The Atlantic, Pacific, and Northern radar warning corridors are more important, and the Russians also have radars in Moscow. However, the radars in Moscow will only see threats at a later time, resulting in yet shorter warning and decision-making times—thereby increasing the chances of a catastrophic accident.

The commanders of the Strategic Rocket Forces, who serve the political leaders, will be really, really concerned, and they will have no choice but to treat this situation as quite serious. They will almost certainly choose to operate their nuclear strike forces at a higher level of alert, which will further increase the chances of accidents that could lead to an unintended global nuclear war.

— Dr. Theodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and National Security at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, nuclear weapons expert

The U.S. has begun directing missile attacks on the Russian nuclear Early Warning System (EWS), which is made up of a series of ground-based radars and satellites… ANY such attacks against these EWS systems could trigger the Russian nuclear response system. So this U.S.-directed attack is insanely dangerous. Washington is playing nuclear chicken with Russia.

The site attacked was within range of the U.S. ATACMS; I don’t know if any other similar Russian facilities are within range of the ATACMS, or possibly even the German Taurus missiles, which have a longer range than the ATACMS and the U.K. Storm Shadow missiles. Unfortunately, we may soon find out, as the madmen in Washington, Kyiv, and Brussels seem determined to start World War 3.

— Steven Starr, Professor, University of Missouri, expert on nuclear war

There are obviously forces in Ukraine and also in NATO that are prepared to take the risk of a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. German politicians would be well advised to take the Russians’ warnings of a new world war seriously and ensure that the final red lines are not crossed. As a modern industrialized country at the heart of Europe, Germany is unfit for war in a major European conflict—even without nuclear weapons. German politicians must do everything in their power to de-escalate the increasing military confrontation and commit themselves to a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

— Colonel (ret.) Prof. Dr. Wilfried Schreiber, Senior Research Fellow at the WeltTrends Institute for International Politics, Potsdam, Germany

This is a continuation of the pattern in which the NATO forces recognize they are losing the war in Ukraine, with the fragile lines of defense breaking, and the NATO response is to escalate. This is not accidental, but very deliberate. It is not the first attack on the Russian nuclear triad. The ideological folks are seeing their world crumbling, after flying the rainbow flag over conservative countries and [waging] perpetual wars. They are frantic and could escalate to nuclear war to get out of the bind. They are taking a series of baby steps, and respond that “they don’t do anything in response,” and so they keep taking baby steps until one of them lands on a land mine and we are into World War III. I’ve said it, Helga [Zepp-LaRouche] has said it. Putin is very aware of the disconnect in the West, who keep saying he is just saber rattling, but he is not—he is informing the West of the dangerous reality.

— Col. (ret.) Richard H. Black, former state senator from Virginia

I expect that the U.S. military, faced with a vital situation, are going to behave more reasonably and consciously than the civilians.

— Gen. (ret.) Dominique Delawarde, Intelligence expert, France

This clearly could not have happened without full U.S. support. I can’t comment adequately until I learn more, but it is obviously escalatory, and I will look into it.

— Graham Fuller, former diplomat, CIA officer, and vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council

They’re on an escalating treadmill, especially after what Blinken told Ukraine—they could “do what they want with their missiles.” It demonstrates the irresponsible American leadership. We’re headed for the nuclear escalator. The West is facing defeat in Ukraine, and therefore they’re escalating to avoid defeat.

— Prof. Richard Sakwa, Emeritus Professor of Russian and European Politics, Kent University (U.K.); prolific author on Russia and Ukraine

Originally published May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024 (EIRNS)—This week’s 51st meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) saw a fruitful colloquy among some of the U.S.’s foremost intelligence experts: former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson; former U.S. diplomat, CIA official, and Islamic scholar Graham Fuller; and former CIA analyst and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) co-founder Ray McGovern; all in dialogue with Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s strategic analysis—and proposed solutions—presented in her opening remarks. (See extended transcript of opening remarks.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche observed that we are in a time when “history becomes more dense,” and profound change is proceeding at an accelerating pace, even as the danger of nuclear war rises. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today issued an emergency order to halt Israel’s attack on Rafah. “The question is, will that be enforced, and if so, how?” Zepp-LaRouche asked. “It seems to be dawning on some people in the Western establishment that if you apply a double standard … the legality of the system may be there, but it is about to lose its legitimacy.” This week Ireland, Spain, and Norway joined the list of 140 UN member nations that have recognized the State of Palestine. If Israel continues to flout the ICJ’s binding orders to stop the genocide in Gaza—as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has again sworn they will do—then Israel could be suspended from UN membership.

Looking at other theaters of strategic confrontation carrying the danger of escalation into nuclear war, Zepp-LaRouche asked whether the attempt on the life of Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was made by a “lone assassin.” There are indications that he may have had assistance. Large influxes of money have flowed into NGOs, not only in Slovakia, but in Georgia, Serbia, and Hungary as well, whose leaders are all critical of Ukraine war funding, and are speaking out against the perpetrators of the destabilization operations. Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze posted on Twitter/X that he received a threat from an EU Commission member, warning that he could meet the same fate as Fico.

In Asia, newly inaugurated Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te gave an inaugural address in which he insisted that Taiwan is “a sovereign independent nation.” In response, China held military exercises around Taiwan, as a clear signal that they will not tolerate secession masquerading as “independence.” Zepp-LaRouche reminded the IPC participants that for decades, “One China” has been internationally recognized. She concluded by saying that the next six months will be decisive, and that we in the IPC, along with like-minded forces around the world, must put a different narrative, a different solution on the agenda, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, using the Oasis Plan.

Larry C. Johnson contrasted present U.S. foreign policy with the Nixon period, when, despite the Cold War, we could actually talk to Russia and China. Now, “The United States is like a 3-year-old child with a hammer,” and everything looks like a nail. He warned that if this continues, “the U.S. will implode upon itself…. It is pretending that it can project military force in three theaters simultaneously.” Our Navy is completely vulnerable to the hypersonic weapons that Russia and China both possess. Johnson insisted that “people in Asia, Africa and South America are sick and tired of being bullied by the United States.”

Graham Fuller followed and said, “Larry and I have both toiled in the vineyards of intelligence.” Fuller said that the U.S. is unable to face the reality of its relative decline in the world. Referencing the “complicated, perhaps triangular relationship” in the Middle East between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, he observed that China had remarkably defused tension between the Saudis and Iran, which “took the wind out of the sails of the argument that ‘The Iranians are coming! The Iranians are coming!’”

Fuller concluded by saying, “It’s a cliché to say crises promote opportunities,” but he offered the hope that this will shake people up to come up with some new ideas.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche intervened to insist that it is our job to offer those new ideas. The Western nations act as if there were no tomorrow, no consequences, but “the way out would be so absolutely, breathtakingly easy.” She identified the expanding BRICS organization and the Oasis Plan as the path to a solution. None of the Global South nations has called the U.S. the enemy. We could work with them.

Ray McGovern recalled that he had started working as a CIA analyst in January 1964, as a specialist in Sino-Soviet relations. China and Russia “were squeezing each other….” Now “they’re in a fraternal embrace that won’t stop.” He has been surprised by many things, including the Russian military operation in Ukraine and the Chinese support for it; and their announcement of tactical nuclear weapons exercises. “None were pleasant surprises; I’m just afraid of what the next one might be.”

Meeting co-moderator Dennis Speed observed that these “surprises” represent the essence of intelligence work: the careful examination of “what doesn’t add up,” adding that the analyst must “poke reality with a stick,” and change the analysis as necessary. Read the EIR Daily Alert every day!

During the discussion, one of the first comments centered on the overriding importance of Lyndon LaRouche’s breakthroughs in economics, and praise of LaRouche by leading Russian economist Sergey Glazyev. Independent Congressional candidate Jose Vega, who has just successfully filed three times the required number of signatures required to attain ballot access, reported on his visits to New York campus encampments protesting the genocide in Gaza. LaRouche movement organizer Bill Ferguson reported on the May 23 Harvard commencement exercises: Trucks were driving around with neon signs denouncing as anti-Semites the 1,000 students who walked out to support 13 seniors barred from graduation over their role in the Gaza protests. LaRouche organizers displayed a banner: “Peace through Development: Build LaRouche’s Oasis Plan.” After the LaRouche organizers choral performance of peace songs, a policeman approached, saying “You’ve got really killer voices,” encouraging them to keep it up.

An Indian journalist elaborated on the importance of unity among the three, largest and founding members of the BRICS—Russia, India, China (RIC)—and pointed to the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), extending from St. Petersburg through Iran and Central Asia, across the Arabian Sea to Mumbai in India, as an example of regional cooperation, notwithstanding the tensions in the region. Helga Zepp-LaRouche concurred: “The anchor of stability is the connectivity projects,” such as the BRICS and BRICS-Plus.

Other participants expressed anxiety about the U.S. presidential election. One person suggested that Biden might be the lesser evil; another stated the opposite. Co-moderator Dennis Small said that the very concept of the “lesser evil” comes from Aristotle, who did not believe in the Good. Throw Aristotle in the trash, and read Plato, to learn how to think from a higher vantage point from which the Good is attainable, was his advice. Zepp-LaRouche suggested support for independent candidates like Jose Vega and Diane Sare, concurring with Sare that no candidate running is qualified to be President of the United States. She added, “I would not bet the fate of the world on these election processes.” The confiscation of Russian assets may trigger an unprecedented financial crisis which will upset the applecart. Our efforts should concentrate on the proposed new international security and development architecture and the Oasis Plan. Echoing the comments of a participant from Mali, she said that we must “put the One Humanity first.”

Professor Jeffrey Sachs, currently a Professor at Columbia University, has held positions around the world as an economist, and has become one of the most outspoken peace advocates in the United States. This interview was conducted on May 15 by EIR’s co-editor Mike Billington.

Mike Billington: I listened to your interview with Jill Stein, the presidential candidate for the Green Party. I noticed that she ran through your various hats, which took her a long time to do! Rather than running through all of that, I thought I would start with your original profession, which was an economist. I want to read to you a quote from Russia’s Executive Director at the IMF, Aleksei Mozhin. Do you know him personally?

Prof. Sachs: I know him very well.

Billington: Yes, I assumed you would. What he wrote on May 3rd in Ria Novosti was this: “If American debt continues to increase, which I expect it will, confidence in the U.S. dollar will decline. Chaos will ensue in the global economy, and the possibility of a collapse exists.” What are your thoughts on that?

Prof. Sachs: First, Aleksei Mozhin has been Executive Director for Russia for, I think, three decades. He’s outstanding, absolutely outstanding. So what he says we should take very seriously. He’s been dean of the executive directors, meaning the longest serving. He presides often at the IMF. So I have great respect for him.

What he’s saying is that the public debt of the U.S., which is now more than 100% of national income and rising rapidly, will be a source of financial crisis in the years ahead. I concur with that. We don’t have any kind of political consensus in the United States about what government should do and how to fund it, so the recourse of both the Democrats and the Republicans is to run larger deficit spending.

The Republicans really like tax cuts. The Democrats like various kinds of spending increases or tax credits, but both sides like war. So both sides spend fortunes on war. The upshot is that since the year 2000, the public debt has risen from around one third of national income to more than 100% of national income. The Congressional Budget Office of the United States makes long term projections, and their long term projection for mid-century is that the debt will rise to around 200% of GDP. That’s not the precise number that they give, but essentially the ratio of debt to national income doubling. That’s not a forecast so much as saying, if we stay on the current trajectory. So the fact that we have no political equilibrium in this country means that the fallback option is raise the debt, and eventually that leads to crisis.

Billington: Right. I’m going to continue reading from Aleksei Mozhin. What he said next was about the BRICS (the organization founded by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the role of the BRICS in dealing with this situation: “The BRICS are putting together an accounting unit based on a basket of currencies of the original five members of the BRICS, which will include daily quotes for the main commodities,” and he mentions in that regard oil, grain, gold, metals and timber. He goes on: “Mutual trade will be carried out in this accounting unit. If there is a collapse, it would be necessary to turn the BRICS accounting unit into a real currency backed by exchange traded goods.” 

That’s his quote. I’ll mention that this is very close to the idea proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in the year 2000 called “Trade Without Currency,” which was subsequently studied by Russian economists Sergey Glazyev and others who are planning the BRICS policies for how to deal with this global crisis. As you know, the Russians and the Chinese are also quite verbally warning of the severity of the global financial blowout that we are facing. So what are your thoughts on that idea?

Prof. Sachs: Well, I think, first, it’s important to say that a number of things are in play, and one of them is that the BRICS countries want a means of settlement that isn’t the U.S. dollar. This is one part of what’s in play. That’s not even mainly because of the debt crisis in the United States. That’s mainly because of the weaponization of the dollar by the United States. The U.S. began around 20 years ago to use the currency not merely as a system of settlements for international transactions, but also as a weapon of foreign policy, by seizing the assets of countries deemed to be adversarial to the U.S. The United States seized the balances of Iran, seized the balances of Venezuela, of Afghanistan. And now the big one, Russia—roughly $300 billion of Russia’s financial assets frozen by the Western governments. So these countries in the BRICS, that’s Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and now five more countries added, Egypt, Ethiopia, the Emirates, Iran, and, we think, Saudi Arabia—not entirely clear about Saudi Arabia, but it seems to be the case. They are saying that they want to hedge against this kind of geopolitical risk. This is one factor in this.

The second factor is that the dollar itself may become unstable for the reasons that we were speaking about. I would say a third factor is that there is lots of technological change, creating different ways to make settlements. The current settlement system goes through banks, but in the future it will go through digital currencies, probably central bank digital currencies.

Now, all of that, then, also raises questions. If you have a central bank currency, renminbi or a dollar or ruble, how do you manage monetary policy? Should that currency be backed by a basket of commodities? If so, in what sense backed by that basket? Could be a price indicator for monetary policy? It could be a literal kind of gold standard where you can take your currency unit and convert it into units of some kind of commodity or basket of commodities. There are lots of technical choices.

But the question is: does the central bank need some kind of anchor of a commodity to be responsible? Otherwise, the claim is sometimes made that central banks are inherently inflationary. At the end of the day, unless the currency is backed by something, it will be inflated away. So these are the issues that Lyndon LaRouche raised.

These are the issues that the BRICS are tackling right now. In my view, the order of priority for the BRICS is first not to have their foreign reserves seized by the United States or Europe, because both the U.S. and Europe are misbehaving very badly. They are using what should be financial instruments as foreign policy adversarial instruments. This is a big mistake and the BRICS want something else. Second is this unit of account issue. It happens that the first five countries Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa all have currencies that start with the letter R: the Brazilian real, the Russian ruble, the Indian rupee, the Chinese renminbi, and the South African rand—so they call it the five R currency unit.

I just found it an amazing coincidence. But in any event, Aleksei is carrying the ball on this. There are lots of good ideas to have a unit of account. I think there’s an interest among these major countries to do that, and they’re working pretty hard on this right now, and I’m in favor of it. I think there’s nothing wrong with having some alternatives. I keep saying to American policymakers, “Stop wrecking the dollar, stop weaponizing the dollar, stop seizing other countries assets. It’s absolutely ridiculous. If you want the dollar to be used, you can’t use it like a punching bag this way. I’m sure you know that.”

Billington: There’s now a bill in the Congress and discussion to not just freeze the Russian money, but to use the interest earned from it to literally hand over to the Ukrainian war.

Prof. Sachs: This is part of the aid legislation—not aid, this is part of the military spending that was passed last month, directing some kind of seizure of Russia’s assets. Plainly illegal, but also plainly stupid. But I don’t count on intelligence from the Congress.

Billington: As I mentioned, I watched your interview with Jill Stein. I also saw your interviews with Judge Napolitano, which was very interesting, and with a man named Robert, whom I surmise is connected to the Vatican.

Prof. Sachs: Yes, he does a show around Vatican issues, Robert Moynihan.

Billington: I found them all very interesting. It’s obvious that you’re making your views known about the global crisis facing mankind generally as widely as you possibly can. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your agreement to do so with EIR as well. Of course, in particular, you have condemned both political parties, as you just mentioned, being totally pro-war, united in their insane view, and that their expected presidential candidates are fully subservient to the military-industrial complex and to war, including the war between NATO and Russia being fought with Ukrainian bodies, and the horrendous genocide that’s taking place in Palestine, as well as their preparation for a war with China. All of which clearly is bringing us closer and closer to global war and probably global nuclear war. Can you expand a bit on your view of the Biden and Trump situation and the danger to the U.S.?

Prof. Sachs: I think fundamentally what is at play is almost tectonic, like the plate tectonics on the Earth, but the tectonics of geopolitics. The United States, especially with the end of the Soviet Union in 1991, but really going back to the early days after World War Two, came to believe at the highest strategic level that the U.S. dominates the world scene, that it is the hegemon, to use the political science term, meaning the political power that effectively is in control of the world scene, and that its grand strategy should be to protect its hegemonic advantage. Sometimes this is put very explicitly. For example, in a very clear article written for the Council on Foreign Relations by Robert Blackwell (a former U.S. Ambassador and now at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Ashley Tellis (a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) in 2015, where those two authors, senior analysts, one a very senior U.S. diplomat, discuss what U.S. policy towards China should be. The article says very bluntly and clearly, the U.S. grand strategy is to be number one. If China’s rise threatens the U.S. being number one, the U.S. needs to take action to curb China’s rise. Well, to my mind, this is the fundamental issue in the world scene today. 

The U.S., and by that I mean the military-industrial blob, or complex, a small number of powerful people, from the security establishment, the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the military companies and their supporters in the Congress. That group wants to preserve American hegemony as they see it. But the real issue is: Russia is a powerful, technologically sophisticated country. China is a very powerful, very technologically sophisticated country. And not surprisingly, neither Russia nor China, nor most countries around the world, want a hegemon. What they want is in large part to be left alone so that they can get on with their lives. But they would like peace. They really do want global cooperation, they just don’t want the U.S. to tell them what to do. The U.S., on the other hand, resents Russia for being big and powerful. The U.S. has a completely neurotic fixation on China. Again, when I say the U.S., I mean, I mean real individuals at the top of the power structure in the U.S. I don’t mean American society as a whole. 

The reason we are slipping towards World War Three is that America’s self-image as hegemon is completely inconsistent with the reality on the ground, which is: Russia is powerful. China is powerful, other regional powers are powerful, and they don’t want American dominance, period. So when the United States government declared already in the late 90s, but then committed in the year 2008, that it would expand NATO to Ukraine, Russia said, “No, not on our border. We don’t want you next door.” It’s obvious that if China said, we’re going to start putting military bases along the Rio Grande, it would trigger a kind of reaction in Washington. Not saying, “Oh, that’s just fine. You do what you want.”

Billington: We saw the response when the Russians moved weapons into Cuba.

Prof. Sachs: We ran that show at once. But one of the points about the U.S., just to digress for one moment, is that our senior officials absolutely refuse even to try to think like the other side might think, and to take that into account, much less to reflect on it and use that reflection as a way to stay out of disaster. We absolutely reject that. We do what we want, and we expect others to do what we want. And so what you raised, the war in Ukraine, the war in the Middle East, the risk of a catastrophic war in East Asia. In my mind, it all comes down at the core to this U.S. demand: “You do it our way or we’ll have war.” And the U.S. ends up getting in a lot of disastrous wars. It gets millions of people killed, because of this kind of approach. And we’re in the midst of it now. 

Biden obviously doesn’t know where the brakes are. I don’t know if he knows where anything is right now. Trump is an odd character, utterly unpredictable. He had neocons and he had anti-neocons in his administration, doing very haphazard things. It’s probably true he would be less pro-NATO in Ukraine, but he was absolutely up for goading China and as aggressive as can be pro-Israel in the Middle East. So all of it is to say, in my view, there’s not so much difference at the political personality level. Structurally, the U.S. security establishment is fighting for its hegemony and it could end up creating a world war. 

Billington: I’ll mention, since you brought up the military-industrial complex, you may know that Ray McGovern has expanded that idea to the MICIMATT which includes the Congress, the intelligence community, the media, academia and the think tanks. 

But let me first ask you about the Oasis Plan. I’m sure you’re familiar with this. This is an idea that LaRouche had way back in the 1970s, with his idea being that the only way to resolve the perpetual warfare that had been created in the Middle East by the British, the way they set it up as a cockpit for war, eventually against Russia and China. But the only way to deal with that is through a massive development plan addressing the needs of both sides, and in particular, the massive shortage of water in the region, through canals, nuclear powered desalination of seawater and related developments, Belt and Road style developments for the entire region.

We sponsored a conference on this concept last month in which four ambassadors, including one from Palestine, who basically spoke in support of it, along with scientists and water experts from around the world. Lyn argued, when he first developed this, that the idea that we have to get a political settlement first—that this is backwards, that the vision for a real solution, a solution that is long term, that actually addresses the infrastructure needs of both sides, is required, like the Peace of Westphalia, which I know you’re familiar with. You know Southwest Asia very well. What are your thoughts generally on this development solution?

Prof. Sachs: I think that we actually need a political solution and an economic approach, and the political solution is at hand, because all the world agrees to it, other than two countries. The political solution is that there should be a State of Palestine, and it should live alongside the State of Israel, and Israel should not be able to veto a State of Palestine. And we’re actually quite close to that, except the U.S. keeps vetoing it on behalf of Israel. If the U.S. would actually be sensible and say, this is what international law, international agreements, and the only way for a global consensus that exists to resolve this crisis is, we would actually get there quite quickly. 

The U.S. alone vetoed the State of Palestine as the 194th UN member state. What’s ironic, and I speak to diplomats in the Arab region all the time, and in the Arab and Islamic countries all the time. They’re ready for peace. Peace with Israel, a peace, normalization of relations. They don’t want war in the region. The Saudis don’t want war, the UAE doesn’t want war. Egypt doesn’t want war. Jordan doesn’t want war. Lebanon doesn’t want war. But they want Palestine not to live under apartheid rule or worse, under a genocide, which is what’s happening in Gaza right now. So I think the politics is actually straightforward, except that it’s blocked by the United States. And I’m hoping that America wakes up to the very obvious point that the American people want Palestine to have political rights, and the world community is united for that, and that all the United States is doing is perpetuating war and promoting its own complete isolation, and I would say fundamentally endangering Israel as a viable state, because Israel needs some legitimacy, not just to be seen as a war crime state protected by the United States.

That’s a bad bargain for all concerned when it comes to the economics. I couldn’t agree more that there’s ample opportunity for regional development. And there is a water crisis, and desalination is the way forward. And there are so many things that could be done. One needs peace. 

Now, the reason why we have to combine the political and the economic is that one of the gambits of Trump and Biden was: “Oh, we could kind of bribe them. They don’t really need a state. All we need is some economic terms.”

But the truth of the matter is that Israel right now is absolutely radicalized, extremist compared to what it was even a quarter century ago, much less in the 1970s. It’s an extremist government. It is saying overtly, among the major cabinet members; “This is our land. We will never allow a state of Palestine. We will dominate the land,” and so forth, including the so-called occupied territories, which is Palestine, but they call it Judea and Samaria. It’s really dangerous how extremist Israel has become. And so I think we need to say, as a world community, stop the extremism. We need a political settlement. Clearly: 1967 borders, the State of Palestine, capital in East Jerusalem. And we need an economic framework that can go along with that. And I think both are possible.

Billington: With a Peace of Westphalia approach, where you acknowledge that you have to forgive the crimes of the other side, which both are so adamant in insisting upon.

In your interview with Robert, you brought up the encyclical of Pope Francis in which he spoke about the meeting of Saint Francis with the Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt on the battlefield of the Fifth Crusade. I found that absolutely fascinating.

Prof. Sachs: It is a great story, a true one.

Billington: Pope Francis’s encyclical, which I looked up, is called Fratelli tutti, which means “all brothers,” which of course reminds you quickly of the Friedrich Schiller phrase “Alle Menschen werden Brueder,” “all mankind will be brothers,” which Beethoven set in his Ninth Symphony. What can you tell us about this meeting of Saint Francis and the Sultan?

Prof. Sachs: Well, this was the Fifth Crusade, and Saint Francis was saintly. He believed in peace. And he believed that there would be a way to reconcile the Christian and the Muslim world. So he trekked on foot from his native Assisi to the battlefield in Egypt in 1219 and met with Sultan al-Malik. He had an all-nighter with the Sultan in a discussion, a debate about religion, politics and war. It is a meeting that went down in history as a peace seeker. It did not end the Fifth Crusade. Saint Francis left without peace.

But he did have that conversation. And Pope Francis raised this at the beginning of this wonderful encyclical, because he said that it not only is inspiring that his namesake, Saint Francis, made this journey, but also because he and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, which is the great, great center of learning of the last thousand years, in Cairo, in Egypt, the great Muslim center of learning, the Pope and the Grand Imam have really joined hands in calling for peace and saying, there is a way forward, but you have to reach across the divide, like Saint Francis did in 1219. So that’s the message of the encyclical. It’s a wonderful encyclical. It’s really Pope Francis’s great wisdom as a great pastoral leader. He’s basically explaining, how do you deal with the other side through? Do you deal with hate propaganda, war making, or do you find a way to have what he calls encounter? And that is to meet the other side? 

In addition to the meeting of Saint Francis and the Sultan, a lot of the encyclical is taken up with the parable of the Great Samaritan, told by Jesus, where you have a Samaritan, robbed and left bloodied on the side of the road. Many pious people walk by him, Jews in the community. But it’s a Samaritan, meaning someone from, another jurisdiction and a religious group that the Jews looked down on at the time of Jesus’s parable.

And it’s a Samaritan who rescues the robbed person, brings him to an inn, gives money for his care, and, the Pope says, this is the way that the world can be saved. And the only way the world can be saved. And I find it an extraordinarily important encyclical, very basic in its intention, which is, don’t shout hate to the other side. Find the way to have a dialogue with the other side. It’s so simple and so basic and so far from what we do right now. 

For me, the telltale fact of the recklessness and foolishness of Washington is that Biden has not tried to speak with Putin one time since the end of 2021. With all the war going on, the risk of nuclear war, the disasters. Biden doesn’t even understand that there’s a role for speaking. And why do I say Biden? Because President Putin actually said repeatedly, “I’m open for discussion, but they don’t want to talk.” And the truth is, I’ve been watching this very close up, because I know all these people. The U.S. does not have the idea of diplomacy. They don’t get it. They don’t know it. We have a Secretary of State, but we don’t have a diplomat. 

Billington: On the question of the Vatican’s role in this situation, in addition to the encyclical which you just described, you’re also a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Vatican. I’m afraid I don’t really know exactly what that is, but I’m wondering what you and others with whom you are in touch in the Vatican might be doing to try to realize the Pope’s offer, from a few years ago now, to use the Vatican as a forum for peace negotiations?

Prof. Sachs: The Pope has reiterated this. Just recently, he said that Ukraine should show the “bravery” to open to negotiations. Actually, in Ukraine, there’s a law that Zelensky pushed which says that it’s illegal to negotiate with Russia, until Russia leaves Ukraine. In other words, we can’t have negotiations to end this war. The war magically has to end first. This is completely backwards, completely destructive. It has meant that Ukraine rejects negotiations. And the United States, which is very poorly led by President Biden, takes the line, which I think is both a dodge and a delusion: “Well, we can’t do anything unless the Ukrainians ask for it. And since the Ukrainians don’t want negotiation, we say no to negotiations.” This is a complete copout. Actually, it’s almost the opposite of the truth. 

The U.S. has pushed this war all along. The U.S. has funded this war. The U.S. has armed Ukraine. It’s the U.S., by the way, that told Ukraine, “Keep fighting,” when Ukraine was ready to settle on the basis of neutrality in March 2022. Then the U.S. and UK came in and said “No, no, we arm you, you keep fighting.” That is about 500,000 deaths earlier that would have been averted but for the U.S. insistence, I would say, that its client state keep fighting. All of this has meant that while the Pope has said repeatedly, “We the Vatican stands ready to use the Pope’s good offices, to use the Vatican, to use our ability to have outreach to Patriarch Kirill and other religious leaders,” it’s been blocked by the geopolitics up until now. 

Billington: In terms of the U.S. as the unipolar power of the world, nearly the entire Global South is now quite verbally and publicly and openly rejecting the whole policy of colonialism. Really, the 500 years and more of human history has been largely defined by this colonial era. But they’re now being offered something quite different from the BRICS, from the Belt and Road, something different than the austerity and subservience that the IMF and the World Bank policies and the colonial powers have imposed on all these centuries. What do you think about the Belt and Road and the BRICS policies in terms of dealing with the continuing immiseration of much of the developing sector, the so-called Third World, as we used to call it?

Prof. Sachs: Well, the U.S. really has starkly divided the world, because the U.S. has said, “You’re with us or you’re against us.” It said that repeatedly. It said that with regard to the Iraq war in 2003 and onward, and it says it now with regard to Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia. You’re either with us applying these sanctions or you’re against us. Most of the world doesn’t want to be for or against. It wants to be left alone. Most of the world is trying to get on with living, trying to get on with facing many, many challenges and crises. And it doesn’t want to be told by the United States, you do what we say, or we somehow punish you or put on sanctions and so on. So we’re in the midst of that upheaval right now.

Europe, to my disappointment, which has the capacity to be an independent actor, has for the moment fallen almost entirely into the U.S. camp. Countries that should know better, and a European Union that should know better, act almost as if it’s simply a complete dependency on the U.S. And the European Union no longer distinguishes between the EU, which is an economic and political union, and NATO, which is a U.S. led military alliance. It’s a shame, but true, that the capital of the EU and the capital of NATO are both in Brussels, in the same city, and effectively the same thing right now. So when the world divides—you have the U.S. and Europe and a few allies in Asia, important countries, Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, effectively in that group. And then you have most of the rest of the world, not per se against the U.S., but saying, “Stop it, stop dividing the world, stop creating Cold War, stop your military expansionism, stop your regime change operations and all the rest. Just get along.” 

That’s the vast majority of the world, I would say, 150 countries or so. There are 27 in the European Union, plus the United States, plus the handful of non-EU countries, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so forth, coming up to probably about 40 countries in the “U.S. camp.” It’s a dangerous, sad, ridiculous way to behave that “we’re number one. And if we can’t be number one for everybody, we’ll be number one in our group,” among the 40 or so, “and we’ll divide the world.” It’s a lousy bargain for Americans. It’s a lousy bargain for the world. It’s pretty much where we are right now.

When you look at any other individual developing country, generally their position is: “I’d like to trade with the U.S. I’d like to trade with Europe. I’d like to trade with Russia. I’d like to trade with China. Why should I choose? I just want to get along. I don’t need to take sides.” But it’s the U.S. that is forcing this sharp division.

And it’s a shame. And it’s a huge mistake for the U.S. because when countries are forced to choose, they say, “Okay, we’ll go with the other side because it looks like a better bargain.” And when you ask specifically about what’s on offer, one of the things that’s on offer right now is this Belt and Road Initiative, which is a $1 trillion plus initiative of China to finance modern infrastructure in partner countries. Fast rail. This is a huge part of Belt and Road. Many places are getting rail service for effectively the first time, or the first time in modern technology, such as a rail line that I actually was near to just recently, in Ethiopia, running from Addis Ababa to the port in Djibouti. Many countries are getting major power systems, hydroelectric dams and so on.

So the Belt and Road Initiative is a tremendous initiative. Naturally, the United States bad mouths it, says it’s awful. It’s terrible because the United States can’t say anything good about China, because China is an affront to the American arrogant claim of superiority. So everything the U.S. says about China is badmouthing, it’s basically lies, fibs, misrepresentations and misunderstandings, because what China is doing is very constructive in the world. This is why so many other countries are saying, “Okay, you’ve forced me to choose. I choose the Belt and Road.”

Billington: Well, finally there’s some revolt going on in the United States. We now have hundreds of universities in upheaval. Students are protesting the war policies of our government. They’re spurred on, obviously, by the genocide in Gaza. But it really goes beyond that. The response of both parties and most of the Congress has been sending in the police, and perhaps soon the National Guard. People may recall that it was exactly 54 years ago, in May of 1970, that the National Guard opened fire on peaceful demonstrators at Kent State University in Ohio, killing four and wounding nine. Are we seeing this coming again?

Prof. Sachs: We’re seeing a kind of panic by the politicians and by the university administrators to what the students are saying. What the students are saying is: they don’t like genocide. They don’t support what Israel is doing. They want it to stop. And the students are absolutely correct in this. This is a shock to the politicians, who are, of course, deeply influenced, one could say bought off by the Israel Lobby, by the big money that that entails, or by the military-industrial complex. And frankly, they are shocked and amazed that there’s such a strong sentiment among America’s young people, pro-Palestinian. I don’t think the political class expected this at all. But then again, what Israel is doing is so vulgar, so cruel, so crass. It’s not really surprising. But this caught the politicians and the university administrators completely off guard. 

Remember that many of these universities have large donors, Jewish donors and other donors, very pro-Israel, very pro-military-industrial complex. And these donors immediately said, “What are these students doing? How dare they do this?” And so the administrators at Columbia panicked, behaved very incorrectly, in a very peremptory way, suddenly started outlawing student organizations, cracking down on students for being on zoom calls, and couldn’t stomach that there were overt demonstrations on the campus against Israel’s war in Gaza. Of course there would be! And so what? It’s a protest! So let it be. But the university said, “Oh, this is terrible. This is anti-Semitism. This is a danger.” Everything was exaggerated in a kind of panic. The universities wanted to prove to the Congress, “Oh, we’re going to take care of this anti-Israel sentiment.”

This is absolutely terrible. And so they cracked down. They called the police, across the United States. Students, faculty arrested. Students expelled. If they had read Pope Francis’s encyclical and actually talked to the students, they would have gotten somewhere. The President of Harvard, it seems, from what I know, and I know him, actually very, very well. And I think he’s done a good job. He spoke to the students, he discussed with them. They said, “Okay, you’ve made some promises. You’re going to take up the issues of the university’s divestment policies. We’re going to have more learning about what’s happened in the Middle East,” and so on. And they peacefully decamped. Whereas at Columbia, the police came in, twice, very brutal and absolutely unnecessarily. 

But that happened all across the country because the university administrations, by and large, wanted to show these right wingers—it’s not even right wingers, I scratch the phrase—they wanted to show both parties of Congress that we absolutely understand what free speech is, which means don’t allow it if it’s against the prevailing policy of the United States, which is to support Israel at any cost and at all costs. And so they fell all over each other to impress the politicians. The politicians did their usual demagoguery, and they came to the campuses and they called the pro-Palestinian protesters anti-Semitic and every kind of slur and slander you can imagine. And this is where we are in America. We do not speak with each other in a civilized way.

Billington: Do you know Professor Bruce Robbins at Columbia?

Prof. Sachs: No.

Billington: He’s a professor of English and literature. I sent you this morning a six minute video that he released. He describes: “I went to the encampment. I talked to them. They’re all peaceful. What they want is peace. They want to make their point about the genocide, about the evil that’s taking place. And what’s the response? The response is the police came in.” Then he said that he began to see something was amiss when after the October 6th events, Colombia set up a 3-person team to investigate anti-Semitism. But all three of the people that were chosen were Zionists! Their report just completely ignored, 100% ignored, what was going on in Gaza. All they talked about was the evil of Hamas and so forth. It’s a very interesting video.

Prof. Sachs: Yes. I didn’t see it, but it completely comports with everything that I’ve spoken about with my colleagues at length in recent weeks. I think the actions that were taken by our administrators and similar actions taken by administrators of universities and other places was wrong, completely contrary to the spirit of the university, completely contrary to First Amendment rights of free speech and the right to protest and completely neglectful of the reality, which is that Israel is killing tens of thousands of people. And I’m proud that our students are saying, “No, don’t do that.” That’s what students should be saying.

Billington: You said something similar in your interview with Judge Napolitano, which I took note of, which is that the U.S. wants to maintain its hegemony around the world, but to do so it is imposing internal suppression on the U.S. population, and that this was in your terms, “breaking apart our community, undermining the role of universities as places of debate, speaking out on ideas, and instead is bringing in the police to crush peaceful opposition.” So that’s what you’ve just explained. 

Prof. Sachs: The American people do not want or need in any way hegemony for our safety, our security, or our well-being. China is not an enemy. Russia is not an enemy. We don’t need these wars. They don’t make us safer. They don’t make us more prosperous. And the American people sense it, or know it, and they oppose the foreign policy. And of course, in the U.S. at this point, almost all foreign policy is managed secretly, really by a small group. Everything is classified, under control. What is told to us are lies, and the public is protesting. And in order to keep to the lies, the government is cracking down. That’s where we are. It’s extremely dangerous.

Billington: What else do you think is going on amongst the faculty at Columbia and perhaps other universities that I’m sure you’re in touch with as well? What do you think they are doing about this and what do you think they can do about it? I can imagine that having Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland becoming professors at Columbia is not going to help very much. The president of the university, Minouche Shafik, was the first university president to call in the police to shut down the student protests. I don’t know if you know her background, but she’s also a member of the House of Lords in the UK. She was Vice President of the World Bank and a Managing Director at the IMF, and a Deputy Director at the Bank of England. So we’re dealing here with a person at the very center of the global financial oligarchy. And now she’s running a leading university like Columbia. What do you think of that?

Prof. Sachs: Well, I think the main point is: her community is the students and the faculty. And I would say to her, and I have said to her and to the administration, pay attention to your community. The outsiders who are aiming to divide us, the politicians who are always ready for their bit of demagoguery, even the donors, okay, they may be generous, but they cannot run an academic community, and should not. And everybody should know that, including them, including the donors themselves. Pay attention to your community. Because if the community breaks, what do you have? What’s left?

I think that this is really the point. The faculty are very unhappy. At least hundreds of them are. There is a faculty vote of no confidence underway, right now. It’s a several day online system of voting, so I don’t know how it’s going or what the outcome is, but the fact of it, is a demonstration that a significant fraction of the Columbia faculty was really unhappy with how things have happened. The faculty is very concerned about the students: Students who were expelled, suspended for doing the right thing, protesting injustice and exercising their critical faculties, their thinking and their First Amendment rights. And they should not be suspended for that or expelled much less.

Billington: The universities are beginning to shut down now, at the end of the term and the summer break. These protests may not continue. But what, in your view, what would it take to rally the national sentiment of the students that are already expressing their concerns, and the rest of the population as well, to rally them against these wars, with something like a march on Washington or some major display of the kind of sentiment, which, as you said, the U.S. people don’t agree with these wars. How do we galvanize that?

Prof. Sachs: I think it’s likely to continue. I don’t think that even with the school year ending, the protests are going to stop. We’re in an election year also. They’re going to be lots of gatherings of people. There will be political conventions. There will be campaign events. If, which seems tragically likely, the fighting in Gaza continues the way it’s going right now, with the more senseless deaths and more violence, I’m pretty sure that the protests are going to continue to play a very big role in American society in the coming weeks.

Billington: Do you have any recommendations on how to consolidate that or to expand on it?

 Prof. Sachs: I don’t have recommendations. I’m trying on my part to move forward to diplomacy. My particular area of effort right now is to try to apply the maximum logic and geopolitical sense for the U.S. to drop its veto on the State of Palestine, because I really believe if we could have a state of Palestine in the UN, so much of the rest of making peace would follow very quickly.

Billington: Well as you certainly know, there were tens of thousands of Israelis who have been out in the streets over the last few weeks, generally demanding an end of the war and a release of the hostages. And Bibi, of course, has insisted that the planned slaughter, and now it appears the ongoing slaughter of innocents in Rafah is going to proceed, with or without a deal with Hamas. Do you see any hope that the Israelis themselves can end this? The madness of Bibi and Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and so forth?

Prof. Sachs: I’m not so optimistic. I’m not so close to it, but, this group is ruthless. This is obvious, with so many tens of thousands dead, with this senseless and absolutely brutal military campaign underway. This is a ruthless group, and the demonstrations are not exactly for peace. They’re for release of the hostages. They are anti-Bibi to an important extent, but unfortunately, there’s a lot of feeling across Israeli society, according to the opinion surveys, for very harsh, continued measures in Gaza. That is very concerning. I’m not sure that the peace is going to come from within Israel. I think it’s more likely to come from the international community, which, again, putting aside the U.S. veto, is pretty much unanimous in rejecting what Israel is doing.

Billington: I’ll ask you to close by saying what you can about China. You know China very well. You spend time there. We’ve already discussed the fact that the NATO people want a global NATO, want a war on China. What do you think we should do about this?

Prof.Sachs: Well, since China’s rather big, 1.4 billion people, and with a very constructive role to play in the world, I hope we could have another discussion about that at length. I don’t want to oversimplify, but I will say basically one sentence: China is not our enemy. This is the most important point to understand. China is not out to run the world. It’s not out to dominate the United States. It’s not out to invade the U.S. It’s not out to hinder the United States. The idea of China as the enemy is a U.S. concoction. It’s a resentment of China being large and successful. It is not a measure of China per se, and this is the most important thing for Americans to understand. Stop making enemies where they don’t exist. If one persists long enough in calling someone else an enemy and acting that way, you’ll create an enemy. But if you have more sense and understand that China is not our enemy, we have no reason to make China an enemy, nor will it be an enemy.

Billington: All right, very good. Okay. Thanks a lot.

May 17, 2024 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, opened this week’s 50th consecutive meeting of the International Peace Coalition by discussing the implications of the attempted assassination of Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico yesterday. She referenced the assessment of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, that the crime must be seen in the context of the Western preparation for a war with Russia. Zepp-LaRouche reviewed the press attacks on Fico by various international functionaries of the Anglosphere, who had charged him with “polarization” because Fico questioned the utility of the sanctions against Russia; suggested that the Ukraine war began because of Nazi elements terrorizing the Donbass; and pointed out that NATO broke its 1990 promise to the Russian Federation not to move Eastward.

She reported that Fico’s would-be assassin belonged to an organization called “Progressive Slovakia,” which needs to be investigated further. Was he really a “lone assassin”? There is now a rapid degeneration of democracy in many European states, where free speech is increasingly denounced. U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has just said, in response to Russian statements, that Ukraine can do “whatever they decide” with U.S. weapons, but “all the weapons in the world cannot compensate for the fact that they are running out of soldiers,” insisted Zepp-LaRouche.

She went on to underscore the significance of the Putin/Xi strategic partnership, which is causing conniptions among neoliberals and neocons. It is also extremely important that South Africa went back to the International Court of Justice to demand that Israel implement ICJ’s rulings.

Next, Fr. Harry Bury, Coordinator of the Nonviolent Cities Project of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a leading member of Pax Christi and the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests, reported that Catholic bishops and nuns in Washington, Oregon and Montana have put forward a peace plan for Gaza, which calls for a ceasefire, the mutual return of hostages, and a two-state solution. Significantly, the plan also calls for the re-development of Israel and Gaza. The latter converges on the Oasis Plan originally proposed in 1975 by economist Lyndon LaRouche. Father Bury emphasized that the Oasis Plan means not only development for Southwest Asia, but for the entire world. Reflecting on the economic experience of post-World War II history, he observed that the 1948-1952 Marshall Plan in Europe, and the 1945-1952 occupation and reconstruction of Japan, had worked: there is no mass emigration today from Germany and Japan. He concluded by saying, “Peace is a good investment.”

While he was not able to attend, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and public policy analyst, provided a video, conducted by IPC member Mike Billington, which was shown. “The political solution is that there should be a State of Palestine, and it should live alongside the State of Israel,” he said. But the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council is the obstacle to this. The nations of the region are ready for peace with Israel, but they don’t want Palestine to live under an apartheid regime, or worse, a genocidal one. The American people and the world want Palestine to have rights. The U.S. government is hurting both itself, and Israel, which is seen as “a war crime state protected by the United States.” “There is a water crisis and desalination is the way forward,” Sachs said, in reference to the proposed Oasis Plan.

Sachs warned that “Israel is absolutely radicalized, extremist, compared to 25 years ago.” He said that we need a return to the 1967 borders, and an economic framework that will go along with that. He explained the importance of Pope Francis’ October 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti! (“On Fraternity and Social Friendship”). Pope Francis insists that the only way the world can be saved is for everyone to be like the Good Samaritan, opening the encyclical, that St. Francis “declares blessed all those who love their brother ‘as much when he is far away from him as when he is with him.’”

In conclusion, Sachs marveled at the fact that Biden has not tried to speak to Putin even once since 2021: “That’s the telltale sign of the recklessness and stupidity of U.S. policy.” The U.S. does not have the idea of diplomacy: “We have a Secretary of State, but we don’t have a diplomat.”

Dr. Mubarak Awad, founder of Nonviolence International, provided an update on Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. He described himself as a Christian Palestinian, deported in 1988 by Israel, and fully committed to the policy and practice of nonviolent direct action. He offered seven steps to end the present cycle of violence: First, to the Palestinians, he uncompromisingly says, stop killing the Israelis. Welcome them as neighbors. Choose your leaders by elections. To the Israelis, stop killing Palestinians. End the siege of Gaza. Reverse the land grabs. End apartheid. Don’t do the dirty work of America.

To the international media, Awad asks that they stop using the word “terrorist” to describe actors on either side. To the Americans and Europeans, he says: there is no military solution. Stop supplying weapons for killing.

He emphasized that we need a humanitarian solution for Gaza. Why build a port, instead of getting Israel to open access by land? To the soldiers, he says: don’t cut anyone’s life short. Don’t seek revenge. He applauds those Israelis who refuse to fight, and he expressed concern for those who return, traumatized, from Gaza. “Every country that attacks another has a problem with their returning soldiers.”

In response to Dr. Awad, Helga Zepp-LaRouche admonished, why does the international community stand by and watch this? If we cannot intervene when there is a genocide in front of the eyes of the world, what does that say about us? She reported that, in contrast, responses to Oasis Plan have been extremely positive, wherever it becomes known.

Jason Ross provided a brief report on the IPC Energy Committee Meeting for the Oasis Plan held this past week. This committee is addressing the question of the Plan’s technical requirements. A million cubic meters of water per day would be a good objective for desalination, and it is the job of the Committee to identify not only the nations, but the sectors of engineering, water management, construction, etc. that are required to bring this dream to fruition.

During the ensuing discussion period, a representative of the JFK Peace Speech Committee invited attendees to participate in their June 10 upcoming meeting on Zoom. The Committee takes its name from the June 10, 1963, American University commencement speech of President Kennedy, which he called “possibly the most important speech ever made by an American President.” It signaled a bold attempt to reverse direction and move away from the Cold War.

Danish Schiller Institute leader Michelle Rasmussen gave a report on the Institute’s May 8 conference in Denmark for diplomats, which followed the Schiller Institute’s April 13 Oasis Plan conference. Videos and transcripts are available here.

A university professor in the West Bank reminded the participants that the attacks of October 2023 are not the actual reason for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He graphically conveyed the surreal character of life in Gaza for those who have tried to avoid all political involvement, and have had no contact with Hamas at all. He was an eyewitness to an occurrence in a village of 2,000 people near Nablus: Days ago, three IDF jeeps entered the village, began shooting for no reason, and then left, just as suddenly as they had arrived, with no explanation. Others discussed their frustrations in attempting to persuade others, as well as fear that what is being done by individual citizens is useless in the face of the madness of institutions and so-called elites.

Zepp-LaRouche, in her concluding remarks, mentioned the ongoing attempts to foment “color revolutions” in the dissident states of Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, and especially Georgia (see EIR, May 10, 2024, “Unrest in Georgia: Maidan Redux?”). During the discussion, a military veteran had raised the issue of St. Augustine’s conception of a “just war,” suggesting that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Russians in Ukraine might be seen as conducting just wars. In response, she proposed that the whole matter of nonviolence, as well as the specific topic of just war, should be discussed by an IPC committee more intensively, with the results then brought to the body. She observed that in St. Augustine’s time (354-430 AD), nuclear weapons did not exist. The world today requires a shift in human identity. “Violence is a form of lack of development of the character of people,” she said. Returning to the idea of the Good Samaritan, she said that that idea is echoed in the “Kallias Letters” of Friedrich Schiller: the Good Samaritan embodies Schiller’s concept of the “beautiful soul,” whose emotions naturally lead him to do what is morally necessary. “We are in what may be the worst situation humanity has ever faced,” she said, but it does no good to simply be upset: “We have to use that energy to transform the situation. We must become good Samaritans, beautiful souls.”

[Print version of this article]

May 9—The Schiller Institute–France and the Fédération des Associations d’Amitié Chine-Afrique (FAACA) held a three-hour, international zoom conference May 4, on China-Africa cooperation in poverty reduction. The FAACA is a multi-nation association, with an office in Dakar, Senegal. The event was a platform for diplomats and experts to confer, sharing a common interest in economic development and peace.

The premise underlying the presentations and discussion is that, with concrete infrastructure projects and related education, mutually beneficial trade, agro-industrial expansion, and humanitarian and health assistance in the interim, poverty can be eliminated. The context for this was the sober acknowledgement and discussion of the dangerous reality that the warfare in Southwest Asia, in Ukraine, and conflict in the Indo-Pacific, can escalate to regional, and to even world war, risking nuclear annihilation.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and leader of the Schiller Institute, went through the dangerous global situation at the beginning of her presentation (pre-recorded on video), which opened the forum. Today is an “historic crossroads,” she said, with the positive choice for humanity to take the road toward a new economic and security architecture, in particular, the “Oasis Plan” approach to development. Her presentation was titled, “The Role of Europe in the New Multipolar World.”

Assane Mbengue, the President of FAACA, then followed on the topic, “The Contribution of Chinese Enterprises in the Battle Against Poverty in Africa.” Diplomats from China and Senegal took part in the deliberations. These were His Excellency Ibrahima Sory Sylla, Senegalese Ambassador to China; and Zhang Hangbao, First Secretary to His Excellency Xiao Han, Chinese Ambassador to Senegal.

Some 50 people attended the event, moderated by Sebastian Périmony, of the Schiller Institute–France, with very lively discussion. The other speakers, from Africa and China, brought experience and expertise to bear on development and strategic questions. These included Boubacar Tiemoko Diarra, of the Commission for the Diaspora in China, and Vice President of FAACA, speaking on “Studies of the Project for MTC (Traditional Chinese Medicine) in the Fight Against Poverty in China and its Application in Africa”; Edmond Moukala N’Gouemo, representative of UNESCO to Ghana, addressing “The Implication of the Diaspora in the Establishment of Basic Social Services for Development”; and Jimmy Yab, from the School of Economics, Social and Political Sciences, speaking on “The Geo-Economics of the Belt and Road Initiative in the Fight Against Poverty in Africa.” Also participating were Professor Liu Haifang, the Director of the Center for African Studies at Peking University, and Zhang Yun Simon, the CEO of SOMETA SA, Senegal’s leading iron and steel company.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on behalf of the Schiller Institute, co-sponsor of the event, endorsed the anti-poverty, economic development efforts underway between China and Africa, and made an additional call for action, saying:

There is an epochal change taking place, and reason for absolute optimism that the plan of the African Union for 2063 will be fully realized. It will mean that the vision of statesmen who fought for the development of Africa, and several of whom paid with their life, is coming true, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt; Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, the father of the Non-Aligned Movement; Cheikh Anta Diop in Senegal; Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso; Nelson Mandela in South Africa; and foremost, Lyndon LaRouche, who had made a measuring rod for the moral identity of humanity [of] how Africa is treated.

Now the moral leadership role is already being taken over by the South African government, because it was they who brought the case of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza to the International Court of Justice. It was not the collective West. It was South Africa, and they did so in evoking the tradition of the fight against apartheid.

The Global South, the Global Majority, is actually the key today, in my view, to overcome the strategic crisis and the danger of nuclear war. Because the relationship between NATO and Russia, and NATO and China, is already so much poisoned and slandered, that it definitely requires the addition of the Global Majority to come out with a very strong voice. And you must unite. Speak with one voice. Because as Prime Minister Nehru and President Sukarno said in Bandung in 1955, if it comes to nuclear war, the Global South, the developing sector, will die as well, even if they die a few days or weeks later.

So therefore, the Global Majority has the absolute moral legitimacy to demand that the countries of the Global North cooperate, that they must stop confrontation, and they must work with the BRICS-Plus.

Stop the Killing, Start the Rebuilding: Palestinian Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Prof. Dr. Hassassian

H.E. Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark. 

Formerly ambassador to the U.K. and Hungary. Master’s degree in international relations from the University of Toledo, Ohio, and Ph.D. in political science from the University of Cincinnati. Was Executive Vice President of Bethlehem University on the West Bank, and professor at the University of Maryland where he developed a course on Israel-Palestine conflict resolution. Was the PLO’s chief advisor on the status of Jerusalem.

The Impossible is Self-imposed: Peace Through Economic Development is the Only Way Forward in West Asia

Hussein Askary, Schiller Institute Southwest Asia Coordinator.

Co-author of “Extending the New Silk Road to Southwest Asia and Africa.” 

May 9—The Schiller Institute in Denmark held a seminar May 8 in Copenhagen, for the diplomatic community and other guests, on the theme, “Stop the Killing and Start Rebuilding Gaza and the Region with the Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development.” Four ambassadors and many other diplomats came in person from twelve embassies, which represented Southwest Asia and North Africa, nations elsewhere in Asia and Africa, and Western Europe.
The audience was intensely engaged over a three-hour period, in hearing the engaging presentations, and participating in the dialogue, whose focus was intended both to contribute to an immediate end to the death and destruction in Gaza, and to outline a development path.
Tom Gillesberg, Chairman of the Schiller Institute–Denmark, moderated the event, noting the current efforts by the Schiller Institute in many nations, to promote dialogue on the concept of “peace through development,” in Palestine, Israel and globally, to contribute to a new world economic and security architecture.

On April 13, the Schiller Institute internationally held a day-long online conference, now available in video-archive, titled, “The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development Between Israel and Palestine, and for All of Southwest Asia.” Since February, a 14-minute video has been circulating on “The Oasis Plan.”

In brief, the concept is that development of infrastructure to provide reliable water, power, transportation, health care, housing, and other basics in support of modern agro-industrial activity, is the basis for mutual-interest security. In the Trans-Jordan, this involves building new water conveyances and nuclear desalination; new high-speed rail lines, interconnecting Africa, Asia, and Europe; plentiful power, and more.

In 1975, statesman-economist Lyndon LaRouche (1922–2019) presented this approach as the “Oasis Plan” for Southwest Asia, when he visited the region, and also issued that year his “International Development Bank” funding proposal.
The invitation statement from the Schiller Institute, addressed to the entire Copenhagen diplomatic community, called for discussion of a new paradigm in this spirit:

“Death, destruction and starvation have been used as weapons of war; economic development must be used as a weapon of peace: to turn swords into plowshares. We must all act now to stop the killing and start the rebuilding.
The Schiller Institute Copenhagen seminar will be an important contribution to the dialogue about how to bring peace and prosperity to this long-suffering part of the world, and initiate a new paradigm of international relations.”

Speakers, Peace through Development

The three principal presentations began with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, by video link from Germany. She is founder and leader of the Schiller Institute, and decades-long collaborator in development diplomacy with her husband, Lyndon LaRouche (1922–2019). Second was H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark. These two continued in dialogue their exchanges begun at the earlier, April 13, international Schiller Institute conference, including on the pressing question of whether “political” differences must be solved before “economic” development can proceed.

Speaking third was Hussein Askary, Schiller Institute Southwest Asia Coordinator, who co-authored the Schiller Institute 2017 book, Extending the New Silk Road to Southwest Asia and Africa, and made the Arabic translation of the EIR book, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche began her presentation, titled, “The Oasis Plan: Peace Only Through Development,” with the horrifying news of the start of the Israeli attack on Rafah. She gave a global strategic analysis of the danger of regional and world warfare, describing the threat of even nuclear war from the escalation in Southwest Asia, and as an outgrowth of the NATO-Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Zepp-LaRouche called on the diplomats to collaborate to promote the “Oasis Plan” as a lever to get to a new paradigm and a new international security and development architecture, the only way out of the existential crisis the world is undergoing. She described her ten principles for a new security and development architecture, which she issued for international discussion in 2022. The transcript of her remarks in full is available in this issue of EIR.

Stop the Killing, Start Rebuilding

H.E. Amb. Prof. Dr. Hassassian spoke on the theme, “Stop the Killing and Start the Rebuilding.” He gave a very polemical speech about the ongoing tragedy of the Palestinian people, the history of the conflict, and what is necessary to stop the genocide. The Ambassador called on the 12 countries represented at the seminar, and the international community, to act to stop the killing, and he stressed the need for a political solution based on Palestinian sovereignty, supported by economic development. The discussion included the question of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
Amb. Hassassian speaks from long experience and commitment. He is a former ambassador to the UK and to Hungary. He was Executive Vice President of Bethlehem University on the West Bank, and a professor at the University of Maryland, where he developed a course on Israel-Palestine conflict resolution. He was the PLO’s chief advisor on the status of Jerusalem. His Master’s degree is in international relations from the University of Toledo, Ohio, and his PhD is in political science from the University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

See his interview March 15, 2024, with the Schiller Institute.

The LaRouche Oasis Plan

Hussein Askary presented concrete aspects of the economic geography and principles of development of the Oasis Plan approach, under the topic, “The Impossible Is Self-Imposed: Peace through Economic Development Is the Only Way Forward in West Asia.” He especially challenged the axioms behind the zero-growth movement and its political expression. He explained that principles of development are based on the reality that humanity’s creativity transforms nature.
Askary used examples from his recent trip to Xinjiang to show the Chinese development policy to green the desert. In the discussion periods, wide-ranging questions came up, including whether there are too many people in the world, and what to do about terrorism in West Africa, where he emphasized the need for economic development as an antidote.

Promote a Global Oasis Plan Discussion

During the discussion period, Helga Zepp-LaRouche answered one question that came up, by appealing to the Global South to make their voices heard.
A concrete proposal among the discussants is that the Oasis Plan should be on the agenda of certain of the symposia on security held annually by foundations and nations. Palestinian voices might formally request this. H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Hassassian added getting the discussion going in the universities, and emphasized the importance of the Oasis Plan as a catalyst for economic development, and the work of the Schiller Institute and LaRouche movement in promoting it.

The immediate opportunity for speaking out at a formal international platform comes just two days after the Copenhagen meeting, when the United Nations General Assembly has on its May 10 agenda, the question of statehood for Palestine, for debate and, likely, a vote.
The general reaction to the seminar itself, from the diplomats, was that they were grateful for the ideas, which are very different from what is routinely presented. As one Asian diplomat said, “My mind is blown. It will take me days to think about all of the new ideas presented.”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche reported to the International Peace Coalition, “It was an extremely important follow-up meeting on the level of diplomats and ambassadors, and out of this meeting came a complete commitment to continue the organizing, kick it up to a higher level by trying to get a big international conference with the participation of states on the need to put the Oasis Plan, the development plan for the entire region of Southwest Asia in earnest on the agenda.”