The following statement was released on December 19, 2022, by the Schiller Institute to be circulated internationally in support of an international campaign for a Christmas truce and for accepting the Pope’s offer of the Vatican as venue for the immediate beginning of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, without any preconditions. It is available as a two-sided with the musical score of the Dona Nobis Pacem (Grant Us Peace), a traditional canon, which can be sung at peace vigils everywhere.We encourage you to distribute the statement and send us back responses to info@schillerinstitute.org.
Political and social leaders from around the world, of different philosophical outlooks and religious faiths, are coming together in support of the offer of Pope Francis to use the venue of the Vatican for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine for a diplomatic settlement of the war in Ukraine. The confrontation between the U.S., NATO, and Russia has escalated to the point where one more step, even an unintended mistake, one misreading by one side or the other, could trigger the launching of the entire nuclear arsenals of both sides, leading to a global nuclear war, followed by a nuclear winter of about ten years, which would mean that in all likelihood not one human being would survive.
According to the U.S.-based Arms Control Association, citing senior U.S. Officials: “Biden has decided not to follow through on his 2020 pledge to declare that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies. Instead, he approved a version of the policy from the Obama administration that leaves open the option to use nuclear weapons, not only in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but also to respond to non-nuclear threats.” The U.S. at no point in the past ever adopted a no-first-strike policy, and in the Bush as well as in the Trump administrations the option of a first strike existed in the security doctrine.
In response to the growing crisis and threats, Russian President Putin declared on December 9, in a press conference in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan that Russia will reconsider its current nuclear doctrine of using nuclear weapons only if attacked first with nuclear weapons by another party, or if the existence of the Russian state itself is threatened. Putin said Russia was now considering responding to the U.S. doctrine of preemptive first strike by having to adopt the same first strike policy. That means we are one step away from a thermonuclear catastrophe.
We call on all people of good will to support the offer of Pope Francis, which has been reiterated by Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, to use the venue of the Vatican for the immediate beginning of peace negotiations, without any preconditions.
A group of political and social leaders has just issued a public letter to Pope Francis in which they state that “we welcome Your Holiness’s offer of the Vatican as a possible neutral ground for peace talks – without any preconditions – between Russia and Ukraine… We note that others in Europe and the United States have also offered venues for the Russian and Ukrainian leadership to negotiate peace. We believe it is urgent to unify all such efforts into a globe-spanning movement to bring resolution to this conflict, taking into consideration the valid security interests of all parties.” They further called “on other political and social leaders around the world, regardless of differences in ideology or religious faith,” to join that effort.
We call on all men and women of good faith to join this call for a diplomatic solution. Also join our campaign to conduct choruses in the whole world to sing the canon for peace, “Dona Nobis Pacem.” May the voices for peace move the hearts and minds of those responsible.
It is known that this war can have far more serious consequences than what we are already suffering, including massive destruction and a crisis of global proportions never before seen, because it can lead to a confrontation with nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States and NATO.
Among the growing voices calling for a sensible approach, we highlight that of Pope Francis, calling for a negotiated, peaceful solution.
The undersigned political and social leaders, current and former legislators, and other elected officials from various countries, urge Russia, Ukraine, the United States and NATO to reach an agreement which, first of all, rejects the growing loose talk about the possible use of nuclear weapons and reaffirms the fundamental commitment of the Reagan-Gorbachev Formula of 1985, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” To be lasting, such an agreement must also establish a new international security architecture that recognizes and respects the legitimate security interests of all the planet’s nations.
We recognize and emphasize that Russia, like the United States, NATO, Ukraine and all countries, has legitimate security concerns which must be taken into account and become one of the cornerstones of the new security architecture. A return to the successful principles of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia – respect for sovereignty, commitment to the good of the other, and forgiveness of debts that make true economic development impossible – is the kind of architecture we seek today.
The common good of the One Humanity is the obligatory premise for the good of each and every nation. In that way, among all the nations of the world we will be able to help build an organization of citizens in collective global action, and establish ourselves that way as a force to influence the international policy debate.
We call on people of good will around the world – notwithstanding our diverse and natural differences – to participate in this process of deliberation and search for peaceful solutions, including a thorough examination of the alternative economic policies to replace speculation, which has generated so much poverty and suffering, with a system of production and progress to meet the needs of a growing world population.
We reject all attempts to limit, intimidate, or prohibit such a deliberative process. And we call on the United States, NATO, Ukraine and Russia to advance in the direction that we present in this respectful call.
INITIATING SIGNERS:
Donald Ramotar (Guyana); former President (2011-2015), former member of parliament (1992-2011, PPP)
Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany); founder, Schiller Institute
Jorge Robledo (Colombia); former Senator (2002-2022, Partido Dignidad)
María de los Ángeles Huerta (Mexico); former Congresswoman (2018-2021, Morena)
Dr. Kirk Meighoo (Trinidad & Tobago); former independent Senator (2004, United National Congress)
Dr. Rodolfo Ondarza (Mexico); former Representative, Mexico City Legislative Assembly (2015-2018, PT)
Diane Sare (U.S.); candidate for the U.S. Senate from New York (2022, independent/LaRouche)
ADDITIONAL SIGNERS:
Bolivia
Gen. Edwin de la Fuente Jeria; former Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Bolivia (2012-2013)
Brazil
Paula Cannabrava Filho; journalist, Editor of Diálogos do Sul
Colombia
Jennifer Pedraza Sandoval; Congresswoman
Luís Eduardo Peláez; state representative, Antioquia
Leónidas Gómez Gómez; state representative, Santander
Jorge Gómez Gallego; former Congressman
Diógenes Orjuela García; former Secretary General, CUT trade union confederation
Manuel Sarmiento Arguello; city councilman, Bogotá
Czech Republic
Vincenzo Romanello (Czech Republic/Italy); Ph.D., Senior Nuclear Researcher and Project Manager, National Radiation Protection Institute (SURO)
Dominican Republic
Ramón Emilio Concepción; former presidential precandidate (2020)
Italy
Sergio Tancredi; former member of the Sicilian Parliament (2017-2022)
Antonio Ingroia; former anti-mafia judge in Sicily; candidate for Prime Minister (2013)
Alessia Ruggeri; trade unionist, Comitato per la Repubblica
Mexico
Benjamín Robles Montoya; Congressman (2018- ); former Senator (2012-2018)
Elpidio Tovar de la Cruz; former Congressman (2003-2006)
Claudia Yáñez Centeno; former Congresswoman (2014-2017)
Alberto Vizcarra Osuna; former Sonora state representative (1988-1991)
Dr. Sergio Pablo Mariscal Alvarado; former Mayor, Ciudad Obregón (2018-2021); engineering professor, Sonora Technological Institute
Emeterio Ochoa Bazúa; former Sonora state representative (2015-2021)
Antonio Valdez Villanueva; former Sonora state representative (2009-2012); Under- secretary General of the Mexican Labor Confederation (CTM) in Sonora.
Netherlands
Dr. A. J. (Guus) Berkhout; Professor-Emeritus Geophysics, Technical Univ. of Delft; President of CLINTEL
Peru
Juan Pari; former congressman (2011- 2016)
Alberto Quintanilla Chacón; former congresmman (2016-2019)
Roberto Vela Pinedo; President, Association of Economists of Peru
United States
Richard Black; former Virginia state Senator (2012-2020), former member Virginia House of Delegates (1998-2006)
Graham Fuller; former U.S. diplomat, CIA official, and Islamic scholar
Dr. George Koo; International business advisor, retired
Dr. Mohammad A. Toor; Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Pakistani American Congress
Bradley Blankenship; Journalist
Bob Van Hee; Commissioner, Redwood County, Minnesota
Venezuela
Román Rojas Cabot; former Venezuelan ambassador to the European Community, Brussels
Emil Guevara Muñoz; former member of the Latin American Parliament (2006-2011)
Yemen
Dr. Fouad al Ghaffari; Advisor to the Prime Minister for BRICS Countries Affairs; President of Yemeni ALBRICS Youth Parliament
Jens Jørgen Nielsen has just been fired as a teacher at the adult night school Folkeuniversitet (People’s University) in Copenhagen, explicitly for political reasons. Jens Jørgen Nielsen spoke at the Danish/Swedish Schiller Institute conference about a new security and development architecture on May 25, and was afterwards placed on the Ukraine National Security and Defense Council’s Center for Countering Disinformation hit list.
Recently, three other teachers of the university quit, because they refused to teach if Nielsen continued, which the media covered. In its coverage, the Christian Daily reported that Jens Jørgen Nielsen had been placed on the Ukrainian government blacklist, charging its victims with being pro-Russian infoterrorists.
Then, three days ago, the school’s new board of directors decided to not renew Nielsen’s contract next year, because some people have criticized him for “politicizing the teaching in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine.” He is currently teaching a course about the history of Crimea, which he will be allowed to finish, but next year’s courses about “Russian Conservatism” and “History of Ukraine” have been canceled.
Neither the board of directors, nor any of his academic critics has ever attended any of his classes, and the board did not even speak to him, nor to any of his students, about the matter before firing him. The board just listened to some of his critics, and read one of his debate books Ukraine in the Field of Tension. The board criticized him, for example, for writing in his book that Crimea was not “annexed” by Russia, which would have required a military attack, but that Crimean citizens voted en masse to rejoin Russia.
In a radio interview after the firing, Jens Jørgen Nielsen stressed that he keeps his personal political opinions, which he expresses publicly in the Danish and international media, out of the classroom, and only presents different viewpoints about the historical subjects in his teaching, for the students to consider. Student evaluations during the eight years he has been teaching have been mostly positive, and no one criticized him for politicization.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen has said that he has not politicized in favor of Russia’s military operation in Ukraine in his class. Even in the media he has not legitimized Russia’s actions, saying that it was a mistake, but he has said that it is important to find out how we got here, and, secondly, how we can reach a peaceful solution. Should that not be allowed? he asks. He says that he wrote the book about Ukraine because of one-sided media coverage.
One of the teachers who quit attacked him on the radio program for being interviewed on Russian state TV, but the teacher knew nothing about the content of the interview.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen concludes that the Folkeuniversitet has chosen the easy, but also unprincipled solution to the pressure on them caused by the furor which arose when the other teachers quit. It is unknown what role Jens Jørgen Nielsen’s appearance on the Ukraine hit list played, as it was widely reported on in the press.
The following article by Helga Zepp-LaRouche was published in the book released at the Bandung Spirit conference titled “Bandung-Belgrade-Havana in Global History and Perspective: What Dreams, What Challenges, What Projects for a Global Future?” taking place Nov. 7-14 in Indonesia.
Is it an exaggeration to say that mankind is faced with the gravest crisis in its history, when the potential for a global thermonuclear war, and with it, the likely annihilation of the human species, is accelerating by the day, and when leading experts warn that the situation is more dangerous than at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and yet that does not persuade the leadership of some Western countries to abandon their policy of confrontation between the so-called “democracies versus autocracies”?
The driving force behind this war danger is the imminent disintegration of the neoliberal financial system, which has now entered the hyperinflationary phase as a result of years of liquidity injections into the monetary system, and of the “Great Reset” policy, which former Czech President Vaclav Klaus calls the “green delirium.” Food and energy are becoming increasingly unaffordable, threatening 1.7 billion people in the short-term with famine, according to the World Food Program. Moreover, the pandemic has again widened the gap between those few, who count their fortunes in the billions of dollars, and the billions who had to face disease and starvation without a healthcare system, without energy, clean water or enough food.
So again, 67 long years after the Bandung conference, we have to conclude, as did President Sukarno in his opening address on April 18, 1955, that colonialism is not dead, even if it formally and purportedly no longer exists. Formally, independence was granted, but sovereignty for many nations is denied by monetary structures, terms of trade and the lack of access to resources, which would allow self-determination in the course of economic development. Sanctions imposed for geopolitical reasons on third countries perpetuate “humanitarian crises,” which are designed to increase the pain imposed on the populations to such a degree, that they will rise against their government and create the conditions for regime change.
The real confrontation therefore is not between “democracies” and “autocracies,” but between those forces who want to maintain the colonial system in modern garb, and the countries still struggling for their right to economic development.
In light of the consequences a further escalation between the nuclear powers would have—leading to the real “end of history,” namely a third, this time thermonuclear, world war, followed by a nuclear winter—, the current renaissance of the Non-Aligned Movement is the most crucial element that can point the way to a New Paradigm. In order to overcome geopolitical bloc-building, and the flawed thinking in terms of a zero-sum game, it is necessary to conceptualize the higher One, which must be of a completely different quality and higher power than the Many.
It is a proven principle in history, that peace treaties only function, if they take into account the interest of each party, as was the case with the Peace of Westphalia. If they don’t, as with the Versailles Treaty, they lead to new wars. Given the many interwoven regional conflicts and the global dimension of the present confrontation among nuclear powers, the lesson to be drawn from that historical principle is the urgent need for a new global security and development architecture, which takes into account the interest of every single country on the planet.
The option of a functioning European security system, or a “common European house,” as evoked by Gorbachev at the end of the Soviet Union, clearly no longer exists, given NATO’s sixth expansion to the East. The intention to create a “Global NATO,” as proclaimed at the recent summit of the Alliance in Madrid, including the establishment of an Indo-Pacific headquarters somewhere in Asia, threatens to consolidate the confrontation between those countries belonging to such a military alliance, and those that want to maintain political, economic or military relations with Russia and China.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has already issued a proposal to overcome geopolitical confrontation with his Global Security Initiative, which together with his Global Development Initiative, represents a concept for the approach required. But since some countries in the West portray China as the main threat to their interests, they are unlikely to respond positively to this idea.
It is this geopolitical and historical calamity which makes the revival of the “spirit of Bandung” all the more urgent. The refusal by many countries coming out of the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement to be pulled into a geometry of bloc-thinking has been very strongly expressed recently. The fact that the next G20 summit will take place in Indonesia could present an opportunity of historical providence to add a conceptual ingredient to the political agenda, one that could signify the difference between the danger of the extinction of civilization, and a bright, beautiful future for mankind.
It is the tradition of the Bandung Conference and the subsequent conferences of the Non-Aligned Movement, where the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the ten principles of the NAM laid out the framework to establish a new international security and development architecture for the world today. The 120 member countries of the NAM plus 17 observer countries represent the vast majority of the human species, namely 4.511 billion people in the NAM, and 2.061 billion as observers, that is 6.571 of 8 billion people. And as President Sukarno said in his opening address to the Bandung Conference in 1955, the oceans and the seas which separate the developing countries from those that might conduct a new world war, will not protect those countries that are not party to any side and that have no interest in the conflict. He was echoed by Prime Minister Nehru, who was concerned, that the military strength of some of the great nations might lead them to think in terms of military force and let them stray from the right track: “If all the world were to be divided up between these two big blocs, what would be the result? The inevitable result would be war.”
It is therefore completely legitimate and appropriate, that the NAM countries speak with one voice at the next occasion, at the G20 conference in Indonesia in November, (or at an extraordinary session of the UNGA, if called on an emergency basis), and that they demand a new security and economic architecture, which takes the interest of every country into account.
The authority for the NAM to take a more active role in shaping the world order comes from the lessons of the experience of its history. The Bandung Conference established the Pancheel, the five principles of peaceful coexistence, and subsequent conferences attempted to maintain that lofty spirit. But it was at the conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in 1976, that the NAM came closest to the formulation of what that new order should look like economically. Mrs. Indira Gandhi presented the demands, which then were incorporated in the final resolution, namely:
suspension of debt payment for the poorest countries,
a new universal monetary system to replace the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
the creation of new credit system, which was supposed to be linked to global development,
triangular trade agreements between the developing sector, the socialist states and the OECD countries.
This resolution was almost identical with the proposal for an International Development Bank, IDB, which the American statesmen and economist Lyndon LaRouche had made one year earlier, i.e., to replace the IMF with a new credit system in order to facilitate global development.
Many in the developing sector will remember the violence, with which that demand representing the aspiration of at that time 75 countries and the majority of the world population was met. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was soon to be assassinated, Mrs. Gandhi was ousted from power, Mrs. Bandaranaike from Sri Lanka was destabilized, the cohesion of the NAM was weakened, and naturally the demand for a new just world economic order was never met. One could add a long list of other casualties among leaders of what is called the Global South. And now, we have arrived at the unprecedented crisis in world history mentioned above.
It is very clear, that if one were to present honestly and objectively to the peoples of the world, the dangers that would result from a nuclear world war, namely annihilation to such a degree that no memory would remain of all of mankind’s enormous struggles for progress and freedom, of all the beautiful creations of science and art throughout the world, more then 99 percent of them would oppose this war.
I am also sure that if ordinary people had the means to really understand the reasons for the injustices in the world and to look at the situation in each country both from the standpoint of the best tradition of that nation and the potential it and mankind as a whole have, more than 99 percent of them would wholeheartedly agree with the perspective of a just new world economic order. Both these insights are presently denied to the “ordinary people,” because most of them lack the historical knowledge of other cultures or a personal experience from travel, and the mass media in many countries tend to nourish the prejudices about other cultures that fit the geopolitical aims of the respective establishments.
It is therefore urgent and necessary that the leadership of the NAM find an early opportunity to intervene on the stage of world history, by pointing in the starkest terms to the dangers resulting from geopolitical bloc-building, as Prime Minister Nehru did in his address in Bandung, showing that “the inevitable result would be war.” These leaders should also awaken the consciousness of the world population, making them aware of the plight of the people in the developing sector, illustrating the suffering of death by hunger, which Jean Ziegler, the former UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food, describes as the most cruel and painful kind of death. In his 2012 book We Let Them Starve: The Mass Destruction in the Third World, Ziegler speaks about a cannibalistic world order, in which 10 global cartels, that control 85% of food production worldwide, decide who eats, lives, starves and dies.
As a result of food speculation, land grabbing, over-indebtedness, biofuels, one child under ten years of age dies every five seconds, 57,000 people die every day of hunger, and that in a world, in which global agriculture, according to the UN WFP, could easily produce food for 12 billion people. Today, ten years later, 1.7 billion people are in danger of starvation, yet the EU and other Western governments still insist on setting aside up to 30% of arable land, and restricting the use of fertilizer and pesticides, which will lead to a 50% cut in harvests. Behind this, is the Malthusian outlook of policymakers, who make Malthus a self-fulfilling prophecy by imposing such misanthropic policies—here again, because of “green delirium” and profit maximization.
In light of these outrageous injustices, the leaders of the NAM have all the legitimacy and even duty to awaken the consciousness of the world population to the fact, that this condition of hunger, poverty and underdevelopment in the world is not the result of inevitable natural conditions, but of the implementation of a financial and economic system, that favors the rich and increases the gap with the poor up to the point of genocide.
This system, however, is reaching the end of its rope, as was made clear by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at the annual Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium on August 26 of this year. There, he announced a policy of brutal austerity causing “some pain” in order to fight inflation. “Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth,” he maintained, and announced a policy of high interest rates for some extended time to come, by referring to “The successful Volcker disinflation in the early 1980s,” years in which the interest rates soared above 20%. These remarks immediately triggered a deadly capital flight out of developing sector markets and back into the dollar. The General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Agustín Carstens warned that too much “pain” too fast could crash the entire system in the process, comparing it to the spot called the “coffin corner,” where an aircraft slows to below its stall speed and is unable to generate enough lift to maintain its altitude.
Pointing in the same direction to the hard times to come, were French President Macron, who he lamented that the “times of abundance” are over, as well as Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who said the “next 5 to 10 winters will be difficult.” While the return to Schachtian economics—the policy of Hitler’s Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht—may be “difficult” for what one must almost call the “formerly industrialized countries,” it would be murderous for the developing countries, translating into population reduction by the billions.
It is therefore mandatory that an appropriate platform be found to reorganize the present failing financial system. It may be within the G20 format, or, if that is not workable, in another appropriate framework, such as the BRICS countries, the SCO, or another institution of the Global South. A New Bretton Woods system needs to be established with the modalities, as they were originally intended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but never carried out because of his untimely death. The primary and unassailable goal of this new system must be the qualitative and quantitative increase in the living standards of the populations of the developing sector and of the global poor in general.
The new credit system must provide long-term, low interest loans, which must be dedicated to investments in basic infrastructure, agriculture and industry, with the aim of increasing the productivity of the physical economy in each country. What constitutes such a productive investment and what does not, should be determined by the scientific principles of physical economy as they were developed by American economist Lyndon LaRouche, i.e., they must vector towards an increase in the energy flux density in the production process, leading to an increase in the potential relative population density of each nation.
Wherever this system of economy was applied, it led to the country’s successful industrialization. This was the case with the American System of Economy of Alexander Hamilton, the application of the theories of Hamilton and Friedrich List by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the industrialization of Russia by Count Witte, Roosevelt’s New Deal, the German economic miracle of reconstruction after World War II, the Southeast Asian countries’ economic miracle and, last but not least, the economic miracle of China, which lifted 850 million people out of poverty.
The key feature of this system is, that the state has the sovereign power to create credit, and as long as this credit is strictly directed to productive investment, it is not inflationary, rather, the creation of real physical wealth will always be greater than the initial amount loaned, due to the ability of labor power to create added value. Since the only source of social value is neither the possession of natural resources nor the ability to buy cheap and sell dear, but entirely the creativity of the individual, it is the duty of the state, to further the creative potential of all citizens to the utmost. For this, investments in a modern health system and an excellent universal education system are high priorities. Naturally the deployment of all available resources, such as natural resources, and an international division of labor taking into account geographical or climatic conditions must be mobilized for the optimal expanded reproduction of the economy. The aim of the economy is not the enrichment of a few, but the well-being and happiness of all.
Many developments are already occurring in the direction of the creation of a multipolar world, where countries are choosing economic models in cohesion with their own cultures and traditions. But it is the unique vocation of the NAM to try and overcome the dangerous bloc formation propitious to war, by offering an all-inclusive new Bretton Woods System. In the tradition of President Sukano’s speech at the Bandung Conference in 1955, they could take up his reference to the “first successful anti-colonial war in history,” that is, the American War of Independence, and his quoting of the poet Longfellow and his poem on the famous ride of Paul Revere.
If a way can be found to remind the United States and the European nations of their better traditions, of the policies of Benjamin Franklin or John Quincy Adams, of Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle or the German-Indian cooperation in the building of the Rourkela steel plant, a new paradigm of worldwide cooperation based on the Pancheel, the five principles of peaceful coexistence, can be established.
From where should one draw the optimism, that the Bandung spirit will help to overcome this gravest crisis in human history? Perhaps if we remember what the German rocket scientist, Krafft Ehricke, the “father of the Centaur rocket” of the Apollo program, coined as the first law of astronautics: “Nobody and nothing under the natural laws of this universe impose any limitations on man except man himself.” In this spirit, we can create a new chapter in the history of mankind.
In this time of great political tumult, of controversy concerning the positive role of human technological progress, and of the growing danger, whether through design or miscalculation, of military conflict between thermonuclear powers, the revolutionary ideas of the great Soviet, Russian–Ukrainian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky (1863–1945) demand to be examined and studied. This is particularly true of Vernadsky’s concept of the noösphere, the physical-economic sphere by means of which human scientific thought becomes the predominant force in our universe.
Amid calls to divide the world into ideological camps, the concept of the noösphere demands a new paradigm, one that brings humanity closer together rather than further apart.
Central to the noösphere is maintaining a fundamental commitment to the advancement of science, that is, to realizing those fundamental breakthroughs in scientific thought, which, when implemented in the productive process, enhance the power of man in the biosphere. While Vernadsky’s primary scientific contribution was his discovery of the powerful function of “living matter” in transforming and enhancing the very nature of the underlying inert universe through the “migration of atoms,” so too he saw that man, through the development of his scientific thought, was having a similar effect on transforming and enhancing the work of the biosphere.
Towards the close of Vernadsky’s life, as World War II was coming to an end, he insisted that it was urgent for countries to unite their forces in working together to realize the common aims of mankind, a commitment which he shared with the Soviet Union’s wartime ally, America’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
This symposium is dedicated to reviving the name, ideas, heritage, and mission of this seminal scientist. We have assembled noted scientists from around the world to come together to discuss fundamental scientific advances being made, or soon to be made, in their respective fields of activity, many of which were also fields of inquiry for Vernadsky. In the afternoon, we will discuss some of the physical engineering projects underway in various parts of the world to improve the condition of mankind — to develop the noösphere.
Panel 1: 10 am – 1 pm (eastern US time) Vernadsky’s Revolution in Science and Thought
Bill Jones: “Vernadsky’s Promethean Concept of Scientific Thought as a Geological Force” Washington Correspondent, EIR News Service
Dr. Vladimir Voeikov: “Vernadsky’s Concept of Living Substance, with Emphasis on the Fundamental Role of Water in its Existence and Development” Doctor of Biological Sciences, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University
Prof. Sergey Pulinets: “A Journey Through Vernadsky’s Universe” Principal Research Scientist, Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Prof. Alberto Prestininzi: “Climate Change and the Galaxy” Professor, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; Director of the Center for Earthquake Research and Information (CERI).
Jason Ross: “Vernadsky’s Economic Space and Time: The Anti-Entropy of the Noösphere” Executive Director, The LaRouche Organization
Panel 2: 2 pm – 5 pm (eastern US time) Physical Economy: Developing the Noösphere
Vladimir Vernadsky, in developing the concept of the noösphere, in essence created a unique approach to physical economics, strikingly similar to LaRouche’s method of physical economy, which utilizes chemistry and rates of physical output and input of production as necessary measurements, rather than the non-specific monetarist approach. The development and discovery of new resources, and new approaches to harnessing and distributing resources to effectively increase the productive output of an economy, are a keystone of this approach. Water management, and the development of corridors of energy and transportation are also fundamental. Speakers in this panel will discuss powerful proposals in those fields and discuss new discoveries about the nature of water itself, and its relationship to the biosphere and noosphere, and the broader issues of climate in the context of the solar system and galaxy.
Dr. Farouk el-Baz: “Egypt’s Development Corridor” Research Professor and Director of the Center for Remote Sensing, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts; Adjunct Professor of Geology at the Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt; formerly a leading geologist in the NASA moon program and advisor to the Egyptian president
Eng. Andrea Mangano: “The Transaqua Project” Veteran of the Bonifica engineering team that developed the original Transaqua concept for Central Africa in the 1970s.
Michael Paluszek: “Latest Developments in Nuclear Fusion” President, Princeton Satellite Systems, Plainsboro, N.J.
Gaopalelwe “GP” Santswere: ““Africa’s Need for Nuclear Power and Nuclear Medicine.” Nuclear Physicist; Senior Scientist, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, Pretoria, South Africa; President, African Young Generation in Nuclear (AYGN).
Prof. Gerald Pollack: “The Fourth Phase of Water, and Life.” Professor of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; founder of the Annual Conference on the Physics, Chemistry, and Biology of Water
Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented today a clear and concise summary of recent strategic events, and the Schiller Institute’s conferences to bring together elected and other leading officials to counter the war drive coming from London and its NATO war hawks. The Press Availability on Nov. 5, “A Nuclear War Cannot be Won, and Must Not Be Fought” intersected growing awareness, she said, of the nuclear war danger coming from those reeling from the collapse of their Unipolar financial system.
“Outspoken, known personalities” have joined us to speak out, as demonstrations against the war are growing throughout Europe. In the U.S., courageous young activists from the Schiller Institute have been confronting the war hawks, demonstrating that there is political opposition in the U.S., that “there is not monolithic support” for the provocations which, if not opposed, will lead to World War III.
She added that the short visit of German Chancellor Scholz represents a similar process. German industrialists have begun speaking out against decoupling from China, while Green Party ideologues in his coalition are supporting decoupling, along with deindustrialization and full backing for the war against Russia in Ukraine. Scholz at least seems to recognize that the German economy cannot survive decoupling with Russia, which is already occurring, with a decoupling from China.
She urged viewers to watch the video of the press availability, and to join the citizen’s nonviolent movement to end forever the danger of nuclear weapons and geopolitics.
On November 2, the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation published a very clear statement reiterating its commitment to the tenet that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” It continues, “We fully reaffirm our commitment to the joint statement of the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon states on preventing nuclear war and avoiding arms races of January 3, 2022. We are strongly convinced that in the current complicated and turbulent situation, caused by irresponsible and impudent actions aimed at undermining our national security, the most immediate task is to avoid any military clash of nuclear powers.”
The silence from the United States, the UK, and France is ominous. Rather than the recently issued vaguely worded nuclear doctrine, aptly described by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter as “nuclear blackmail,” American policymakers should consider the words of Adlai Stevenson, United Nations Ambassador during the October Cuban Missile Crisis, exactly 60 years ago: “Blackmail and Intimidation, Never; Negotiation and Sanity, Always.” The Russians have asserted that the UK was directly involved “supervising” the recently repelled drone attack on the Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol, and have demanded an explanation for the “It is done” text message that seems to have been carelessly sent by the already-former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, to U.S Secretary of State Tony Blinken moments after the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up. What is next?
Can this mean that one false move, either from Ukraine or from British, U.S., or NATO “renegade” military, military-intelligence, or “continuity of government” forces, could take us all over the thermonuclear cliff? American and European military analysts, as well as institutional figures, are convening this dialogue to alert men and women of good will around the world that an alternative course must come into being immediately. This dialogue is intended to provoke a discussion, and action, among millions, now, before it is too late.
Speakers include: Diane Sare, LaRouche independent candidate for U.S. Senate, NY Ray McGovern, former Senior Analyst, U.S. Central intelligence Agency (CIA) Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, USMC intelligence officer, and military analyst Col. (ret.) Richard Black, former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, former Virginia State Senator Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder Schiller Institute And others
HOSTS Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder, Schiller Institute Benjamín Robles Montoya (Mexico), Congressman María de los Ángeles Huerta (Mexico), Former Congresswoman
THE VIEW FROM LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Donald Ramotar (Guyana), Former President Jorge Robledo (Colombia), Former Senator Rodolfo Ondarza (Mexico), Former Mexico City representative Elpidio Tovar de la Cruz, (Mexico), Former Congressman
THE VIEW FROM EUROPE Dominique Delawarde (France), Retired general Zivan Jovanovic (Serbia), President, Belgrade Forum World of Equals Karl Kroekel (German), Craftsmen for Peace Video of demonstrations in eastern Germany Sergio Tancredi (Italy), Former state Parliamentarian, Sicily Antonio Ingroia (Italy), Former anti-mafia judge
THE VIEW FROM THE UNITED STATES Richard Black (U.S.), Former state Senator, Virginia Diane Sare (U.S.), Candidate for Senate, NY George Koo (U.S.), International business advisor, retired
Former and currently serving elected officials from all over the world will convene in the Congress of Mexico in Mexico City and via Zoom videoconference this coming Thursday, October 27 from 10:00 am to 1:00 p.m. EDT, to build on the live gathering this past October 7 with legislators from across the Americas, and the later October 15 Schiller conference of youth leaders who all gathered to bring the world back from the brink of nuclear war.
A partial list of international speakers is provided immediately below in this message.
With new threats emerging daily, including Russia’s warnings that Ukraine (with backing from the United Kingdom) is preparing an “October surprise” involving the use of a nuclear “dirty bomb,” the Oct. 27 seminar has taken on heightened urgency.
As Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized in an Oct. 22 interview with EIR magazine:
Well, if you look around the world and ask normal people, like normal parliamentarians, elected officials, trade unionists, industrialists, farmers, fishermen, and so forth, nobody wants World War III! It’s a very small apparatus which is pushing this geopolitical confrontation which threatens the annihilation of the human species…
So the fact that what is at stake is the possible destruction of mankind, that makes, automatically, every citizen on the planet, to be a world citizen who has the right to speak out for the interest of humanity as a whole. And given the fact that the Schiller Institute is named after the poet Friedrich Schiller, who argued that there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen—or that there doesn’t have to be—basically, we are now appealing to world citizens from all over the world to stand up against this war, and make sure that people understand that we have to make a jump in the thinking, to think in terms of a new paradigm, where everybody learns to think as a world citizen; which doesn’t mean you’re not a patriot, it just means you have to make one more step, you have to take the interest of humanity as a whole into account, and make sure that your understanding of your national interest is not in contradiction to that larger interest of humanity as a whole…
We have to find a new model of international relations as the precondition to get out of this crisis… I think the system of the City of London, and by implication the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, is teetering on the verge of dissolution. So, the need to put a New Bretton Woods system, a new credit system, on the international agenda may erupt more quickly than people think.”
