While we should not pay less attention to the danger—which is increasing daily, one can say—it is also clear that if there is a decisive action, there is hope that we can turn the situation around.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche
March 15—The 41st meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) convened today, and provided a very interesting contrast—one could call it a “dissonance”—between despair and hope. On one hand, several participants conveyed a sense of despondency due to the impression that the IPC and the peace movement more generally are trapped in an “echo chamber,” with few people in the general population “getting the message.” On the other hand, many participants reported on exciting initiatives designed precisely to break out of the “echo chamber” and build a bigger base of support for the IPC process. Based on remarks from several speakers, it is also evident that there is a growing revolt in the Global South against the arrogance of Western hegemony and the centuries of colonial policies that have impoverished their nations and destroyed the hopes and dreams of their people.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche began the proceedings with a strategic overview that indeed demonstrated this growing revolt by the Global South and the effects it is having on political layers in the West. Of great importance was Pope Francis’ recent demand that Ukraine have the courage to negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. In the United States, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on March 14 spoke from the Senate floor, demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resign and that Israel hold new elections, saying that Netanyahu does not serve Israeli security by making Israel a pariah state. In Berlin, during a joint press conference between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Ibrahim blasted Scholz in regard to the Palestinian genocide, essentially accusing him of racism. In Denmark, the Ambassador of the Palestinian Authority, Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, in an interview with the Schiller Institute, endorsed the LaRouche Oasis Plan for economic development throughout the region.
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized throughout her opening remarks that in no way has the threat of nuclear war diminished. She made it clear that only by changing the underlying axioms that continuously lead to failed geopolitical solutions to the war danger, and adopting a new paradigm of development exemplified by the Oasis Plan, is there any hope for peace.
The next speaker, Colonel Richard Black (ret.), former chief of the Pentagon’s Criminal Law Division, characterized the current historical dynamic as “moving closer to our 1914 moment,” referring to the events which triggered World War I, leading to the deaths of 14 million people. Based on various political moves being made in Europe and the U.S., he sees the emergence of a “war consensus” with the potential of NATO troops entering into direct conflict with Russia. “This is World War III,” he said. Despite the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, the Western “elites” are determined to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat … which will inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange.”
Terry Lodge, an attorney from Ohio and long-time member of Veterans for Peace, discussed the open letter he authored warning State Department officials that they are engaged in criminal activity by providing Israel weapons to carry out its genocide against the Palestinians. He aptly expressed the “dissonance” of the current period with his opening statement:
“As dark and difficult as the last couple of years have become from an international human rights and war-making perspective, what has happened is that planetary citizens are coming together in gatherings like this, to talk sanely and talk rationally, and kind of reawaken awareness to the fact that humanity is struggling and trying to provide guardrails for the conduct of human behavior at a societal and national level.“
He called the Biden administration’s arming of Israel a “ghastly, dark comedy,” but believes that “there are cracks that are occurring in this facade; that people like the numbers of you on this Zoom meeting can take some credit” for having caused those cracks.
Richard Sakwa, Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent in the UK, began his remarks with an analysis of the now-ongoing Russian elections. Prof. Sakwa recounted an interview by well known Russian media figure Dmitry Kiselyov with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Putin expressed his belief that the “Western vampire ball” is ending and that 500 years of Western dominance is over. Putin believes that a new epoch has started and that Russia—as in the Soviet days—is the leader of the new, anti-colonial era. In regard to Ukraine, Putin stated:
“For us, the Ukraine conflict is a matter of life or death. For them [the U.S. and NATO], it’s a matter of improving their tactical position globally and in Europe…. If the U.S. tries to play chicken, Moscow is prepared to use nuclear weapons and considers its arsenal more advanced than anyone else’s.”
Sakwa’s assessment is that the current strategic situation is far more dangerous than the first Cold War. Essentially, the West is playing nuclear chicken and as Putin made clear, the Russians don’t play that game.
Zepp-LaRouche asked Prof. Sakwa, given the gravity of the situation, What must be done to “penetrate the mainstream brainwashed population”? Sakwa, although not having a definitive answer, pointed to the peace movement of Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany and the election of George Galloway in the UK as a sign of hope.
Zaher Wahab, a prominent Afghan-American and Professor Emeritus of Education at Lewis and Clark College in the United States, began by thanking the Schiller Institute for its relentless efforts on behalf of humanity to promote peace and development everywhere. Prof. Wahab expressed his belief that because of the “deep economic, political-diplomatic, moral and social crises” in the West, while the Global South continues to rise, this heightens the danger of nuclear war. He endorsed the Oasis Plan, and enthusiastically called for its extension into Central and South Asia.
Jack Gilroy, a member of Veterans for Peace and Pax Christi, announced a very important initiative: On March 18, Pax Christi, in collaboration with a coalition called “Christians for a Free Palestine,” are spearheading a national day of action to deliver letters to all U.S. Senators and Representatives on the failure of Christian churches to speak out on the atrocities in Gaza.
In her closing remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated that the enemy of humanity is not nation states, but what she called “super-national structures”; structures of the neoliberal financial system which rely on war to maintain their existence. She fully endorsed the March 18 day of action and suggested the IPC mobilize for May Day demonstrations in Europe and elsewhere. She also urged everybody to encourage parliamentarians everywhere to endorse Mexican Congressman Robles’ letter against nuclear war.
Zepp-LaRouche concluded by stressing the urgent necessity of implementing the new international security and development architecture, “because it throws out the idea of geopolitics, by putting the idea of One Humanity first, and that the new architecture has to take into account the interest of every single country on the planet.”
March 14, 2024 (EIRNS)–COPENHAGEN (Schiller Institute in Denmark)—The Schiller Institute in Denmark conducted an hour-long video interview with the Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian yesterday, in which the Ambassador expressed his anguish about the death and destruction in Gaza and, also, the West Bank, the lack of support for ending the war by Western political leaders, and expressed full support for LaRouche’s Oasis Plan and the peace through development concept. He was interviewed by Tom Gillesberg, President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark.
The video, which will be widely circulated internationally, includes links in the video and description to the LaRouche Organization video “The Oasis Plan: LaRouche´s Solution to the Middle East,” and the link to register for the upcoming April 13 Oasis Plan video conference.
H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian has had a distinguished career in the academic and diplomatic spheres. His academic expertise is in international relations and conflict resolution. He was educated in Jerusalem, the American University in Beirut, and earned his MA in international relations and PhD in political science at Toledo and Cincinnati universities in Ohio in the U.S. He was a professor and eventually Executive Vice President of Bethlehem University on the West Bank of Palestine. He taught an Israel-Palestine conflict resolution course together with Israeli professor Edward Kaufman at the University of Maryland for 26 years.
He was also the PLO’s leading advisor about the status of Jerusalem.
H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian then became the Palestinian Authority’s Ambassador to Great Britain for 13 years, Hungary for one year, and now Denmark for the last four years.
The interview also covers, especially, the urgent need to stop the current genocide in Gaza, and violence and oppression on the West Bank; the need for UN and international recognition of an independent Palestinian state and what it will take within Israel to get there; his Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution class at the University of Maryland; concluding with his warm praise of the Schiller Institute..
Interview with Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian
We Shall Overcome: Peace, Palestinian Independence, and the Oasis Plan in Southwest Asia
Note to the reader: “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution Course” section is marked below with a section title, as this section was not included in the interview article in EIR Volume 51, Number 12, March 22, 2024.
TOM GILLESBERG: I’m Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and I’m very grateful for having this opportunity to interview His Excellency Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, the present Ambassador of Palestine to Denmark for the last four years, appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas.
You also have a very distinguished career behind you, both in the diplomatic field, and also in the academic field, so why don’t you introduce yourself for the audience?
AMBASSADOR PROF. DR. MANUEL HASSASSIAN: Thank you very much, Tom. It has been a pleasure seeing you for the second time, and I am really overwhelmed by your generous offer to interview me. I’m a supporter of your institute as you know. And you have done so much for the cause, for international humanity, and this great step of interviewing a Palestinian ambassador in Denmark.
I was born and raised in Jerusalem. I went to the Frères School, which is taught by De La Salle Brothers, for high school. Then went for two years for my social degree to Birzeit University; I was in the liberal arts. Then I was accepted to finish my BA at the American University of Beirut, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious in the Middle East. In 1975, I got my BA and went to Ohio, to the United States: I earned my master’s degree in international relations at the University of Toledo, Ohio; then I continued my education, pursued my PhD at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, and I got my PhD degree in 1986. I came back to Bethlehem University in 1981, where I was preparing for my dissertation. I was an instructor in 1981, because I hadn’t finished my PhD, but I became Dean of Students. In 1986 I became assistant professor, and I stayed as Dean of Students for nine years. Then I became an associate professor, and I became the Dean of the Faculty of Arts. And in 1996, I became the Executive Vice President, which is the highest position of a Palestinian in a Catholic school. In the year 1999, I became a full professor at the University of Bethlehem, and all my work was assessed by professors in the United States, to give me this distinguished title. I have taught [at the University of Maryland, U.S.] with a colleague from the Hebrew University, from the Truman Center, Prof. Edy Kaufman for the last 26 years. We stopped during COVID.
[H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Hassassian has also been the PLO’s chief advisor in negotiations over the status of Jerusalem.]
I was appointed ambassador by President Mahmoud Abbas in the year 2005. I served 13 years as the Palestinian ambassador in London, and then in 2018, I moved one year and served in Hungary. Because of a disagreement with the Hungarians, we were disputing the transfer of their embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, so I was called by my President to come back. I stayed one year, and we never had any representation at my level. So, when I was transferred to Denmark to become ambassador, a year later, they appointed a Palestinian ambassador to fill the gap.
[A more complete biography, including other academic positions and awards, may be read here.]
Amb. Hassassian: I really appreciate the Danish public: They’re very supportive of the Palestinian problem, because they are champions of human rights, and they have been during the Holocaust, when they helped all those diasporized Jews, who had been slaughtered by the Nazis and the fascists. So there is a long record for Denmark to be a champion of human rights, and we are not surprised to see the same people, with the same stamina of supporting the Palestinians, at least on the public level, where they want to see a cessation of this conflict, and the opening of borders for humanitarian assistance. And unfortunately, the government is not on par with the public opinion.
Tom Gillesberg: It’s like at the time of the Danish occupation: It was not the government who helped the Jews get to Sweden.
Amb. Hassassian: It was the people.
Gillesberg: It’s the people.
Amb. Hassassian: Absolutely.
Gillesberg: And I think that’s an important point.
Amb. Hassassian: So that’s why I’m trying to draw a comparison, which in my humble opinion and knowledge about the history of Denmark-I came here knowing a little bit about Denmark, but now I can tell you, I know the culture, the people, the way they think, the way they promote their politics, and I can see there is a wedge between the public opinion, not only on the issue of Palestine, but on issues of local politics. This government is conservative, and regardless that it has certain apologetic stands when it comes to Palestine, but still this government helps the Palestinians in terms of subsidies, in terms of infrastructure development, in terms of supporting UNRWA. But on the political level, they are for a two-state solution, but they don’t show their political teeth, to put pressure on the Americans or the Israelis, in order to stop this carnage, this onslaught, this butchery of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
So, we are a little bit, with cautious optimism, we relate-myself, as an ambassador-I relate to the government, I can’t say they have been reticent in receiving me as the Dean of the Council of Arab Ambassadors, let alone that I also lead on issues relating to the Middle East, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). We have met several times with the foreign minister, with the deputy foreign minister, with the director of MENA [Middle East, North Africa], and we had regular discussions about the updates of what’s happening in Palestine, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the burning of the Quran, and what have you. So, I can say that there is a certain kind of a rapport between our Embassy, the Council of Arab Ambassadors, and the Danish government. But we don’t see immediate action.
We don’t see, in the bilateral relations, coming out strongly in supporting the Palestinians, stopping this carnage! Today, our people are dying from hunger and starvation, lack of medicine, food. Thirty-six hospitals have been destroyed. We have only six operating now. It is a shame that 12,000 children have been martyred, let alone more than 7-8,000 women and elderly. And these are staggering figures! Even during the Second World War we didn’t witness such a tremendous number of casualties.
This systematic onslaught on our people is not only-and allow me to say, it’s not against Hamas. Now, it is obvious, it’s against the Palestinian people. They want to throw us into the sea, into the desert, and once they finish with Gaza, they want to start, and they already started, in the West Bank, let alone they are putting economic strangulations, all kinds of hurdles, even during the month of Ramadan for our faithful to go and pray in Al Aqsa Mosque.
You can see there is a systematic policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and decimation of a nation.
All these three are being practiced by such a government, that is a very, very, very extreme, fascist government. I would say it-sorry, I have to say-fascist government, because the way it has been playing this conflict, it has been ruthless in its policies. It never showed any kind of tolerance, but the absolute idea behind this is the reoccupation, again, officially, of the West Bank and Gaza. And this is where we have to have the international community-with all the UN resolutions that have been in favor of Palestine; unfortunately, they have been vetoed by the Americans, and that’s why, for 30 years, the Americans have failed to broker the peace process, because they were supporting the top dog over the underdog.
And now we are looking for a collective brokership, i.e., starting with the United Nations-maybe Denmark could play a very important role, let alone Europe. And we are not dismissing the United States, but it cannot be the sole broker in this conflict, because they have showed reluctance in finding a plausible solution during this conflict. All the Americans have been doing for the last 30 years is crisis-management.
Gillesberg: Now we’ve reached clearly a point, and I think the story is Oct. 7 happened, then this whole thing started. But if you look at the process that was ongoing in the West Bank before Oct. 7, it clearly was that these policies that we now see in place, of basically, annexing both the West Bank and Gaza, to be a permanent part of Israel, that was already ongoing! It’s not like the attacks began after Oct. 7?
Amb. Hassassian: Actually, you have hit the bullseye with this comment. Because unfortunately, the international community-Europe, America, what have you-thought that this conflict started with Oct. 7, with the onslaught of Hamas against innocent civilians. But nobody has even thought about the root cause of this problem, which started 75 years ago. Let alone in 1948 our people were diasporized, and this Zionist entity was established and created by the support of Great Britain and the international community, with the displacement of the Palestinian people and the creation of something called the State of Israel. And people are not aware that we have been living under occupation for so many years, and Gaza has been strangulated for the last 16 years, with the economic blockade, and with the lack of any kind of basic subsidies. And, of course, if you put anybody in a pressure cooker it has to explode. And the explosion of the Oct. 7, for the Gazans, by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the others, was a mere reaction to this blockade, to this suffocation of 2.2 million people living in the most densely populated area in the world.
And people started looking at Hamas and others as being the terrorists, but they forgot that Israel has been practicing state terrorism! This is not the first onslaught on Gaza: This is the fourth war against the people of Gaza! And there have been ongoing onslaughts in the West Bank with the building of settlements, with the settlers taking the law into their own hands, and trying to uproot the Palestinians, trying to uproot the orange trees and olive trees, and trying to create havoc among the Palestinians by shooting, by killing, by looting, by uprooting and what have you.
So the question should not be a separation of Gaza from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem, with all the settlements, with the creeping settlements that have been taking place by a government that is called a settlers’ government: This land-grab also created a certain kind of chaos and confusion, let alone stringent policies against the people living in East Jerusalem. And today, during the month of Ramadan, also, we have been seeing harassment, we have been seeing blockades of people from the West Bank to come and pray during the holy month of Ramadan. In other words, Israel is creating more tension, it’s creating more absolute policies that will make it very uncomfortable for the people living in Jerusalem, let alone its continuous bombardment, killing in the West Bank, and in Gaza, ongoing, unstopped by the international community.
Gillesberg: Also, one thing is what has been going on for a long time, what you can call the “silent death” of Palestine. But what we’ve seen after Oct. 7 is, I think, something which is unprecedented, since the Holocaust. Maybe there have been other holocausts ongoing, but they were in the background. Here we have fully televised, with the whole world watching, since Oct. 7, this genocide in Gaza, and even the International Court of Justice came out and said, yes, it is very plausible that a genocide is ongoing. We’ll look into it, and meanwhile, we demand of Israel, we demand of the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, that they do everything to make sure that no genocide is ongoing. Not just because people were killed, but because there clearly was this intention of killing, in the statements from the government, from military persons, and so on.
But this is still ongoing.
Now, the Israeli government has said, if we get to Ramadan and we do not have an agreement for Hamas and the other groups to let go of all the hostages, then we will begin an attack on Rafah; then comes the next phase of what is a leveling of Gaza.
And now, we are in Ramadan, so what do you see is going to happen?
Amb. Hassassian: Actually, I want to comment on the International Court’s decision, which was considered to be a consulting perspective, which was totally bogged down by the American veto. So Israel doesn’t care about the United Nations and the resolutions. They have never abided by them, because, always, the Americans are behind them politically, by using the veto, let alone, militarily and financially, and they are accomplices in the genocide, by sending, also, certain Marines to fight in Gaza. So this is not something that we don’t
know-
Gillesberg: And all the bombs that are falling on
Gaza-
Amb. Hassassian: -are all American made.
And that’s why I wanted to make this short comment, that the International Court of Justice is an advisory opinion. It’s not binding, and Israel just overlooks that and they don’t care.
Saying this, look today at Gaza: We have more than 31,000 martyrs. And I said how many children, and women and elderly.
Seventy percent of the infrastructure and buildings are totally destroyed. Gaza is almost flattened. 2.2 million people don’t know where to go; they are displaced from their homes, 1.9 million.
Now, they were once in the north, went to the south, back to the north. And now, with the threats that are coming from Israel to invade Rafah, again, something that shows the intentions of Israel, that Israel is interested in occupying Gaza and flattening Gaza, and getting rid of the 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, so it is a war on the Palestinians, not a war on Hamas. Because, if the war was on Hamas, tell me what the Israelis have achieved so far? They did not get rid of Hamas, and they will never get rid of Hamas. I say it as a member of the PLO.
Gillesberg: But it’s an ideology-you cannot kill an ideology.
Amb. Hassassian: It’s an ideology-absolutely! Absolutely! You just snatched it from the horse’s mouth.
Second, they did not manage to diasporize the Palestinians in Gaza, because the Palestinians in Gaza are resilient and determined to stay on their land. They do not want to revisit the Nakba of 1948. That’s number two.
Number three, they are depleting all their resources with no end result. Therefore, they have lost the world public opinion, although, still, governments support them. And they now have a badge of dishonor on this government in Israel, that is a settlers’ government, an apartheid government, that does not want peace with the Palestinians, but they want to kill them and kick them out of the country.
All this has been negative repercussions when it comes to Israel. So what is the number that Israel wants in terms of casualties, to say that our mission is complete? It’s like , undefined!
Under the rubric of security, Israel has been justifying all of its atrocious crimes during the last 75 years of occupation. Israel is now known, not as a democracy, but as a rogue state with the hierocratic ideology of the supremacy of the Jews over the Christians and Muslims in the world, not only in Palestine. And their consistent, systematic policy of the confiscation of land in Jerusalem, the taking over of religious places, the spitting on priests and sheikhs, all this is a reflection of how hateful these settlers are against the non-Jewish or non-Israeli citizens such as myself.
And look, 22% of the population in Israel are Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship. They are being discriminated against. And they are being put on radar, as far as they are concerned, that these are not committed Israeli citizens. Although we are represented in the Knesset, in the parliament. But there is no respect, and they are being treated as third-class citizens, in what they claim to be the democratic state of Israel.
From this perspective, we conclude that this government will never have peace with the Palestinians! And this government should not be supported by the international community. It has showed its ugly face of occupation, and it has showed that it’s not for the twostate solution! They are for one state, apartheid state, having all the ethnic minorities, the Arabs, and what have you, under their control, under the Israeli flag.
And that, as you can see, is impossible with the adamancy of the Palestinian people fighting for their inalienable rights, and their rights to self-determination in having their independent state. The international community has accepted that during the Oslo process-30 years nothing has been done to rectify the situation and to end the occupation.
I tell you, violence, insecurity, instability in the Middle East, will end with the creation of an independent, democratic Palestinian state, with the borders of 1967. We, the PLO, already in 1988, had given, on a golden platter, the recognition of the State of Israel on 78% of historic Palestine. What else can we do in order to honor our promises to the international community?
Gillesberg: You mentioned this Oslo peace process, and the Schiller Institute at the time, and the leader at that time of our organization, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, was a very prominent voice in supporting that process, but also saying that it will not be successful unless there’s an economic development policy driving it. That is, that both for the Palestinian State to function, but also for Israel to function, and for them to live in peace and harmony, there’s got to be a collaboration on a greater goal, of an Oasis Plan for the whole region, which will benefit all.
So, instead of seeing your neighbor as your enemy, you will see your neighbor as a collaboration partner in this development process. And in light of this terrible onslaught that’s been going on in Gaza, we have, from the Schiller Institute, released a new video on this idea, called “The Oasis Plan: LaRouche’s Solution to the Middle East” where it describes the late American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal-developed since 1975!-for peace through development between Israel and an independent Palestine, by developing water resources, including nuclear power desalination plants, along two new canals between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea; and the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean; transportation and other infrastructure, to create a future vision where Israelis and Palestinians would economically develop the region, as a way of paving a path to peace.
We might get back to what a solution might look like, in terms of states, but before that, what do you think of the Oasis Plan proposal, and having a greater vision for making the impossible possible in the region?
Amb. Hassassian: I want to be very brief on this comment, which you have made. I’ve seen your video and I was very impressed with your vision for the future. Economic development should be always tied with political stability, and if we are not independent as Palestinians, to pursue economic development in partnership with Israel and Jordan, what I call the “Benelux model of economic development,” where you meticulously have stated in your statement about how to proceed and how to build that kind of, what I call “sustainable development,” that sustainable development would add to the prolongation of peace and stability between the two countries. But we cannot really apply economic development between occupier and occupied. It has to be on equal footing. You have to see, symmetrically, both as independent entities.
But definitely, economic development and cooperation between countries in conflict will really add to the sustenance of peace, the longevity of peace in the future, where peace and harmony will create coexistence, and that coexistence could be transferred into markets of economic interest, into cooperation, also into wielding public sector with the private sector, to come on par with the process of development, that is totally tied with the evolution of our curricula, our education, our health, and what have you; and you could exchange, in terms of skill, the development of countries like Israel, which is highly developed technologically; we have the sources of manpower. We are the most intellectual in the Middle East. So, with resources, with intellectualism, with the manpower that we have, we could create a certain kind of joint entity that will benefit both peoples.
Economic development after political independence is the way to our security and stability. And as you know, the Middle East has been the fulcrum of conflict for the world, because everybody is trying to seek their national interest in the Middle East. Once we have that kind of stability and security, I think we will be open for more economic transactions, for more bilateral, for more international trade systems, for a NAFTA kind of economic relationship, with Israel, with Jordan, with the Arab world, with the Islamic world. And look, Israel could benefit a lot with the opening to Asia, Islamic Asia and to Africa, and to the Middle East.
So there is benefit, much more than non-interest I would say, in this part of the world.
But, Israel has been choosing the path of destruction, the path of instability, the path of supremacy, the path of apartheid, over the good things that you have said, which would create that kind of harmony, peaceful coexistence, between epistemic communities that have been too long in a conflict, where this is the time for conflict resolution.
Gillesberg: Things are so terrible that you would say, “How can this end?” But all wars do end at some point. If nothing else, simply by exhaustion. Israel, even in this short time since October 7th, the Israeli economy has shrunk by 20%. So, it’s not a free ride. And if the war expands as some people in the government in Israel are talking about, to Lebanon, against Hezbollah, against other parties, this is also leaving Israel in ruins.
So, at some point, and hopefully with Western intervention, hopefully with the United States realizing that they’re simply losing all respect anywhere in the world if they don’t intervene to stop this. Then people have to sit down-probably not with the present government; they probably will be kicked out or Netanyahu thrown in jail or whatever. But still, the Palestinians and the Israelis have to sit down together and figure out how do we solve this in a way where we all can live here?
You have earlier written about a two-state proposal; you have also written about that maybe it won’t be a two-state, maybe it has to be one state. What are your thoughts?
Amb. Hassassian: Thank you again for a very interesting question. Let me first say that Israel also is paying a heavy price, but not in terms of casualties as much; and you cannot compare it with that of Gaza, of course. But as you said, their economy shrunk by 20%, and if they continue, it will shrink even more. And there will come a time when the Americans-because now they are going into elections-they might stop sending arms to Israel, and that will be negative as far as the Israelis are concerned.
But let’s not forget that half a million people already emigrated from Israel since October. And this is a sign that Israel is no more a safe place to live, for the simple fact that this kind of policy has brought negative repercussions in the Israeli society. And let me assure you, now the Israeli public is going onto the street, they want Netanyahu down, and they want early elections. This is one of the negative repercussions of this onslaught in which Israel misjudged the outcomes. They thought that they would win with a blitzkrieg; they could flatten Gaza and get rid of Hamas. But now it’s becoming a war of attrition. They are not fulfilling their objectives, and they are losing now in terms of international support. Let alone that the Gazans have proved, their resilience in staying on the land. So in general, when you talk about the stoppage of the war, Israel is also wearing out all these machines. Look, every day there are desertions from the Israeli Army; people now are not convinced about this war, because they saw that a calamity is coming in their society.
I tell you, now they are against Netanyahu; tomorrow they will be against the war in Gaza. Because they know that they have-it is inevitable historically-that they will not get rid of the Palestinians. They have to think and to learn how to survive.
And I tell you, if you go back to the history of Andalusia, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived happily ever after. It is not something that we never perceived. We perceived it, but it’s Zionism that has been the root cause, and not Judaism. That’s why we make the distinction. The Israeli people are not all Zionists. Let’s say that not all are Zionists; many are for the two-state solution, many believe in coexistence.
That’s why we as Palestinians would try to mobilize more and more people from inside, because the change in Israel is not coming from a political diktat from an outside power. Even the United States cannot impose its political diktat to stop this war. But it has to come from within. The Israelis from within should understand that such a government is bringing destruction. So far, unfortunately, we did not reach that level in terms of public opinion in Israel. They are all circling around their government in support, because it has always been the security obsession that makes people encircle themselves in providing support to the government. Although this government is an apartheid settler government, still the majority of the Israelis, right-wingers are supporting such a government. Unless we change, inside, the political discourse in Israel, that this government is going to bring in the future, total destruction of Israel, from within its society, we cannot see an improvement on the ground when it comes to negotiations for final status talks with the Palestinian side.
Gillesberg: Just in terms of, on the other side, that’s also why we put out this Oasis Plan; is to say somehow you have to-there’s a tendency, when people are in these things, people say, “First we need the political solutions. Once we have the political solutions, then we can go on to the economic ones.” The problem is, on what basis will you get political solutions, if there is no trust? Somehow, you have to have trust coming, on the one side from a vision of how the future should be. Instead of saying “The policies today-we simply keep doing what we have been used to doing for a long time,” with the same results. You have to say, “We want a different future; we have a vision for the future, but if we want to get there, then we need collaboration.” Because without collaboration, without burying the hatchet, without changing the geometry, we will never get there.
I think there’s a recognition in Israel that you can’t go back simply to the 6th of October; that’s gone. You are in a different world now, so somehow something has to change.
Based on that, I would like to ask you, because when you were a professor in Maryland, you were working together with an Israeli professor —
AMB. HASSASSIAN: Edy Kaufman.
GILLESBERG: —teaching an Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolutions class at the University of Maryland for many years. And I think this might be relevant, because at some point, we are going to have Palestinians sitting down with Israelis; both of them have very good reasons to be very upset and very hateful about what has been happening, because there are a lot of losses. But somehow, they have to work together. So, could you tell us something about your classes, and maybe we could also have an idea about that? Can you describe this conflict resolution model?
AMB. HASSASSIAN: Yes.
GILLESBERG: And why you have said that there is no military solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians?
Amb. Hassassian: Let me make two brief comments. The first comment, I do agree with you; economic development is a key factor for stability. In the context of conflict, what we have witnessed in 1993 with the Oslo Agreement, is that we should have strengthened our nexus of civil societies by collaborating economically, educationally, and what-have-you, as part of economic development, in order to make it much stronger in the process of negotiations and in the outcome. Nobody could achieve maximalist position in a negotiating process; it has to be an optimal one, which would be giving in, conceding, both parties to each other. But as long as the negotiations are not symmetrical, but asymmetrical, where the top dog is over the underdog, that is not going to be successful.
That’s why I do agree with you. What happened in Oslo is that economic development did not proceed the way it should have. More settlements have been built; Netanyahu came to power; Camp David’s failure, and look where we are now. I will stop on this issue, but I do agree with you that economic development is the fulcrum of any stability in the world.
But without political independence of the Palestinians, we cannot talk about the process of economic development in its full context of bringing longevity of peace and what-have-you in the future. I do agree with you that economic development is extremely important. It could have pushed the peace process and the negotiations to a much better level. But unfortunately, the Israelis have wrecked this.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution Course
To go back to your question on the conflict resolution class that I co-taught with Edy Kaufman, a professor from Israel, who is originally from Argentina, emigrated as a Zionist to Israel at the age of 16. Although he is a peacenik, he was the director of B’Tselem; he was chair of the International Human Rights Watch, and has a long record of peace initiatives.
We taught a class at the University of Maryland, together, in the classroom. Having students—American, Arab, Muslim—in the class; about 30 students. We used to conduct scenarios of role-playing. In order for the students to understand, first we started with the historic narrative. Each professor would tell his historic narrative. Then we would decide to choose one of the intractable issues; one time Jerusalem, one time refugees, one time security, one time economic development, and what-have-you. And we would try to put it on the table like a proposal in the United Nations, where Israelis and Palestinians are going to defend themselves, whether to agree or not to agree to the proposal.
So, we divided the class into two, and we started with role-playing. It has nothing to do with the Jewish religious background or Islamic; we just divided them randomly. We said, you take the Israeli position, and you take the Palestinian position and Arab position. Then we put the issue, let’s say, of settlements on the table. The Israelis would start their arguments in a way that settlements are part of the Biblical prophesies; this is the Jewish Promised Land from God, and this and that. And the Palestinians said we are the indigenous population; you came here, you are Zionist colonizers.
I’m just giving you an example. This part, which is adversarial— our theory is called ARIA—Adversarial, Reflexive, Integrative, Action Plan—ARIA, like the musical aria.
The first stage, which is adversarial, is the fact that we end up with the dialogue of the deaf. None of the delegates who are negotiating is listening to each other. With body language and screaming, they are trying to win over the other members, to show them that they are right, and the other side is wrong. It’s done by both parties. So, nothing comes out of it in the United Nations; a total deadlock, a total stalemate.
Now, the second step in this theory, is the fact that each party goes back and tries to assess what they have achieved in the adversarial position. They start to rationalize, “Was I stupid in going to the anti-climax position, or was it right to do that in order to impress the audience?” Both sides will start re-thinking. This is where we call the Reflexive part of the negotiations.
I have to tell you that both sides reversed roles. The Palestinians would play the role of the Israelis; the Israelis would play the role of the Palestinians, in order to reach the third stage, which is the Integrative stage, where we search for common ground. Searching for common ground is the prelude towards positive negotiations. Although we would be still reaching the optimum and not the maximalist. And once we go through the process of the search for common ground, we start indexing and prioritizing which is most important for both to start with in the negotiating process. There is what we call the Action Plan.
Once the Action Plan is finished, it is all positive, because they have agreed to incrementally start with these most important issues while, they’re considering the least priorities, until they reach the complex priorities, where the conducive conditions in the room through the negotiations will be very positive towards finding a plausible solution. Nobody will be completely satisfied with the outcome of such negotiations, but, at least, there is a common denominator that I lose some to gain some.
This is what we have done for the last 26 years; not only with students, but with journalists from Israel and Palestine, with politicians from Israel and Palestine and the Arab world, with military from Israel and Palestine and the Arab world, and what we call second track diplomacy, which has been very successful when we’ve used it. It is so unfortunate that when it comes to first track negotiations, the mindsets are totally locked in with the zero-sum conflict.
Now, we always believe that such a theory, as practitioners, could lead from zero-sum to mutual acceptance of each other. And we believe through reciprocity that we can achieve the unachievable. And believe me, we use the six intractable issues, which are the questions of water, settlements, Jerusalem, security, and what-have-you, with all these segments of society, and we have found plausible solutions. But when it comes to the first track, we are stuck.
So, I always enmeshed academics with politics, and that’s why, since I’m well-versed in history, in politics, in international relations, and, of course, the experience I got in politics when I was in London and in Denmark, let alone in Hungary, have enriched my perceptions of international cultures. I have brushed my tools of communication through the understanding of the Western mind, and so far, God helped me in achieving my mission of trying to raise awareness wherever I went.
And just a footnote, I’m a little bit shy to say it, but I have to say it. In 2015, I got one of the most distinguished awards from the United Kingdom as the most accomplished and distinguished diplomat. So, all that basically boils down to our contribution in raising awareness, and this is where I meet with civil societies in the host countries; I meet with church leaders; I meet with parliamentarians. I’m constantly in touch with the foreign government here, and the foreign governments in London and Hungary. And so far, we are trying to change some perceptions.
I can tell you, since I came until now, I have seen dramatic changes in first, the public opinion in Denmark, let alone also in Danish government—although sluggish improvement, but it has been improving. And this is due to our relentlessness and resilience in trying to instill in the mindset of the Western culture, and among the Danes, and among the Danish politicians, that ending, this long occupation is overdue. And that Denmark should recognize, as a first step, the state of Palestine in the United Nations.
GILLESBERG: Exactly getting the academics, getting the professors, getting the philosophers, the thinkers involved, instead of simply having a primitive political process with mudslinging and whatnot, this is what we do in the Schiller Institute.
On April 13th, we will have an international online conference-it’s on a Saturday-called “The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace through Development between Israel and Palestine, and for All of Southwest Asia.” We urge everybody to participate in that and share the invitation; get involved in dialogue.
One big change-now you are a diplomat in Denmark, I’m very ashamed to say it, but it’s not just a Danish problem. We used to pride ourselves on having dialogue. Even if you disagreed, you could still sit down and discuss and learn the other’s viewpoint. And exactly that part of diplomacy, you could say, has been taken out in the Western world of the political process. There is no dialogue; there is no trying to see the other point of view. It’s just the narrative, the narrative, the narrative. The narrative comes down; it wasn’t Moses coming with the tablets of clay. This is just whoever coming down, “This is the narrative, this is what you have to repeat. If you don’t repeat it, then you are out.” And unfortunately, this has very much become the case in Denmark, but I think most people in Denmark, and other places, are getting pretty tired of this.
They want to be able to think; they want to be able to formulate their own thoughts. To do that in a good way, you need information, and that’s what we do, for example, with this online conference. But also here, since we are closing, do you have any concluding words for the viewers? Also, what do you think, and is there something they should do?
Amb. Hassassian: Absolutely! I commend you for what you have been doing. I commend the institute for its continuous struggle to bring justice to the world. I think this is your noble mission, and we believe that by raising awareness and stating the true facts on the ground, it will make people listen to you. I think your approach to conflicts, not only Palestinian-Israeli, but to the international conflicts, gives you great credibility, because you look towards peace and justice through economic development. Your Oasis video is one of the most impressive I have ever seen for the Schiller Institute, let alone comparing it with others. And I think you have to continue with what you are doing.
I know you cannot reap the benefits immediately; this is an ongoing process by recreating a new generation in Denmark, and around the world, to understand that wars are quick fixes, but the process of negotiations, tolerance, understanding, justice, human rights is a long process. It’s a tormenting path. Once you instill those good qualifications in the mindset of people, especially the youth, then we can reap the benefits of your contribution in the coming generation, where in this generation, we are sick and tired of regional conflicts, world conflicts, where unipolar power has proved to be a dismal failure. We’re looking for a balance of power on the political level, in international relations; but also, we need institutes like yours to continue working with civil society, with culture, with a progressivity of cultures, between adversarial cultures, to come to a conclusion where our humanity should not be lost; our fairness should be there; our inclusion of each other is of utmost importance; and tolerance is the key towards a sustainable development, in terms of security and stability all around the world.
I commend you for what you have been doing. And I would be, from now on, a supporter and a spokesman for your institute, which I think is one of the most brilliant and impressive institutes that I have met in Denmark. My loyalty and respect to you, and I hope that we continue our future relationship by bringing more people into dialogue and try to create a harmonious peace among adversaries.
May God also help us in this process, because really it is full of hurdles and full of complexities. But eventually we shall overcome.
Gillesberg: Well, thank you, Your Excellency Ambassador Prof. Dr. Hassassian. It has been a great pleasure.
Amb. Hassassian: My pleasure.
Gillesberg: We hope to speak again.
Amb. Hassassian: Hopefully, hopefully. Thank you so much for hosting me.
GILLESBERG: We hope to speak again.
HASSASSIAN: Hopefully, hopefully. Thank you so much for hosting me.
March 12, 2024 (EIRNS)—Congressman Benjamín Robles Montoya of Mexico issued the following “Letter to Current and Former Legislators of the World,” on his letterhead of the Chamber of Deputies, LXV Legislature. It is datelined Mexico City, March 13, 2024.
Current or former legislators, public officials or candidates for public office, can endorse the Open Letter ‘More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!’ by adding their signature here.
More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!
Dear colleagues from around the world:
A year and a half ago, a group of current and former legislators of Mexico and other countries around the world held a series of international seminars on the subject: “Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!” In November of that year, we circulated an urgent call to our colleagues, current and former legislators of the world, “to join this effort that we have launched, in order to urge all world citizens to also unite to create a new international security and development architecture, which respects the security interests of all nations and which guarantees the right to welfare and economic development of all people on the planet.”
Today, 18 months later, it is more urgent than ever that we mobilize to stop the danger of a nuclear war, and that we redouble those efforts before it is too late. The war in Ukraine is at the point of turning into a direct confrontation between, not just weapons, but NATO troops directly deployed on Ukrainian territory, and Russia. And now Netanyahu’s genocide against the Palestinian people has unleashed such great human suffering that the entire planet is shaken, a genocide which threatens to expand that war throughout the region.
“The expansionist drive of the powers, the monstrosities of a voracious economic system that has generated inequality and misery, are a breeding ground for conflict.
“Economic sanctions have only served to aggravate conflicts, to produce more suffering for the people, to provoke shortages of medicines and energy, as well as to drive world inflation.
“How valid is the famous phrase of the Hero of the Americas, President Benito Juárez, that `among individuals as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace!’…
“Today the threat of nuclear war is again looming, with the United States sending weapons to Ukraine and Israel, where what is happening is an atrocious genocide; with meddling in the China-Taiwan conflict; with Russia, pulling out of strategic arms reduction treaties and nuclear test bans.
“Colleagues, we have reached the very precipice of nuclear war and it is imperative that all nations raise their voices—not the voice of one nation, nor of several nations, but of all humanity—for peace and against nuclear war.
“Let all the citizens of the world also unite in pursuit of a new international security and development architecture that guarantees the right to welfare and economic development of the people of the planet. Achieving peace through development, that is the path.”
For all of these reasons, we reiterate more urgently than ever our call to you, current and former legislators of the world, to join forces—above our different political and ideological orientations—in the necessary deliberation around a new security and development architecture.
With fraternal greetings,
Benjamín Robles Montoya
Federal Congressman
Congress of the Union of Mexico
Current or former legislators, public officials or candidates for public office, can endorse the Open Letter ‘More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!’ by adding their signature here.
March 9, 2024 (EIRNS)—The 40th consecutive weekly online meeting of the International Peace Coalition on March 8 opened with a warning from Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche that we are continuing to flirt with nuclear war. She cited the currently ongoing NATO “Steadfast Defender” exercise where 90,000 troops are explicitly rehearsing a war with Russia as an example of the supercharged environment. The mainstream media, rather than looking at the increasing danger of World War III, marked by the recent scandal of the leaked audio in which German military officers discuss covert means of directly entering the Ukraine war, are focusing their attention on speculation over who leaked the audio file.
Turning to the situation in Southwest Asia, she said that the conflict in Gaza is being driven by geopolitical motives and cannot be looked at separately from Ukraine. Several UN Special Rapporteurs are now calling it genocide, calling attention to the growing danger of starvation, and saying that it is intentional on the part of the Netanyahu regime. Investigation of genocide will inevitably bring us to the question of U.S. and German involvement and culpability. The Oasis Plan, as proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in 1975, provides the only way out of this ghastly situation.
Zepp-LaRouche’s strategic overview was followed by military and intelligence experts who expanded on the nature of the war danger.
Col. Richard Black (ret.), former chief of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, observed that the Ukraine war was the lead item in President Biden’s “State of the Union” address, underscoring that whenever a President says he won’t send U.S. troops, it’s almost a promise to do the opposite.
German Lt. Col. Ulrich Scholz (ret.), a former NATO planner and lecturer on air warfare, warned: “NATO nations have not trained together for decades, and are not capable of going to war. If the Americans don’t do it, nobody’s going to do it.” Regarding the war propaganda in Europe, he said, “All the war talk is a face-saving exercise. They want out.” His advice? “Look for an area where we have common interests and stop the shooting.”
Helga Zepp-LaRouche interrupted the proceedings to report that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has now advised Americans that they should avoid large Moscow gatherings for 48 hours, as extremists plan to attack such events. Numerous countries that routinely ape U.S. foreign policy gestures have followed suit.
Former U.S. diplomat, CIA officer, and vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council, Graham Fuller told the gathering: “The fundamental problem of world stability today lies in the inability of the United States to read the tea leaves, to understand the geopolitical shifts in the world today.”
He said that the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower; the U.S. can’t face this reality, and this is the danger. “One of the problems of democracy is that you have to galvanize the entire population to go to war…. You’ve got to demonize the enemy, demonize Putin, make it a struggle between absolute good and absolute evil.” Fuller asserted that advocacy of democracy is being used as a weapon, but we don’t support democracy when it is inconvenient. “We have a United States today which is perhaps the most ideologically driven nation in the world.”
Prof. Richard Sakwa, British Emeritus Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, warned: “We are now in the foothills of the Third World War.” He said that we should distinguish between two levels: the world as it was structured in response to the horrors of World War II, with the UN and international law in the spirit of “Never Again”; and the paradigm which replaced this after 1989, or what he termed the “Second Cold War.”
In the first Cold War, diplomacy continued. But when Obama expelled the Russian diplomats in response to unproven allegations, diplomacy was being destroyed. “A political West emerged based on Cold War thinking.” Sakwa said that there is an emerging consensus against this in the “Political East.” They promote an idea of commonwealth, in opposition to the imperialism of the West. “The Global South and Political East can hold us back from moving from the foothills to the peaks of a Third World War.”
Mexican Congressman Benjamín Robles Montoya’s statement March 6 on the floor of Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies, was shown to all assembled. The Congressman emphasized, “We have reached the precipice of nuclear war…. Achieving peace through development, that is the path.”
Prof. Steve Starr, the former director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program and published author in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warned that the war danger is heightened by the fact that Joe Biden is up for re-election, and can’t be seen to be losing the war in Ukraine. He said that “the danger of nuclear war is greatly exacerbated by false narratives,” such as the one where we can use tactical nukes to make Russia back down. The electromagnetic pulse generated from a single nuclear weapon, detonated above the U.S., could take out our entire electrical power grid, all solid-state circuitry and computers. An 800-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated directly over a target such as Manhattan would ignite a firestorm over an area of 100-150 square miles. Each side has thousands of nukes, and the resulting smoke and soot created from their nuclear detonations would form a global stratospheric layer reducing the sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface and halting agriculture for 10 years, in what is called “nuclear famine.”
George Koo, retired specialist in U.S.-China trade, concurred with Colonel Black: The U.S. has a tendency to say one thing and do the opposite. He said that the U.S. is sending a signal to the Philippines and Taiwan, encouraging them to start proxy wars with China. The P.R.C. government fully recognizes who is behind this. They will take out U.S. naval forces in their neighborhood in response.
Humanity for Peace coordinator Anastasia Battle presented a report on the March 2 meeting in Detroit, “Emergency Conference for Peace in Gaza: The Children of God Cry Out for Justice,” at New Bethel Baptist Church in Detroit, the historic church of C.L. Franklin, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered a speech in 1966. Nine videos of the speakers are now available on YouTube.
Ray McGovern, co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, reminded the participants that President John F. Kennedy, during his June 10, 1963 speech at American University, warned that we should never give an adversary a choice between humiliating defeat, and nuclear war. Now this very choice is being presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin at re-election time. He presented his assessment of Vladimir Putin: “I would say he’s a statesman, and he’s a pretty cool customer.” McGovern went on to wryly quote former President George W. Bush: “Don’t ‘misunderestimate’ the Russians.”
McGovern presented some provocative speculation about the recent resignation of State Department harpy Victoria Nuland. He pointed out that we haven’t seen the entire leak from the German officers. If Russia intercepted it, so did the U.S. National Security Agency. Maybe Nuland was working behind everyone’s back with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius to transfer Taurus missiles to Ukraine. McGovern emphasized that this is speculation, but as likely an explanation as any.
This was followed by a discussion session in which many new participants introduced themselves. In conclusion, Helga Zepp-LaRouche recommended that the Americans ally with the Global South. “The signs of hope are small, but sometimes when you are in a crisis, even small signs of hope can cause a shift.” She reported, as such a sign of hope, the growing number of leaders who have endorsed Lyndon LaRouche’s Oasis Plan for peace in Southwest Asia.
March 1, 2024 (EIRNS)—The International Peace Coalition (IPC) met today for its 39th consecutive weekly organizing discussion. Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche warned that “the situation is moving from horrible to worse….” Reviewing the events of the previous few days, she called attention to the massacre where Israeli troops opened fire on hundreds of starving Palestinians who were waiting for food aid southwest of Gaza City, killing 120 and wounding 750 on Feb. 29. In response to Israel Defense Forces statements that their soldiers felt threatened, she said, “I can’t imagine how starving people can be a threat to a highly weaponized army.”
This event occurred a few days after Aaron Bushnell self-immolated outside the front gate of the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C, in protest against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Also during the past week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague heard from 50 nations on the legal consequences of Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation” of the occupied territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but will not render judgement until the summer.
Discussing the Likud regime’s apparent objective of driving the Palestinians over the border into Egypt, Zepp-LaRouche warned that this violates the tenets of the Camp David Accords and opens the door to a wider war. Under these circumstances, the implementation of the Oasis Plan, as proposed by her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, in 1975, becomes more urgent than ever before, because if you don’t inject hope into the situation, she said, there is no remedy for the rapidly worsening regional conflict.
Turning to the Ukraine war, she said that the danger there was greatly escalating, bringing us even more quickly to a possible global war. French President Macron has proposed to send NATO troops into Ukraine, while retired German General Harald Kujat recently charged that there are already NATO troops in Ukraine (in the role of “advisors,” as was the case with the initial American involvement in the Vietnam War.) German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, because their 500-km range would enable direct attacks on Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin warns of possible nuclear war, but the Western press pooh-poohs his warnings.Russia Today has released the full text of what is claimed to be a discussion by senior German military officers on how to attack the Crimean Bridge in Russia. Russia’s government press spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, is said to have demanded an explanation.
Zepp-LaRouche concluded by saying that the only good news she could offer was the election victory of George Galloway, who just won a seat in British Parliament on the issue of opposition to the war in Gaza.
Jacques Cheminade, who leads the Solidarity and Progress Party in France, commented on the declaration by Macron on sending NATO troops to Ukraine, saying that it has been judged insane by a majority of French population. “He’s like a little dwarf playing with fire,” said Cheminade. Illustrating the absurdity of the situation, he reminded the discussion participants that Europe is still importing Russian LNG and enriched uranium. According to experts, the French, and probably also the German, armies are capable of fighting a war with Russia for only seven days.
Dr. James Cobey, who shared in the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, described his project to create a “Palestinian Embassy” in Washington, D.C., which he called a potential “AIPAC for Palestine.” His partner in this effort is Miko Peled, the son of an Israeli general who fought in the 1967 Six Day War, but then became an advocate for an Israeli dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization after the Israeli cabinet ignored his investigation of a 1967 alleged Israeli war crime.
Next the participants viewed a video presentation by Nazih Musharbash, President of the German Palestinian Society. He said that the Jan. 26, 2024, ICJ Order of provisional measures to prevent genocide is being rejected by Israel. Israel is pushing the Palestinian population from one place to the next, bombing them, cramming them into impossibly small places. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that if UNRWA is cancelled, the Palestinian “Right of Return,” as guaranteed under point #5 of the Oslo Accords, will no longer be a problem. The IDF’s destruction of Hamas means that there is no functioning government. Regarding the massacre near Gaza City, he wryly observed that “warning shots are normally fired into the air.”
IPC Coordinator Anastasia Battle presented a report on the upcomingInterfaith , “Emergency Conference for Peace in Gaza”in Detroit. In the Michigan Democratic Party presidential primary elections, a campaign was launched for voters to vote “uncommitted” rather than endorse Biden’s enabling of genocide in Gaza. This resulted in 101,000 uncommitted votes. The next step being planned is a National Day of Action on March 2, to coincide with the Interfaith Meeting.
Executive Intelligence Review Ibero-American Intelligence Director Dennis Small called attention to Brazilian President Lula’s charge that Israel was committing genocide, and his stalwart refusal to “walk back” this accusation. He read an excerpt from a recent statement by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry: “Even so, the inaction of the international community in the face of this humanitarian tragedy continues to serve as a veiled incentive for the Netanyahu government to keep targeting innocent civilians and ignoring basic rules of international humanitarian law.”
Two activists from the UK explained the significance of the landslide victory of George Galloway and the Workers’ Party, who campaigned in opposition to the genocide in Gaza. The British government is trying to suppress growing public protests, calling them a threat to public safety, but there has been no violence. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman tried to ban them, saying they are antisemitic. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is saying that the demonstrations support terrorism. One of the activists charged that the UK is “a creeping police state.”
An organizer for Veterans for Peace reported on their campaign to circulate a letter, which demands that the U.S. State Department terminate weapons shipments to Israel, and calls on the Inspector General to investigate alleged criminal acts by senior Biden administration officials.
A ghastly video was shown to the discussion participants, a one-minute animation that is being broadcast on German state public television and is targeted at German children, in which talking cartoon representations of cruise missiles debate which of them would be the most effective weapon against Russia. Helga Zepp-LaRouche characterized it as part of the complete indoctrination of the population to prepare them for a coming war.
In concluding remarks, Zepp-LaRouche said that many people think the Zionist Lobby controls the U.S. But, as her late husband always said, the U.S. establishment uses Israel as a hand grenade to destabilize the region. The reason is geopolitical, a scheme to destabilize the region in order to contain the rising global majority.
Returning to the grim situation in her native land, she said, “Germany is right now like a hermetically sealed country. You cannot say anything…. We are sitting on a powder keg, and the ordinary population has no clue.” She urged all participants to organize prominent individuals to endorse the Oasis Plan.
The opposite of destruction is love. And what more loving could you do than to create the conditions for every living human being on the planet to fulfill the potential of their life.
Helga zepp-larouche
The 38th meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC), convened on Feb. 23, was a demonstration of why this deliberative body is uniquely suited to address and solve the crises threatening to plunge mankind into a prolonged new Dark Age or even thermonuclear Armageddon. Whereas most forum discussions on the issues of Gaza, Ukraine or any other conflict—be it mainstream or alternative media—are reduced to explanations of why one side is good and the other evil, much of the IPC meeting was devoted to deliberation over the true definition of good and evil from a philosophical standpoint. This proved very fruitful in helping participants to reach a higher-level understanding of why the Oasis Plan and economic development per se are so crucial to the survival of the human race.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the proceedings by focusing on the incredible rift taking place between the Global South and the “tiny minority” of the Global North over particularly the conflict in Gaza. Exemplary of this rift is the recently concluded G20 meeting in Brazil where the U.S. and other Western countries refused to sign a common declaration because both Brazil and South Africa insisted that it include language denouncing the genocide in Gaza. Another highlight of this rift is the ongoing hearings at the World Court, where one nation after another has condemned Israel for its actions against the Palestinians. Ma Xinmin, Legal Advisor to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, called Palestine “a litmus test for the collective conscience of humanity….”
Zepp-LaRouche continued by pointing out the insanity of Western leaders, who, despite the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, are demanding that more long-range weapons be sent to the Zelensky regime for striking deep inside Russian territory. These leaders seem incapable of thinking about the consequences of their actions; that this could lead to World War Three! Because the strategic situation is so dangerous, it requires that the IPC mobilize that much harder to “offer solutions to an otherwise seemingly unsolvable conflict.” The way to free Palestine is the Oasis Plan because it would transform the entirety of Southwest Asia into a prosperous economic hub between Asia, Africa and Europe—a solution of optimism in the best interests of Israel, Palestine and all their neighboring countries. A similar approach is needed for Ukraine. Only a new paradigm of cooperation on economic development is capable of ending the cycle of violence.
The next speakers, Alan Rivera and Gerardo Castilleja of the Schiller Institute in Mexico, recounted a recent intervention they made at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where they went from classroom to classroom briefing students and professors on the Oasis Plan. One professor even allowed them to show the Oasis Plan video. They then attended a campus ceasefire rally where they encountered a group of old American “lefties” repeating the same empty-headed “anti-imperialist” slogans from 40-years past with no comprehension of how to overturn the system to which they are opposed.
Dr. Mohammad Toor, Chairman of the Pakistani American Congress, stressed the necessity of peace through economic development. Weak countries must develop themselves so they do not fall prey to stronger nations. There are enough resources on the planet so that every nation can develop and become prosperous.
A university professor in Michigan spoke of the fear that permeates campuses, particularly concerning the Gaza issue. Despite a very large Arab and Muslim student body in the state, students and faculty alike feel they cannot express their emotions and feelings—they can’t advocate for what they feel is right. A large number of the students are Palestinian or have friends that are Palestinian, many of whom have lost family members in Gaza. To help people overcome this fear, the professor is organizing an arts and cultural event with the belief that, under conditions of oppression, the only way to speak up is through the arts.
The next speaker, Jack Gilroy of Veterans for Peace, reported on an initiative to deliver a document that outlines the crimes committed by Israel and the U.S. in Gaza to every State Department office in the U.S. The document warns State Department officials that they are complicit in criminal activity—the murder of thousands of people in Gaza—and could be prosecuted for these offenses.
During the discussion period, a profound dialogue was initiated by Father Harry Bury on the nature of good and evil. He challenged two fundamental beliefs that he views as obstacles to bringing about the objective of peace through development: The first is that there are evil people in the world. Father Bury believes that this is false; that there are good people that do evil things because they don’t know any better. These people must be educated to know what is good. The second belief is that the best way to prevent evil is through punishment. This is proven wrong by a worldwide recidivism rate of 80-85%. “Justice is not vengeance; justice is not getting even; justice is restoring the evil doer” according to Bury. Zepp-LaRouche, although agreeing in principle that people are fundamentally good, had one point of disagreement: Given that the human species is endowed by the Creator with free will, why is it that some people are quite capable of comprehending that what they are doing is evil but do it anyway? Why have they decided to be on the side of Satan?
The Michigan professor offered an idea, expressed in a book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt, that evil is the absence of empathy; the inability to see others as equal with oneself. Zepp-LaRouche fully concurred with this view and explained Friedrich Schiller’s belief that only through the aesthetic education—education rooted in noble and sublime concepts—are people elevated to the level of reason.
Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute pointed out that to defeat evil one must put the City of London/Wall Street financial system through a complete bankruptcy reorganization, because that entire system is evil—what Pope John Paul II called the “structures of sin”—and creates the circumstances for evil policies to be carried out. As long as that system prevails, it will obstruct the potential to bring about the good in people. While the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement is fine, if you really want to go after the root of the problem you must take on the financial system.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded the meeting by expressing her profound belief that “poverty is the greatest violation of human rights you can imagine”—children growing up hungry with no education are being robbed of their humanity. The only way to solve the crises of Gaza and Ukraine is through a discussion of how to develop these impoverished regions, something which is eminently doable. In history’s past, the areas of Central and Southwest Asia were developed: Baghdad was the greatest city in the world; Afghanistan was the land of a thousand cities; Syria was part of the Silk Road. “If we connect this great tradition of the past with a vision for the future, if that becomes the motivation of all the people involved, I think we can bring this to a much more beautiful epoch in history.
We have reached a point in history, where because we are sitting in one boat, we must step up to the level of reason, of finding a solution for the entire human species.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Feb. 16—The 37th meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC), convened Feb. 16, 2023, was devoted to fighting the pragmatism which infects the minds of most people in today’s society, which prevents them from conceptualizing higher-level solutions to the grave crises threatening mankind. People are often blinded by the particulars of the various conflicts—Gaza or Ukraine—robbing them of the ability to envision a means of resolving them, which would require simultaneously taking into account the needs of every single nation on the planet. This was the challenge taken up with the showing to the IPC of the new video: “The Oasis Plan—LaRouche’s Solution for the Middle East,” produced by The LaRouche Organization.
A map of LaRouche’s peace and development solution for Southwest Asia, “The Oasis Plan.” The IPC was challenged to circulate the new video of the plan produced by The LaRouche Organization.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and initiator of the IPC, opened the proceedings with a strategic overview, pointing out that in Germany the annual meeting of the Munich Security Conference was taking place. This conference, in the past a forum for finding solutions to critical security issues, has now degenerated into a public relations event for the military-industrial complex—the tone of the event being that of confrontation, not diplomacy. One exception was António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, who made clear that 1.4 million Palestinians are facing an unimaginable destiny in Rafah. Also, the President of Ghana spoke, demanding a just new economic order, saying it cannot continue that one part of the world lives in wealth and the other part is faced with starvation.
Zepp-LaRouche continued by reporting on the 52 countries that will testify before the World Court in The Hague for one full week, starting Feb.19, on the subject of a UN General Assembly resolution of Dec. 30, 2022, alleging human rights violations against Palestinians by the Israelis over a period of 55 years. This is good, she said, but something much more fundamental is needed: Unless the hopelessness of the situation is changed, a solution can’t be found. This is why Lyndon LaRouche’s 1975 Oasis Plan for economic development of the entire region is so crucial. Unless you kick over the table of geopolitics—which the Oasis Plan would do—and go into a new paradigm of development, there is no hope.
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the importance of “flooding the zone”; getting the Oasis Plan video out far and wide. With that, the video was shown.
Jason Ross, Executive Director of The LaRouche Organization and producer of the video, then fielded questions from IPC participants. Ross opened by making the point that charting a path toward peace sometimes requires changing the terrain. Under the current paradigm of “hegemonism,” there is no possibility of peace. There are two aspects of this paradigm which must be changed: The UN has estimated that it will cost $20 billion to reconstruct Gaza, and that it would take until 2092. This monetarist conception doesn’t take into account the necessity of transforming not only Gaza but the entire region in a way that benefits all people.
The other aspect is the problem that there are people who oppose war, who also, at the same time, whether they know it or not oppose peace. Ross used energy policy as an example: The Oasis Plan calls for nuclear power as the most efficient means of generating energy. Regrettably, many of the people who oppose war also have a Green, anti-growth Malthusian ideology and are opposed to nuclear energy. This ideology will doom people to poverty and unnecessary death, preventing the establishment of a new paradigm of peace through economic development. Ross concluded his remarks by stressing that the Oasis Plan is not contrary to the necessity of a ceasefire.
A participant from the UK sparked a very useful discussion with a question on how to finance development outside the conditionalities that enslave countries to Western finance. Ross explained that there is a new paradigm of lending outside of the IMF/World Bank policy of debt slavery, focused on lending for real physical economic development. This type of lending is being carried out by the African Development Bank, the New Development Bank, and various Chinese banks that are financing the many Belt and Road Initiative projects worldwide.
Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute added that, operating under the current bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system, U.S. and British banks will lend for real development only after Hell freezes over. With $2 quadrillion of financial aggregates on their books, Western banks lend for one purpose: more speculation. The aim of this type of lending is to ensure that no physical economic development occurs and to impose Malthusian genocide particularly on poor nations of the world. Those who attack China—an integral part of this new lending paradigm—need to explain how China succeeded in lifting 850 million of its people out of extreme poverty.
Bob Cushing of Pax Christi began by reading from the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 58, Verses 6–14, on the topic of fasting. Then, after adding a quote from peace activist and columnist Frida Berrigan, he concluded, “Here’s the ‘to do list’ now: Release the prisoners; set free the oppressed; share your food with the hungry; open the doors for the homeless; clothe the naked; end the wars. Now let’s get to work!”
Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute emphasized that with the proceedings before the World Court starting Feb. 19 on behalf of the UN General Assembly (mentioned above), a “field of action” has been made available to us for escalating our intervention into the strategic situation.
Alejandro Zenteno Chávez of Mexico’s Reason and Thought Society offered greetings to the IPC and stated his belief that the Oasis Plan provides a path to a solution for the whole world.
In her concluding remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche took the IPC participants on a tour of the “long arc of history,” noting that there have been several “high periods of human civilization” from Confucianism in China through the Greek Classical period to the Italian Renaissance and the American Revolution. However, throughout this historical arc, the dynamic was such that one area of the world could be experiencing a renaissance while another was in a dark age. Today that is no longer the case. Humanity is sitting in one boat: nuclear weapons would destroy everyone; the internet allows global connectivity; because of air travel, pandemics affect the whole world. Zepp-LaRouche expressed her conviction that because of this dynamic, regional solutions to crises won’t work.
Although nations will continue to be important, a paradigm must emerge that does not allow the interest of any one nation to be put above the interest of humanity as a whole. Common economic development among nations makes this possible. A discourse is necessary to establish a vision for how to preserve our immortality as a species—not only here on Earth but throughout the galaxy—given the reality of the inevitable demise of our solar system over the next billion or so years. With the gigantic vacuum of leadership in the North Atlantic, our task is to bring the idea of the new paradigm into the public discourse. This includes “flooding the zone” with the Oasis Plan. A handful of leading people coming out in support of the new paradigm could spark a renaissance and spread it like wildfire.
Paris, Feb. 13, 2024 – On Thursday February 22, between 10:00 am and 1:00 pm CET, members and supporters of the International Schiller Institute, founded and presided by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, will gather peacefully in front of one of the main buildings of the headquarters of UNESCO in Paris (1, rue Miollis, Paris 75015). An appeal, endorsed by both Afghans and respected personalities of four continents, will be presented to the Secretary General and other officials of UNESCO.
How it started
Following a highly successful conference in Kabul last November by the Ibn-e-Sina Research & Development Center on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a group of senior archaeologists of the Afghan Academy of Sciences (ASA), in discussion with the organizers and the invited experts of the Schiller Institute, suggested to launch a common appeal to UNESCO and Western governments to “lift the sanctions against cultural heritage cooperation.”
The call
“We regret profoundly,” says the call, “that the Collective West, while weeping crocodile tears over destruction of the world’s cultural heritage, has imposed a selective ban of scientific cooperation on nations mistakenly considered as ‘opposed to its rules and values.’ The complete freeze of all cooperation in the field of archaeology between France and both Syria and Afghanistan, is just one example of this tragedy.”
“The dramatic neglect of international cultural institutions and donors to Afghanistan, the lack of sufficient funds in the field of cultural heritage protection, and the political treatment of international cultural heritage institutions have seriously endangered Afghanistan,” underscores the petition.
Specifically, “UNESCO, which should raise its voice against any new form of ‘cultural and scientific apartheid,’has repeatedly worsened the situation by politicizing issues beyond its prerogatives.” To conclude, the signers call “on the international community to immediately end this form of ‘collective punishment,’ which creates suffering and injustice, promotes ignorance, and endangers humanity’s capacity for mutual respect and understanding.”
Living Spirit of Afghanistan
To date, over 550 signatures have been collected, mainly from both Afghan male (370) and female (140) citizens, whose socio-professional profiles indicate they truly represent the “living spirit of the nation”. Among the signatories: 62 university lecturers, 27 doctors, 25 teachers, 25 members of the Afghan Academy of Sciences, 23 merchants, 16 civil and women’s rights activists, 16 engineers, 10 directors and deans of private and public universities, 7 political analysts, 6 journalists, 5 prosecutors, several business leaders and dozens of qualified professionals from various sectors.
International support
On four continents (Europe, Asia, America, Africa), senior archaeologists, scientists, researchers, members of the Academy of Sciences, historians and musicians from over 20 countries have welcomed and signed this appeal.
Professor Pino Arlacchi, a former member of the European Parliament and the former head of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), was the first to sign. Award-winning American filmmaker Oliver Stone is a more recent signer.
In France, Syria, Italy, the UK and Russia, among the signers one finds senior researchers suffering the consequences of what some have identified as a “New Cultural Cold War.” Superseding the very different opinions they have on many questions, the signatories stand united on the core issue of this appeal: for science to progress, all players, beyond ideological, political and religious differences, and far from the geopolitical logic of “blocs”, must be able to exchange freely and cooperate, in particular to protect mankind’s historical and cultural heritage.
Testifying to the firm commitment of the Afghan authorities, the petition has also been endorsed by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Culture and Arts, and the Minister of Agriculture, as well as senior officials from the Ministries of Higher Education, Water and Energy, Mines, Finance, and others.
“The 46th session of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, to be held in New Delhi in July this year, offers UNESCO the opportunity to announce Afghanistan’s full return into world heritage cooperation, if we can have our voice heard,” says Karel Vereycken of the Paris Schiller Institute. “We certainly will not miss transmitting this appeal to HE Vishal V Sharma, India’s permanent representative to UNESCO, recently nominated to make the Delhi 46th session a success.”
For all information, interview requests in EN, FR and NL: Karel Vereycken, Schiller Institute Paris
– Ketab Khan Faizi, Archaeologist, Director of the Academy of Sciences at the International Centre for Kushan Studies in Kabul, Afghanistan;
– Stora Isham Mayar, Archaeologist, member of the Academy of Sciences at the International Centre for Kushan Studies in Kabul, editor in chief of the journal of this mentioned center, Afghanistan;
– Mahmood Jan Drost, Senior Architect, head of protection of old cities of Afghanistan, Ministry of Urban Development and Housing, Afghanistan;
– Ghulam Haidar Kushkaky, Archaeologist, associate professor, Archaeology Investigation Center, Afghanistan ;
– Shawkatullah Abed, Chief of Staff, Afghan Science Academy, Afghanistan;
– Sardar Ghulam Ali Balouch, Head of Afghanistan Balochs Union, Afghanistan;
– Daud Azimi Shinwari, Ibn-Sina Research & Development Center, Germany;
– Abdul Fatah Raufi, Ibn-Sina Research & Development Center, Kabul, Afghanistan;
– Mirwais Popal, Dip, Master, Ibn-Sina Research & Development Center, Germany;
– Laieq Ahmadi, Archeologist, Former head, Archeology department of Bamiyan University, Afghanistan
– Ershad Noorzai Balkhi, PhD researcher at the University of Helsinki, Afghanistan.
B. FROM ABROAD:
(Russia, China, USA, Indonesia, France, Angola, Germany, Turkiye, Italy, Mexico, Sweden, Iran, Belgium, Czech Republic, Syria, Congo Brazzaville, Yemen, Venezuela, Pakistan, Canada, Democratic Republic of Congo.)
– H.E. Mr Mohammad Homayoon Azizi, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Paris, UNESCO and ICESCO, France;
– Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento, Researcher at the National Scientific Research Centre (CNRS), Archaeologist specializing in Central Asia; Former director of the Delegation of French Archaeologists in Afghanistan (DAFA) (2014-2018), France;
– Inès Safi, CNRS, Researcher in Theoretical Nanophysics, France;
– Pierre Leriche, Archeologist, Director of Research Emeritus at CNRS-AOROC, Scientific Director of the Urban Archaeology of the Hellenized Orient research program, France;
– Nadezhda A. Dubova, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Dr. in Biology, Prof. in History. Head of the Russian-Turkmen Margiana archaeological expedition, Russian Academy of Science (RAS), Russia;
– Raffaele Biscione, retired, associate Researcher, Consiglio Nazionale delle Recerche (CNR); former first researcher of CNR, former director of the CNR archaeological mission in Eastern Iran (2009-2022), Italy;
– Dr. Razia Sultanova, Professor, Cambridge University, UK;
– Dr. Houmam Saad, Archaeologist, Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums, Syria;
– Estelle Ottenwelter, Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Natural Sciences and Archaeometry, Post-Doc, Czech Republic;
– Didier Destremau, author, diplomat, former French Ambassador, President of the Franco-Syrian Friendship Association (AFS), France ;
– Wang Feng, Professor, South-West Asia Department of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), China;
– Dr. Engin Beksaç, Professor, Trakya University, Department of Art History, Turkiye;
– Bruno Drweski, Professor, National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (INALCO), France;
– Maurizio Abbate, National President of National Agency of Cultural Activities (ENAC), Italy;
– Patricia Lalonde, Former Member of the European Parliament, vice-president of Geopragma, author of several books on Afghanistan, France;
– Pino Arlacchi, Professor of sociology, Former Member of the European Parliament, former head of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Italy;
– Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Film director, Producer, and Screenwriter;
– Graham E. Fuller, Author, former Station chief for the CIA in Kabul until 1978, former Vice-Chair of the National Intelligence Council (1986), USA;
– Prof. H.C. Fouad Al Ghaffari, Advisor to Prime Minister of Yemen for BRICS Countries affairs, Yemen;
– Irène Neto, president, Fundacao Dr. Antonio Agostinho Neto (FAAN), Angola;
– Luc Reychler, Professor international politics, University of Leuven, Belgium;
– Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Expert and Consultant in public International Law, Senior Lecturer at the Institut Catholique de Vendée, France;
– Dr.Ririn Tri Ratnasari, Professor, Head of Center for Halal Industry and Digitalization, Advisory Board at Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia;
– Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe, Author, retired Professor of International Relations, USA;
– Bernard Bourdin, Dominican priest, Philosophy and Theology teacher, Institut Catholique de Paris (ICP), France;
– Dr. jur. Wolfgang Bittner, Author, Göttingen, Germany;
– Annie Lacroix-Riz, Professor Emeritus of Contemporary History, Université Paris-Cité, France;
– Mohammad Abdo Al-Ibrahim, Ph.D in Philology and Literature, University Lecturer and former editor in chief of the Syria Times, Syria;
– Jean Bricmont, Author, retired Physics Professor, Belgium;
– Syed Mohsin Abbas, Journalist, Broadcaster, Political Analyst and Political Justice activist, Pakistan;
– Eduardo D. Greaves PhD, Professor of Physics, Universidad Simón Bolívar, Caracas, Venezuela;
– Dora Muanda, Scientific Director, Kinshasa Science and Technology Week, Democratic Republic of Congo;
– Dr. Christian Parenti, Professor of Political Economy, John Jay College CUNY, New York, USA;
– Diogène Senny, President of the Panafrican Ligue UMOJA, Congo Brazzaville;
– Waheed Seyed Hasan, Journalist based in Qatar, former Special correspondent of IRNA in New Delhi, former collaborator of Tehran Times, Iran;
– Alain Corvez, Colonel (retired), Consultant International Strategy consultant, France;
– Stefano Citati, Journalist, Italy;
– Gaston Pardo, Journalist, graduate of the National University of Mexico. Co-founder of the daily Liberacion, Mexico;
– Jan Oberg, PhD, Peace and Future Research, Art Photographer, Lund, Sweden.
– Julie Péréa, City Councilor for the town of Poussan (Hérault), delegate for gender equality and the fight against domestic violence, member of the Sète Agglopole Méditerranée gender equality committee, France;
– Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and International President of the Schiller Institute, Germany;
– Abid Hussein, independent journalist, Pakistan;
– Anne Lettrée, Founder and President of the Garden of Titans, Cultural Relations Ambassador between France and China for the Greater Paris region, France;
– Karel Vereycken, Painter-engraver, amateur Art Historian, Schiller Institute, France;
– Carlo Levi Minzi, Pianist, Musician, Italy;
– Leena Malkki Brobjerg, Opera singer, Sweden;
– Georges Bériachvili, Pianist, Musicologist, France;
– Jacques Pauwels, Historian, Canada;
– Farhat Asif, President of Institute of Peace and Diplomatic Studies (IPDS), Pakistan;
As Western researchers, based on what happened in the past, wondered about the current Afghan government’s actual policy on the issue of preservation of cultural and historical heritage, the Ibn-e-Sina Research and Development Center questioned the relevant authorities in Kabul.
At the end of January 2024, the Minister of Arts and Culture, in a hand-signed letter, provided them and the world with the following response, which completely clarifies the matter.
Transcript below, with bold as in the original.
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
Ministry of Information and Culture
Letter N° 220, Jan. 31, 2024
To the attention of Ibn-e-Sina R&D Centre, International experts and cultural organizations and to those it concerns:
The ministry of Information and culture of the Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) has, among others, the following tasks in its portfolio:
–To establish a suitable environment for the growth of genuine Afghan culture;
–To protect national identity, cultural diversity, and national unity;
–To preserve tangible and intangible cultural heritage;
–To support the development of creativities, initiatives and activities of various segments of the society in general and of the Afghan youth in particular;
–To support the freedom of speech;
–Development of tourism industry;
–Introduction and presentation of Afghan culture regionally and internationally, to transform Afghanistan into an important cultural hub and crossroads in the near future.
We would like to confirm that with preservation of tangible and intangible cultural heritage we mean all Afghan cultural heritage belonging to all periods of history, whether it belongs to Islamic or non/pre-Islamic periods of history.
This ministry expresses its concerns that due to insufficient means it is not able to preserve the Afghan cultural heritage sufficiently.
Therefore this ministry asks UNESCO and other international organizations, working on preservation of the world’s tangible and intangible cultural heritage, to support Afghanistan in preservation of its tangible and intangible cultural heritage, including the ones belonging to Islamic and non/pre-Islamic periods of its history. The cultural heritage of Afghanistan does deserve to be preserved without any political motivations.
Besides, this ministry also confirms it is ready for all kind of cooperation with all national and international organizations, working on preservation of world cultural heritage.
The ministry of Information and culture of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) supports and appreciates all efforts of the Ibn-e-Sina R&D centre and their international experts in appealing for urgent attention of national and international organizations and experts to resume their support and cooperation with Afghanistan to preserve its cultural heritage, an important part of world cultural and historical heritage.
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue Jan. 31., 11am EDT/5pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.
Last week’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in The Hague has put the world dynamic into stark relief.
In an entirely lawful fashion, this is happening amidst near-pandemonium coming from every direction.
Across Europe a protest-movement is growing, of farmers and producers finally asserting that “enough is enough” regarding policies which are pushing them toward extinction.
At the other end of the spectrum is an out of control migrant crisis gripping both Europe and the United States, with little in the way of actual solutions being proposed. Both crises, however, are the result of the same genocidal, anti-growth policies, only in different manifestations.
At the same time, NATO’s war in Ukraine has reached a dead-end, not only with Ukraine’s collapsing logistics, but also with the support of its allies. “Allies” here is a term taking on an all-new meaning.
The latest in this drama is a new document revealing broad support within the EU to blackmail Hungary, including collapsing its markets, currency, lending opportunities, and job market.
In addition, after blowing up Germany’s Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 and making Europe hugely dependent on U.S. energy, the Biden Administration is now considering limiting LNG contracts for exports to allies in Europe and Asia! Again, the “robust” and “democratic” West is shown to be a farce.
Dirty and deadly tricks are common fare among the enemies of a prosperous mankind today. Nonetheless, no matter what is done to try and squirm out of this situation, the world’s attention has been irrevocably turned to the ruling by the ICJ and the hypocrisy of those preaching about international law. On Jan. 31, the United Nations Security Council will discuss putting the ICJ ruling into “binding effect,” putting on the table whether or not the U.S. will again be the sole veto against a ceasefire and stopping a genocide.
In a discussion with associates yesterday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisted that we must force the issue, and be laser-focused on putting this stark reality into the limelight for the world. Don’t let them wiggle out of it—all organizing must go toward holding the U.S.’s feet to the fire to prevent a veto at the Security Council. Another veto by the U.S. is now a vote for the genocide of Palestinians. How many Americans approve of this? How many elected officials approve? How many governments around the world will continue standing with the U.S. now?
Zepp-LaRouche concluded by saying that the situation is really coming to a head, and governments are increasingly being faced with the prospect of changing or falling. “So it’s coming down to the moment where the big change has to occur. A new paradigm has to occur.”
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue Jan. 31., 11am EDT/5pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue Jan. 10, 11am EDT/5pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.
It used to be understood that governments exist for the benefit of the lives of their people, and were expected to enact policies to such effect. Imperial and geopolitical wars, and other such wasteful things were rightly seen as distractions from the true mission of government—to advance their nation and their people toward a better future.
The case of Germany has perhaps been the most extreme. It has turned from the world’s most advanced industrial power during the middle of the last century to a shadow of its former self after having shut down its nuclear power plants and its access to Russian gas and oil. Obediently, Germany has found itself more loyal to the dictates of the “rules-based order” and “going green”—some of the murmurings of the blob—even while its own people suffer as a result. This reached the height of absurdity when the Anglo-Americans blew up the Nord Stream pipelines on September 26, 2022, severing for good one of Germany’s most important energy lifelines from Russia they had spent years and billions of dollars building. This was made all the more embarrassing when President Biden admitted to Chancellor Scholz’s face that he would, in fact, “bring an end to it.”
Germany is today, along with most of the Western “democracies,” plunging headlong into a thermonuclear world war against Russia and China, and lining up for a case of criminal complicity in the genocide of Gaza—all while going bankrupt paying for it. And thanks to the Nord Stream bombing’s effects on energy prices and the overall commitment to “green” policies, Germany’s food producers have reached a point where they can no longer survive. All this, and not a peep in opposition.
It is in this context that one must see this week’s outbreak of nationwide demonstrations in Germany. It is not a protest against fuel subsidies or taxes, nor is it an outburst of right-wing extremist anger. A revolt is beginning, and in this case the protesters are being joined by other producers from across Europe to demand better—to demand a future.
In discussion with associates today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisted that this event is “An unbelievably important invent in Germany because it was stated very clearly by several of the farm leaders that they took the courage to step forward, to defend the interest of not only the farmers but all of Germany from the government, which many of them characterized as total junk … and now many voices are pointing to how the entire farm policy is not made by the government but by Silicon Valley, Wall Street, BlackRock, and the international cartels. So I’m pretty sure that the lasting impact will be that the naivety which they tried to artificially create as a parallel reality through the mainstream media, this has received a permanent crack. And whatever the government is going to do … it will not go away….”
With the current dynamic of the BRICS-Plus sweeping the world, and now the upcoming battle at the International Court of Justice brought by South Africa—at which not only Israel but also the blob-like complicity of the entire Western world will be on trial—all in the context of the recent massive eruption of protests across the world in solidarity with Palestine and against the policy of endless war, the opportunity for a breakthrough becomes obvious.
Therefore, Zepp-LaRouche concluded, it is urgent to push for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the full implementation of a two-state solution along with the Oasis Plan for lasting economic development in the region. “But at the same time, it is clear we need an even more general approach, which has to be a New International Security and Development Architecture, because this geopolitical conflict has to be overcome by changing geopolitical confrontation to instead cooperation between the countries of the Global North and the countries of the Global Majority.”
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue Jan. 10, 11am EDT/5pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.
