Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

madeleine

Author Archives

Natalia Vitrenko: ‘History Acquits Us and Will Be Proud of Us. The Banning Of Our Party Is Unjust And Unlawful.’

October 2, 2022by madeleine in General

Oct. 1, 2022 (EIRNS)– The following statement was released on Sept. 30 by Natalia Vitrenko, and was received by the Schiller Institute. We hope to have more details soon on the outrageous violations of due process and “democratic” norms by the Ukrainian Presidency, Ministry of Justice, SBU and Supreme Court in this case.

Message to members of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU), members of the Central Committee of the PSPU, and friends all over the world:

On 27 September 2022 in Kyiv, the Administrative Appeals Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine partially satisfied the PSPU’s Appellate Complaint, by deleting from the ruling of the 8th Administrative Appeals Court in Lviv, dated 23 June 2022, a part of the abhorrent charges, while allowing the decision on banning our party to stand.

I believe that this not only is a politically motivated punishment of our party, but it tramples on all the foundations of European democracy. The principle of the supremacy of law, enshrined in the Constitution and in conventions, has been trampled—a principle that consists of lawfulness; legal certainty; the prohibition of arbitrary actions; guaranteed access to due process, provided by independent and fair courts; respect for human rights; the prohibition of discrimination; and guaranteed equality before the law.

The PSPU’s Appellate Complaint smashed to pieces the ruling by the court of the first instance, showing that it was unlawful and baseless. Our opponents, represented by the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (MinJust) and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) failed in its suit, its written answers to the PSPU’s Appellate Complaint, and its oral arguments before the Supreme Court, to refute a single legal substantiation of the invalidity of their accusations against our party.

The Supreme Court’s 27 September decision was handed down by a panel of judges chaired by S. Ukhanenko, in whom the PSPU, during the court session, officially presented grounds for no-confidence and for a transfer of the case to the full Court.

The decision to ban the PSPU was political and discriminatory in nature, rather than juridical, because the motive for banning the Party was based on political accusations, not on any legal substantiation of violations of the Constitution of Ukraine or the European Convention on Human Rights by the PSPU.

I cite here one of the accusations by the MinJust, supported by the SBU, in their Statement of Claim: “The Party protests against Ukraine’s joining NATO and the EU, against the rehabilitation of OUN-UPA [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and Ukrainian Insurgent Army] fighters, declares fidelity to Eastern Slavic culture and canonical Orthodoxy, and envisions Ukraine in an inter-state union with Russia and Belarus.”

It is absolutely obvious to any honest human rights organization or any European jurist, that such politically motivated accusations as those, made by the Ukrainian government, are inadmissible as the basis for banning parties, under the Constitution of Ukraine (Art. 37), the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 11, p. 2), European Court precedents, or the Venice Commission of the OSCE.

From the very beginning, when their party was founded in 1996, the Progressive Socialists offered Ukraine a strategy for domestic and foreign policy, based on the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine (1990) and the Declaration of the Rights of the Nationalities of Ukraine (1991), which were passed by the Ukrainian Parliament, and which defined the essential nature of national sovereignty after the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine had been supported in the All-Ukraine Referenda of 17 March 1991 and 1 December 1991.

In the setting of the tragedy of the disintegration of the USSR, only the principles declared by the people of Ukraine—namely, a neutral, non-bloc status for the country; the impermissibility of the sale of land and the looting (in the form of privatization) of economic capacities belonging to the entire nation; equal rights for the citizens of Ukraine regardless of ethnicity, faith, language preference or cultural tradition; and Ukraine’s entry, on an equal footing, into a new inter-state union with the republics of the former USSR—offered a guarantee of peaceful coexistence with the former Soviet republics and the successful development of Ukraine as an independent, sovereign state. They provided Ukraine with territorial integrity within its 1991 borders and a guarantee of security from all leading countries in the world.

This explains the hatred of our party on the part of world imperialism and Ukrainian nationalism (fascism). They always fought against us, because we openly opposed the model of peripheral, colonial capitalism, imposed upon Ukraine by the IMF [International Monetary Fund], and we opposed privatization, the creation of an oligarchy, financial speculation, the cheap-labor model, capital flight, labor flight, the sale of land, the extermination of the Russian language and languages of ethnic minorities, the rewriting of history, debasement of the Soviet people’s victory in the Great Patriotic War, and making heroes of collaborationists from the OUN-UPA, and were against government agencies’ unleashing of terrorism against the canonical Orthodox Church.

I am proud of our Party and of every rank-and-file member, because we have been the only party in Ukraine to propose a scientifically based, comprehensive program of reforms for the country. I am certain that the implementation of our program would have prevented the current tragedy of the war, destruction of the economy, dying out of the population, and territorial losses.

Neither I, the leaders of our party organizations, nor the members of the PSPU ever called for a violent overthrow of the constitutional order or for violence of any sort. The goals and activity of our Party abided by all the norms and principles of democracy. Neither the MinJust nor the SBU offered a single piece of evidence to the contrary in court. We were prepared to achieve our goals through competition in elections. In the fight against us, however, terrorism, fakery, raider takeovers, slanders, and threats were employed.

The Party nominated me as a candidate for the Presidency of Ukraine four times—in 1999, 2004, 2009, and 2019. Those in power allowed me to take part in the elections only in 1999 and 2004. In 1999, when some of the attributes of democracy still remained in Ukraine, the power of our ideas and the population’s support of them were so great, that sociological polls forecast that I would defeat the incumbent President L. Kuchma in the second round.

But the terrorist attack on me, 2 October 1999 in Krivoy Rog, when two RGD-5 grenades were thrown at me and my entourage, was used by my opponents to frighten the voters, and I was deprived of victory. Victory was stolen from our Party through vote fraud in the parliamentary elections of 2002 and 2006. But popular support for the ideas and actions of the PSPU were very high at that time, because when we entered the Supreme Rada of Ukraine as a caucus in 1998, we had showed our fighting qualities, task-orientation, and commitment to principle. The members of our Party who were elected to local self-government bodies carried on the same kind of self-sacrificing fight.

I am grateful to every member of the PSPU, who fought in our ranks selflessly and with all their heart to save Ukraine and transform the world. I am also grateful to the millions of people who supported our sacred struggle by voting for us. A deep bow to you all!

The position of our Party was always an impediment to the ruling governments’ ability to loot the country, mercilessly exploit the population of Ukraine, and conduct domestic and foreign policies in the interests not of their own people, but of the West’s imperialists.

Under the Constitution of Ukraine, responsibility for peace and for the lives, dignity, and health of the citizens lies with the institutions of state power, headed by the President.

Failing to meet its responsibilities and engaging in detestable mind control, the government of Ukraine issued a piece of fakery in the form of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine dated 18 March 2022, implemented by the President of Ukraine with his Decree dated 19 March 2022, to suspend the activity of several parties in Ukraine, including ours. And in order to prevent us from defending our rights, freedoms, and legal interests in civil and administrative courts, the 8th Administrative Appeals Court of Lviv ruled on 20 May 2022 to freeze the PSPU’s bank account. This deprived us of the possibility of contesting in court, as untruthful, the NSDC’s decision, the Decree of the President of Ukraine, and the entire “evidence” base submitted to the court by the MinJust and the SBU.

In violation of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 6 of the European Convention, we were deprived of access to the court, because of the impossibility for the PSPU to pay the court fee from its bank account. Our purpose would have been to refute, on the basis of our own lawsuits, the false information submitted by the MinJust and the SBU as the basis for banning the PSPU.

The blocking of our bank account also deprived the PSPU of the right to hire the services of a lawyer. Vladimir Marchenko and I were forced to conduct the entire, exhausting legal battle ourselves. He represented the interests of the PSPU before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court refused to accept as evidence the Statement of the CC PSPU “Ukrainian Democracy Needs to Be Defended by the Supreme Court against the Government’s Dictatorship,” or the statements of Chairman of the PSPU, People’s Deputy of Ukraine [Member of Parliament] in 1995-2002 N. Vitrenko “I Defend Peace, Socialism, and Democracy, Not War, Nazism and Capitalism,” of First Deputy Chairman of the PSPU, People’s Deputy of Ukraine in 1990-2002 V. Marchenko “The Supreme Court Is the Last Hope for Defending Democracy against the Arbitrary Actions of the MinJust and the SBU, and against the Establishment of a Dictatorship,” of Member of the CC PSPU, Deputy of the Mykolaiv Regional Council in 2006-2010 Larisa Shesler “Relations between Ukraine and Russia. I Have a Right to My Opinion,” and of Member of the CC PSPU, Deputy of the Romny Municipal Council in 2002-2010 and outstanding athlete of our time Sergei Gavras “I Bear Witness before God, the Court, and History. Testimony of a Champion.” The Court was in a panic over the inability of the MinJust and the SBU to refute the evidence presented in these declarations, regarding the true goals and activity of the PSPU.

In contrast, the Court deemed worthy as evidence fabrications from the Internet, submitted by the SBU, without any investigation of the primary sources or confirmation of their truthfulness. The Court also accepted, without evidence, some distorted fragments of interviews of N. Vitrenko and L. Shesler and the attribution to the PCPU of financing terrorists, propagandizing in favor of war, and justifying the actions of the Russian Federation.

The Supreme Court, in politically motivated discrimination against the PSPU, denied all 19 of the motions made by our Party, including the ones on access to evidence of the activity of the OUN-UPA; on confirmation of any violations of law on the part of the PSPU, established by the judges; on the illegality of the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 19 March 2022; on asking the Constitutional Court for a determination of the constitutionality of that Decree; and others. Brought to light in court was the monstrous position of the MinJust and SBU, that Ukraine refuses to fulfill its obligations under the UN Charter (Article 25), and therefore to obey the UN Security Council resolution on the Minsk Accords. In addition, the refusal to adhere to the Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.

The Supreme Court undertook no investigation at all of whether the norms of law were legally applied by the Lviv court in banning the Party. The Court allowed Vladimir Marchenko only 20 minutes to present our case. It did not allow argument, citing the fact that the Court was considering the banning of the Party using a simplified procedure. Think about that: banning a party, with the institution of the party being a foundation of democracy in general and European democracy in particular, using a simplified procedure! Without proper investigation of the evidence or application of the norms of law!

It will be interesting to see what conclusion the Venice Commission draws regarding democracy in Ukraine, based on the example of the banning of the PSPU.

I am convinced that neither those in power in Ukraine, nor the Supreme Court, have succeeded in defeating our ideas or proving the illegality of our activity. Their ban on the Party is not the period at the end of a sentence, but a comma. History acquits us. The true guilty parties in the tragedy of the war will be named. Truth and justice will prevail.

Toward victory, always!

Natalia Vitrenko,

People’s Deputy of Ukraine, 1995-2002,

Doctor of Economics, Academician

30 September 2022

Immortal Words to honor LaRouche’s Immortal Contributions

September 18, 2022by madeleine in General

Dr. Fred Wills, former Foreign Minister of Guyana,andExecutive Board Member of the Non-Aligned Movement (1975-1977), regularly employed the words of classical poets to express his thoughts and convey the broader context of contemporary events. On December 20, 1986, Wills delivered these lines as part of a type of eulogy on the death and life of Hulan E. Jack, former Manhattan Borough President, to console the cadre of the LaRouche movement for their loss of this cherished friend and associate. In reflection. LaRouche’s centenary birthday provides another fitting occasion to hear Will’s recitation of the words of Greek elegist Callimachus on Heraclitus, his friend.

A Recitation: Callimachus on Heraclitus

Visit “Shakespeare In Exile” Page

Zepp-LaRouche Responds to Ukrainian Enemies List

July 28, 2022by madeleine in General

The so-called “Ukrainian Center for countering Disinformation,” which is listed as being part of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has released a list of 78 individuals—the first 30 were all speakers at conferences of the Schiller Institute—whom it accuses of having promoted “Russian propaganda.” While the Center was created in 2021, with the idea of becoming a “vital hub of counter-disinformation strategy and resources not just domestically, but internationally;” it had “been brewing since 2014,” according to a briefing by Andriy Yermak, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine for President Zelensky.

That interestingly places it in the immediate context of the Western-backed Maidan Coup, the prehistory for which Victoria Nuland claimed the U.S. had spent $5 billion dollars. So the idea of creating such a hub to control the narrative about the circumstances of that coup, seems to be a continuity of the policy of Nuland, of “Fuck the EU” fame.

The effort to control this narrative has become full of holes however, since another such outfit, namely the U.S. blog called PropOrNot, which was among the first to propagate the story of the Ukrainian Center, was the main loudspeaker for the Russiagate-scandal against President Trump in 2016, which has since been completely discredited as a hoax cooked up by a gang of British intelligence and Clinton campaign operatives.

Otherwise, the poor authors of the Center seem to suffer from the syndrome of belief in conspiracy theories, since they assume that such a wide array of speakers representing top institutions from around the globe are all Putin agents and can’t think for themselves.

— Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Cracks Opening in “Unified” Trans-Atlantic War Party

May 11, 2022by madeleine in Harley Schlanger Daily Update

The reality is seeping in, as growing numbers in Europe are recognizing that the Anglo-American war hawks intend to continue the fighting in Ukraine until Russia is so damaged that a successful regime change can be pulled off there. There is a growing chorus of voices of sane military vets in Europe calling for diplomacy, the break-up of NATO, and an end to the delusion that World War III can be won. More American military vets are speaking up, such as Col. Richard Black. Join with the Schiller Institute, to make sure your voice is heard in opposition to the ongoing globalist Malthusian onslaught.

Video: Shakespeare & Statecraft: Guyanese Foreign Minister -LaRouche Associate Lectures on Shakespeare

March 14, 2022by madeleine in General

The Schiller Institute presents a new webpage “Shakespeare in Exile,” which introduces the public to semi-private lectures on the dramas of Shakespeare delivered by Dr. Fred Wills, former foreign minister, and justice minister of Guyana. Examining the “in- between,” and going beyond the storyline of Shakespeare dramas, Dr. Wills guides the listener to examine what underlies his/her own method of thinking and the epistemological questions posed by the dramatist. A scholar of English literature and the Greek dramatists of antiquity, Dr. Wills was an associate of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche serving on the Schiller Institute’s Board of Directors. Visit the website here.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Briefs ChinaPlus Radio ‘World Today’ Broadcast on Germany Decision to Arm Ukraine

April 29, 2022by madeleine in Activity of the Schiller Institute, Geopolitics updates, Helga media coverage or interview, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, World war danger updates

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, was interviewed on April 27 about the German government’s decision to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine.

CHINA RADIO INTERNATIONAL: You’re listening to World Today…. Germany has for the first time announced the plans to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht says the government has approved the delivery of Gepard tanks equipped with anti-aircraft guns. The decision comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held talks with dozens of NATO member country counterparts over the Ukraine war at an American air base in western Germany on Tuesday.

Joining us now on the line is Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

CRI: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has actually for weeks been resisting calls for Germany to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. He has been suggesting that such a particular move might trigger a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. So, with that in mind, how would you look at Germany’s latest decision?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a complete catastrophe. This government endangers the life and security of the German population. They have made an oath, the German Chancellor and others, that they would protect the interests of the German people and protect them against harm, and this is a complete violation of that oath. It is quite telling that this occurred on the very day that Austin had this meeting in Ramstein [Air Base]—I mean, this was a complete violation of German sovereignty. He’s holding court, and this decision by the German government will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people. They’re cannon fodder in a proxy war between NATO and the U.S. and Russia; and obviously, the attitude on the side of these people is to fight this to the last Ukrainian.

It’s a complete catastrophe, because when Foreign Minister Lavrov said this could lead to World War III and a nuclear war, this is being ridiculed by the German media in cartoons, as if it would be just scare-mongering. I think we are in a very, very dangerous situation.

CRI: Hmm, indeed. As we heard from Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the threat of nuclear war really should not be underestimated. But we understand that for decades, Berlin has actually been maintaining a policy of not exporting weapons to any particular conflict areas. So help us understand, what’s the rationale behind that policy? And now what’s the war going on in Ukraine: Do you think it is fair to say that Germany has abandoned that particular policy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this thing makes very obvious that Germany is an occupied country, that it’s not sovereign, and what you have seen in the last days in media and in the parties, is that in all of these institutions you have Atlanticists who have been making a drumbeat, saying, “Oh, Germany is not a reliable ally.” But in reality, this delivery of heavy weapons makes Germany a party in the war, and therefore a target if this thing continues to escalate.

Part of the problem is also the EU, because Josep Borrell, who’s the so-called “foreign minister” said this situation will be “decided on the battlefield.” He has never mentioned the idea of diplomacy or that there should be negotiations. And it’s completely insane to try to settle conflicts in the 21st century with war! It’s madness! I can only say, it’s complete madness.

CRI: So, critics, including some officials in Ukraine, have accused Berlin of dragging their heels on giving heavy weapons to Ukraine, and on some of the other possible measures, like a possible embargo of Russia energy imports. Do you think those criticisms that I mentioned are fair to Germany?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the reality is, George Friedman, who is a strategic analyst in the United States, he already said in 2015 in a speech in Chicago that the German-Russian relation is the only threat to the United States, because the combination of German technology and capital, and Russian raw materials and labor, would be the only counterweight to the United States. Now, one result of it is that this relationship between Germany and Russia, as of now, has been completely ruined, and this, in light of German history. One should not forget, Russia lost 27 million people in World War II.

The idea to have an embargo against Russian oil and gas, is more insanity, because there are many leaders of the industry who have said this would mean millions of unemployed, entire sectors of industry would collapse; so it’s really an aggression against German interests if such demands are made.

CRI: So, realistically speaking, is Germany capable of sustaining its supply of heavy weaponry to Ukraine, if we talk about a scenario where this conflict between Russia and Ukraine becomes a protracted war?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s obvious that Germany has a significant arms industry, and they would naturally be happy, like the military-industrial complex in the United States, to deliver these weapons. But the effect on the rest of the economy—you know, you already have massive inflation in food prices, energy prices; if this continues you will have social chaos. The poorer parts of the population already can’t make it to the end of the month. And it’s a complete outrage that there are billions and billions being expended for weapons, when you have a world famine of 1.7 billion people facing starvation. I’m really upset, and I hope you can hear it, because this should not happen! This is really something which needs to be reversed.

The people who are responsible for this, they can commit suicide if they want, but they have no right to completely drive Germany into a catastrophe.

CRI: By the way, do you think President Putin has a point when he said, recently, in a meeting with UN chief António Guterres, that this increasing Western delivery or Western supply of heavy weapons to the battlefields in Ukraine are making Kyiv, making Ukraine a sort of unreliable partner on the negotiation table? Do you think he has a point in saying that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the reality is that Zelenskyy is a complete puppet. He’s an actor, and he plays the script which is being written by British public relations firms who basically tell him what to do, as is the United States. The reality is, if you look at the statements by Biden, Boris Johnson, Stoltenberg, they have no mentioned once, the word “peace negotiations.” They only say, “more weapons, more weapons.” So I think it’s not Zelenskyy, it’s the U.S., NATO and the British.

CRI: Well, I guess from Washington’s perspective, they might argue, “OK, we are returning our diplomats back to Kyiv, we have nominated a new ambassador as the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv”: That is a signal that Americans pay attention, attack greater importance to diplomacy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I wish your words would be right, because I think any reasonable person in the world must agree that we have to have to have an end to this war immediately. The Ukrainian people are being slaughtered, and I think what should be discussed instead, is President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum made a very important proposal to have a Global Security Initiative. And I think the problems of the world are so big, that you need such a global approach, and in that context, the Ukraine situation can be settled also. Because it’s much more complicated. It has very little to do with Ukraine. The Ukrainians are the cannon fodder in a geostrategic confrontation from the United States against Russia—and China, by the way.

CRI: So we understand Russia has suspended, or is suspending natural gas deliveries to Poland and Bulgaria, after these two particular countries refused to pay for the energy supplies in Russian rubles. Do you expect Moscow to take this kind of action against more European Union countries?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we should remember that the Russian reaction is coming in reaction to the West confiscating $300 billion in Russian assets, after they took $9 billion from the Afghani people. So the dollar system is not regarded as safe any more, and therefore, Russia and many other Asian countries are reorienting and trying to create an alternative financial system based on gold and other commodities. And you have right now, massive agreements between Russia and India, Russia and China, and many others. I think if it would come to such an embargo, or cutoff from oil and gas from the side of Russia, or the other way around, I think Russia in one sense would cope better than Germany! Germany and Europe would go into a real economic crisis. So the people who are pushing Germany and others in this direction are really not acting in the interests of Germany or the European countries.

CRI: Thank you very much for your analysis. That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank.

Listen to the podcast here.

Zepp-LaRouche Presents the Need for a New Security Architecture and New Bretton Woods to CGTN World Audience

March 8, 2022by madeleine in Helga media coverage or interview

March 7 (EIRNS)–Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche appeared as a guest on the CGTN Dialogue show on March 7 together with Victor Gao, a regular CGTN commentator and Professor Peter Kuznick from American University. The program aired directly following Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s traditional annual press conference at China’s legislative Two Sessions, so there was no doubt of many viewers. The discussion, as well as Minister Wang’s press conference, centered around the conflict in Ukraine. In her initial comments, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche lauded Wang Yi’s press conference as “the return of sanity” in a world gone crazy over the Ukraine situation, noting that he underlined the importance of adhering to the principles of the UN Charter. “China is taking a leadership role in the world which is badly needed,” she said.

When she was later asked about the impact of the Ukraine crisis on US-European relations, she noted the negative effect on trade, and added that “the “world needs something completely different, similar to a community of shared interests,” and reiterated her call for an international conference to create such an order, comparable to what was done in Europe by the Peace of Westphalia, but which would include Russia and China. “If it comes to nuclear war, there will be no winners,” she warned.

In response to a third question, referring to Wang Yi’s comment that this year would be an “Asian year” with Asian countries hosting the BRICS, the APEC summit, and the G20, she noted that a number of countries in Asia have a 5,000 year history, which is a much different situation than with the United States. “We need a new model of international relations,” she

In response to a third question, referring to Wang Yi’s comment that this year would be an “Asian year” with Asian countries hosting the BRICS, the APEC summit, and the G20, she noted that a number of countries in Asia have a 5,000 year history, which is a much different situation than with the United States. “We need a new model of international relations,” she said, “but it must be filled with content.” She referenced the Non-Aligned Movement and the Bandung Conference as models. “The region must come together to resolve the problems of humanity, including the question of food supply, energy prices, etc. This year one could say that we need a new model of international relations,” she said, and noted that the BRI, the Build Back Better World, and the EU Global Gateway projects could work together instead of at odds. She added, “The present financial system is going out of whack, and it’s worse than 2008. There is therefore an urgent need for a New Bretton Woods System.”

While the perspective introduced by Zepp-LaRouche went quite beyond what the other speakers were expecting, Professor Kuznick, who had the last word in the program, expressed support for the notion of a new security architecture.

Catholic Journalist: ‘We Have a Moral Obligation to Save Afghans from Starving’

February 9, 2022by madeleine in Afghanistan, Sanctions

Tony Magliano, a Catholic columnist for peace and justice, syndicated internationally, wrote on Feb. 3, “We Have a Moral Obligation to Save Afghans from Starving,” posted on Catholic Online, and since appearing in local media, e.g., on Feb. 6 in the Clarion Herald, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Magliano wrote in his strong article, that the Federal Reserve’s freeze of Afghanistan’s national funds, is a strategy which “heartlessly ignores the fact that Afghans are now starving to death. This de facto collective punishment, albeit unintentional, is immoral and illegal according to international humanitarian law.” Magliano calls for unfreezing funds, for getting the Afghan Central Bank operating, and to “do our best” so that no one starves. He provides the email and telephone numbers to contact Congress and the White House.

Other national figures in the Catholic church are speaking out, including Sean Callahan, head of the Catholic World Services (CRS), the aid agency associated with the U.S. Bishops Council, who wrote an article in December, issuing a call for international action to stop the starvation. CRS Vice President Bill O’Keefe likewise has spoken out on the need for the Afghanistan national economy to function. He was quoted in The Intercept Jan. 23, “The U.S. government, and the international community, has got to find a way to get over itself, and support the administrative state and structures on the ground to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Twenty-three million people without a functioning government and without help is not going to be a solution that we can stand for.”

CGTN World Today Podcast Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Lithuania’s Stance Toward the One-China Policy

January 7, 2022by madeleine in General, Helga media coverage or interview, Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute, was a guest on the CGTN podcast, World Today, on Wednesday, January 5, 2022. This segment was transcribed by EIR.

CGTN: A spokesperson of China’s Foreign Ministry said it is right for Lithuania to acknowledge the mistake it has made regarding Taiwan, and China urges Lithuania to take action and return to the One-China policy. Spokesperson Wang Wenbin made the remarks in response to Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda’s rebuke against his government’s decision of allowing the opening of a Taiwan representative office in his country. President  Nausėda said on Tuesday that it was a mistake to allow China’s Taiwan region to open a representative office in Vilnius using its own name. He told a local radio station that “the name of the office has become the key factor that now strongly affects our relations with China.”

China had expressed a strong protest over Lithuania’s approval of the establishment of the so-called “Taiwan representative office” in Lithuania and downgraded the diplomatic relations with Lithuania in November.

For more on this, we’re now joined on the line by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank.

Thank you, Helga, for talking to us again.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

CGTN: First off, do the Lithuanian President’s remarks mean a softening of tensions regarding this issue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s definitely good that he retracted the approval of the name, but this is not a case of nominalism. The question is not the label, the question is the One-China policy which is internationally recognized since 1971, and the question is, can the United States, the British and other countries that use a little country of 3 million people as a pawn in their geopolitical confrontation, and this is an effort by Secretary of State Blinken to push all of these little countries in an “alliance of democracies” so-called. But I think it’s not good for the people of Lithuania. It’s not in their interest. 

CGTN: Right. Well, you pointed out correctly this is not just a matter of the name. Rather it’s the principle of the One-China policy. But how much does the difference between the Lithuanian President’s remarks, and the actions of the Lithuanian government have to do with how the government is run in the country, and the domestic politics in the country? Because remember, I think the prime minister of Lithuania, who has the cabinet, was beaten in the elections in 2019 by the President.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, according to the Lithuanian media, the support for the government is absolutely dropping. Only 17.3% of the people voted in a poll that they trust the government, while 47.8% say they distrust the government. So you can see, now, the effect of how Lithuania has to be seen in the context of the NATO expansion to encircle Russia. I mean, we should look at the documentation which the Schiller Institute just produced: There are now absolutely authentic documents which prove that Secretary of State [James] Baker, on Feb. 9, 1990 promised that NATO would not move one inch to the East. But as we now know, 14 countries have joined NATO, and now President Putin is demanding the signature under two treaties that this stop, because it impinges on the security interests of Russia. Now, Lithuania is a victim of that NATO expansion to the East, and billions of dollars have been spent to finance NGOs to convince the population of the East European nations that they should adopt Western values, but you see right now a big backlash against it, and this is one of the reasons why the support for the Lithuanian government is dropping so quickly.

CGTN: Going again into the question of Taiwan, how bad an example is Lithuania’s decision to allow the opening of this office? How bad is it, in the sense that it kind of internationalizes the Taiwan question, which should be a domestic issue of China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Naturally, it is bad, because Lithuania, also, as a result of this policy, left the 17+1—these are the countries in Central and Eastern Europe which cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative—but it’s really not that significant, because there are many countries in Europe which stick to the One-China policy, and which do see it in their self-interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative. So, it’s bad, but it’s not dramatic.

CGTN: Lithuanian officials once appealed to the European Union for help, regarding their tensions with China. What is the EU’s position on this issue, because we see, recently the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a year end interview with the press that Europe has a “cognitive split” in its policy toward China, by trying to be both a partner and also seeing it as an opponent. Do you agree with Wang Yi? What is the EU’s state, here?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think Wang Yi is a very good diplomat: Because I could easily find much more harsh words for describing a person who has a split mind. So I think he’s very diplomatic.

I mean, the Europeans on one side see—there are many people in Europe who see it as their self-interest to have good relations with China. On the other side, there are also people who are just NATO representatives within the EU so to speak. So I think many do not have the backbone to stand up against U.S. and British pressure, but increasingly, it’s a question of credibility of the West in general. If you look at their policy toward Afghanistan, for example, it’s completely disgusting.

So I think the content of the policies will become increasingly important, and I think Europe will have to make up its mind, to follow its self-interest or not.

CGTN: Indeed, that’s the autonomy that European Union leaders have been talking about for quite a long time. Thank you.

We have been talking to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank.

The full podcast is available here. Ms. LaRouche’s remarks start at min 26.06.

Video: 2022 the Year of Lyndon LaRouche!

January 1, 2022by madeleine in General, Lyndon LaRouche legacy

Helga Zepp-LaRouche proposed that we make 2022 the Year of Lyndon LaRouche. In doing so, we are not only commemorating the 100th year of his birth, but offering a pathway for solutions to the unresolved crises, which threaten humanity at the end of 2021.

Page 5 of 15First...456...Last