Top Left Link Buttons

madeleine

Author Archives

Webcast: Are You Joining the Movement?, Wednesday, August 2, 2023 — 11am EDT, 5pm CET

Are you joining the Movement? — Strategic Discussion with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Live discussion with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Wednesday, August 2, 2023 — 11am EDT, 5pm CET

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her weekly dialogue for a discussion about building an International Peace Coalition and the upcoming international demonstration August 6, Humanity for Peace.

Submit your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org 

You may also write them in the YouTube chat during the live broadcast.


International Peace Coalition (IPC) holds 8th meeting: Build the Aug. 6 Peace Rallies Internationally: End the Age of Colonialism Once and For All

July 28—The International Peace Coalition (IPC) held its eighth weekly meeting, on Friday July 28. The spirit of changing the course of history, as current developments are taking the world closer and closer to a nuclear Armageddon, was palpable in the reports from every speaker, with everyone focused on the Humanity for Peace rallies to be held on August 6, the 78th anniversary of the U.S. nuclear destruction of Hiroshima in 1945. The central rally on that day will be held outside the United Nations building in New York City, with sister rallies to be held across the U.S., in Great Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Malaysia, among other locations.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who initiated the IPC, opened the discussion, emphasizing that the danger of nuclear war is increasing, as the U.S. and its NATO allies escalate the shipment of military arms into the war zone, lyingly asserting that Ukraine is “winning” the war. Even some of the whorish U.S. press are now acknowledging that the military “counteroffensive” by Ukraine has been a thorough failure. Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that there must be a total break from this disastrous policy somewhere in the West – be it Germany, France, or the U.S. – to end the confrontation and begin cooperation between the nuclear powers, to create an architecture of security and development for all nations. Such a break appears to be a remote possibility. That means that we must expand our efforts to break through the wall of lies about Russia and China.

Ray McGovern, the former CIA analyst who used to give the daily briefing to the President of the United States, and who co-founded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), then noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has for years asserted that U.S. domestic policy determines U.S. foreign policy, said that the Biden family is in deep trouble, due to the revelations about the Hunter Biden laptop and the global corruption now exposed, but that President Joe Biden simply continues the insane assertion that Russia has “already lost the war” in Ukraine. The neocon policy now promoted by the Biden Administration, and his leftover Obama gang (Blinken, Sullivan and Nuland) – who should be facing jail time for their multiple crimes – are more likely to launch a nuclear war than face incarceration. In his long career in intelligence, McGovern said that he had “never seen this level of danger.”

Oliver Boyd-Barrett, a professor at California State University, provided a detailed study of the actual battlefield situation in Ukraine, noting the “sheer scale of numbers dying in this infuriating and unnecessary war.” The effort to deny the failure of the Ukraine “counteroffensive” has failed, but there is still the “fog of war” which can be used to justify the escalation to a nuclear launch. The promotion of Victoria Nuland to the number two at the State Department demonstrates that the regime is “either too stupid or too evil” to stop the madness.

Anastasia Battle, who moderated the event, reported on massive outreach to independent journalists. She also reviewed the current list of scheduled speakers for the August 6 rally at the UN, which will be live-streamed from 1-4 p.m.

Former President of Guyana Donald Ramotar said that the West terribly miscalculated when they thought the sanctions would destroy the Russian economy and that modern NATO weapons would crush them in Ukraine, but that the danger of nuclear war is now even greater. He recommended that we recruit scientists to join in the peace effort.

The next speaker, scientist Steve Starr, author of “The State of the Nuclear Danger” and other articles and videos on the effects of nuclear weapons, quickly agreed to write a public letter to other scientists to join the movement, as Mr. Ramotar had proposed.

Reports by organizers from several of the planned international sister rallies provided a sense of the global nature of the movement.

Diane Sare, the founder of the Schiller Institute NYC Chorus briefed the meeting on the plan to perform the Mozart Requiem in a New York City church following the rally at the UN, to honor the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the U.S. nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities in 1945. A guest conductor from Türkiye, who has conducted music for several other rallies for peace, volunteered to conduct the event. There has been a surge of choristers joining, and an orchestra is being mobilized as well.

Bernie Holland, an activist from the UK, suggested that even if nuclear weapons were to be abolished from warfare, that the bombs themselves should be re-designed to serve as defense of the Earth from asteroids, a plan known as the Strategic Defense of Earth (SDE). He encouraged everyone to read the book written by Mike Billington, Reflections of an American Political Prisoner—The Repression and Promise of the LaRouche Movement, and referenced that the Chinese character for “crisis” is made up of both the characters for “danger” and “opportunity,” which he also compared to Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s reference to the “coincidence of opposites” from Nicholas of Cusa. He added that this is also coherent with Buddhist teaching. We must take full advantage of the opportunity of the current crisis, he said, to create a “critical mass of consciousness” among the people.

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche closed the meeting, noting that the recently released movie about Robert Oppenheimer was bringing attention to the horror of nuclear weapons, and that the Schiller Institute had prepared a leaflet to distribute to audiences at the film, encouraging them to join the August 6 rallies. She supported the call for scientists to join the movement, but suggested that the letter be addressed to “scientists and artists,” since scientists and artists share the love of the positive vision of mankind’s future. She called for participants to spend the remaining days before August 6 mobilizing everyone, especially youth and the Global South, which is experiencing a revolutionary upsurge, turning against the call to war coming from the NATO countries in favor of peace and development in cooperation with Russia and China, convinced to end the age of colonialism once and for all.


Seventh Weekly Meeting of International Peace Coalition: Humanity Must Overcome Differences To Prevent Nuclear War

If you would like to join in the International Peace Coalition, please contact questions@schillerinstitute.org

July 21, 2023 (EIRNS)—The International Peace Coalition (IPC) held its seventh weekly international meeting on Friday, July 21, with representatives of 17 nations, most of whom reported on the mobilizations taking place in their countries, targeting the August 6 international Day of Action on the anniversary of the genocidal U.S. nuclear destruction of Hiroshima.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, opened the call by emphasizing that the madness of the warmongers at the July 17-18 NATO summit is still escalating towards full-scale war, which will not be stopped until the truth about the cause and the intention is understood by the broad public around the world. The fact that two systems now exist, one based on the unipolar world of Global NATO, and the other based on the BRICS and nearly all of the Global South nations moving to a new system committed to ending colonialism for good.

Zepp-LaRouche held up the case of Germany, where sovereignty is completely lost, where the “rules-based order” (with no one knowing who makes these so-called “rules”) is destroying the economy. Everything that Germans built up after the destruction of World War II is now being destroyed, with businesses fleeing the country in droves—and this despite the fact that 70% of the population think that the government is doing a terrible job. The sovereignty of every country is under attack by the U.S.-U.K.-Global NATO war party—she reminded people that the sovereignty of every country is the first of her “Ten Principles.” We must make August 6 a “clarion call” for a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine. To do that we must live up to the call by Steve Leeper, the former head of the Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation, that organizations worldwide must put aside any differences and unite on August 6 at the UN or elsewhere to stop the war drive.

Reports on organizing efforts came in from around the world:

Nicaragua: Bolívar Téllez Castellón of Nicaragua reported that a committee is being formed to mobilize support for August 6 and beyond, and several of the leaders are making short videos to rally support, which he is sharing with the IPC for worldwide use in Spanish-speaking nations. He noted that the country had been subjected to a fratricidal war for over 20 years, but is now working with Russia and China to achieve real development.

Malaysia: Chandra Muzaffar, founder and director of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), announced that he had sent out the release announcing the August 6 event, and the Steve Leeper letter, to the 20-25,000 strong JUST mailing list. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2023/07/19/open-letter-to-friends-enemies-and-people-who-have-no-idea-who-i-am/] He also reported that he had written to a number of peace organizations in Asia, calling on them to join the IPC. JUST is sponsoring its own event on August 6, which is under discussion as to the format. He said that getting a million people out on the street, either in New York City or worldwide, is a very large target, but a necessary one given that what is at stake is the human race itself. The current danger is the greatest in history—in 1945 only one side had nuclear weapons, now many countries have them, and they are far more deadly than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs. We owe it to history, and to future generations, to succeed in our task. It is “flourish or perish.”

Germany: Jimmy Gerum, who is serving as the press secretary for Humanity For Peace coalition, declared that “every war is started with a lie,” and we must mount massive pressure from individual independent journalists to break through the lies in the mainstream media.

Guatemala: Raul Marroquin, of the Observatory for Human Peace in Guatemala, said he has been associated with Lyndon LaRouche and the Schiller Institute for many years. Now we see that the oligarchs of the world want to see the end of humanity, which we must act to prevent.

France: Karel Vereycken, a leading member of the Schiller Institute in France, described the July 8-9 Schiller Institute Conference in Strasbourg, the first in-person Schiller conference since before the pandemic, where 250 people heard from leading people from Russia, China, India, Africa, Europe, and the U.S. The French Schiller Institute is planning three events: August 6 at Notre Dame; August 9, the anniversary of the Nagasaki bombing, at the offices of UNESCO; and a later date on science, exposing the role of John von Neumann as the person who encouraged President Harry Truman to use the atomic bomb on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Austria: a peace activist described the long-standing pride in Austria that they have maintained their status as a neutral country, opposed to war but advocating active nonviolent neutrality, which is now under enormous pressure from NATO and the NATO-influenced media. He said his associates have held demonstrations for years on August 6 and August 9, and they will again this year as part of the International Day of Action.

Sweden: Ulf Bejerstrand, who started the “Voice of the People” to allow the people to break through the media lies, said that they have 50,000 followers on social media. He said that if the people come together they can defeat the warmongers.

Sweden: Ulf Sandmark, the President of the Schiller Institute in Sweden, said they were planning an event in Stockholm on August 6. He said the collapse of the Black Sea Grain Initiative was a severe blow, orchestrated by NATO and the oligarchs, precisely because it was a small but significant step towards cooperation and peace.

Mexico: Carolina Dominguez of the Schiller Institute in Mexico, described their organizing in support of President John Kennedy’s June 10, 1963 speech seeking for U.S.-U.S.S.R. cooperation for peace and development. She said that the youth in Mexico do not believe the NATO narrative, and that they respect Russia and the BRICS countries. She quoted Mexican hero, President Benito Juárez, who defeated the Habsburg occupation of Mexico, and who insisted that “Respect for the rights of others means peace.” She said the organization had distributed thousands of copies of the “Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from All Over the World to the (Next) President of the United States!” issued by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, calling for a return to the principles of peace advocated by JFK.

United States: Elliot Greenspan, the head of the LaRouche Movement’s Outreach Task Force, described the efforts to bring the “hyphenated-Americans” from Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Guineans, and others, as well as Christian organizations, together for the August 6 demonstrations, further insisting that the differences which certainly exist between these layers must be put aside to prevent a nuclear war. Dennis Speed, a U.S. national leader of the Schiller Institute, said that to get a million people out on the street, as Chandra Muzaffar had indicated, is a difficult but essential task if the genocidalists are to be stopped. He noted that the NATO sabotage of the Black Sea Grain Initiative was yet another case of these Malthusians working to starve millions of people to death, and that JFK’s “Food for Peace” concept is crucial today.

Germany: Barbara Spahn, Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität (BüSo), reported about a coalition of small parties that has already held 2 peace rallies in Frankfurt. For August 5, another rally is planned, where, among others, Bundeswehr colonel (ret.) Florian Pfaff, will speak.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche closed the meeting, praising the progress made thus far in the IPC, but insisting that it must grow faster to reach the goal. Each member must take the responsibility to reach out to other organizations—peace, religious, democracy and other groups—to join the movement. She encouraged the use of the video by scientist Steven Starr on the devastation of a nuclear war, and also promoted reading Friedrich Schiller on how to “bend the tyrant’s arm.”

Attendance IPC#7:
Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), founder and leader, Schiller Institute
President Donald Ramotar (Guyana), Former President of Guyana
Chandra Muzaffar (Malaysia) JUST International/SHAPE
Abdoulaye Balde (US), Guinean and American League of Friends for Freedom
Oliver Boyd-Barrett (US), Professor Emeritus, Bowling Green State University, Ohio
Dr. Balkrishna Kurvey (India) President of the Indian Institute for Peace, Disarmament and Environmental Protection
Barbara Spahn (Germany), BüSo Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität
Mamadou Dathe Diallo (USA/Guinea) Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom
Beatriz Solórzano León (Guatemala), Lawyer, Parliamentary Technician
Bernie Holland (UK) No2NATO
Fr. Robert Cushing (U.S.), Association of US Catholic Priests (AUSCP), Pax Christi GA, former priest
Bolívar Téllez Castellón (Nicaragua), Lawyer and university professor
Carolina Domìnguez Cisneros (Mexico) 
Raul Marroquin (Guatemala)
Peter Weish (Austria)
Verena Konig (Austria)
Udo Leibmann (Poland) United for Freedom
Boubacar Sidy (US/Guinea)
Ilker Özyavuz (Germany) Team Todenhöfer
Hondo Tonumaa (Estonia)
Martin Schotz, (US) author, “History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy”
Ruben Dario Guzzetti (Argentina), Argentine Institute of Geopolitical Studies (IADEG)
Christine Bierre (France), Solidarity and Progress
Fr. Harry Bury (US), Archdiocese of Saint Paul in Minneapolis, MN
Jacques Cheminade (France), head of Solidarity and Progress
Jimmy Gerum (Germany), Lighthouse Media
Juan Carrero (Spain), President, S’Olivar Foundation
Juan Gómez (Chile)
Martha Rollins (US/Costa Rica) Int’l Peace Delegations: Ibero America, Columbia, Cuba and Palestine
Ulf Bejerstand (Sweden), Party leader, Musician
Liz Augustat (Germany), Peace Through Culture
Simon Miller (US) LaRouche Youth Movement
Robert Castle (US) LaRouche Youth Movement
Karen Ball (US) Pax Christi – Texas
Mike Billington (US) Executive Intelligence Review Magazine
Muhammad Selim Akhtar (U.S.) Muslim Alliance
Ulf Sandmark (Sweden), President Schiller Institute, Sweden
Wolfgang Lieberknecht (Germany) Internationale Friedens Fabrik Wanfried
Meshack Maxongo (South Africa)
Marianne Liljeholt (Sweden), Party Board member, Freedom Movement
Joyce Hall (US) Pax Christi
David Andersson, (US) Coordinator of NYC bureau for Pressenza Press Agency and hosts a talk-show, Face 2 Face, broadcast on Youtube and Facebook
Jurgen Wolf (Scotland), No2NATO UK, Workers Party BG
Mark Rolofson (US) 
Chris Fogarty (US/Ireland), Irish American Leader
Fredrick Weiss (US) Classical musician
Ronald Betag (US) Schiller Institute, Texas
Dennis Small (US), Schiller Institute, Virginia
Dennis Speed (US), Schiller Institute, New Jersey
Diane Sare, (US) U.S. Senate Candidate, New York
Jose Vega, (US) Interventionist, Organizer Schiller Institute
Anastasia Battle (US) Organizer, Interventionist and Editor-in-Chief, Leonore Magazine

**Affiliations for identification purposes only


International Forum: Risks of the West’s “China Strategy”?

Speakers include

  • Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the International Schiller Institute, Germany
  • Zhang Jun, Dean of the School of Economics at Fudan University in Shanghai, China
  • Charles Liu, Senior Fellow of the Taihe Institute, China
  • Ole Döring, Professor at Foreign Language Studies College of Hunan Normal University

In the current geopolitical environment, Western leaders are moving away from referring to
China as a “partner” and emphasizing China more as a “rival”.
For example, the EU Commission recently promoted “de-risking” to reduce Europe’s alleged
dependence on China in certain economic sectors. The United States “decoupling” strategy
seeks to cut China off from technology supply chains. And the German government has declared
China a security risk and is working on a plan to impose import and export controls, investment
barriers and other sanctions on China.

China, on the other hand, emphasizes that if countries want to reduce risk, they should trade
more with China. What are the options and potentials of both views?
Western sanctions against Russian energy commodities and goods have already shown the
opposite effect and have largely backfired on Europe. Will Western leaders learn from this failure
and prevent another serious miscalculation?

In reality, China is the world’s most important market and production center, and its Belt and Road
Initiative is bringing infrastructure development to the majority of countries in need. Will the West
reflect on this fact and create a new paradigm of peaceful win-win cooperation?
Since the mainstream Western “narrative” leaves no space for such a debate, we want to provide
a platform for a broad alliance of international thinkers, entrepreneurs, and policy strategists to
have a public conversation.


Appeal to Religious Leaders of the World

Helga Zepp-LaRouche appeals to religious leaders of the world to join with Pope Francis, who has offered the Vatican as a venue for unconditional negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Mobilize your community for peace now because this is a crisis that tests our ability to survive.

Sign the “Open Letter to Pope Francis From Political and Social Leaders: We Support Your Call for Immediate Peace Negotiations”


The Present Danger of Nuclear War Confirms what We Have Said: There Is No Peace Without Development

Helga Zepp-LaRouche issued a direct challenge to viewers today, that they join the discussion process underway around what she presented as 10 Principles of a new security and development architecture as a matter of utmost urgency.  There is a “daily escalation” of the war danger, she said, citing Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova, who said the war in Ukraine is now a war “between NATO and Russia.”   

Most people are not getting that this is the real picture.  The process around our mobilization is “exploding”, she said, as increasing numbers of officials have become fearful that world war looms, unless there is a serious effort to end the NATO escalation against Russia.  In her presentation in the November 22 SI conference, she showed why “pragmatic solutions” cannot work, and that it is necessary to go to a higher level, exemplified by Nicholas of Cusa’s “Coincidence of Opposites”.  This means returning to the ideas of the Peace of Westphalia, in which sovereign nations act on the basis of recognition of the legitimate interests of the other — which means not just the absence of war, but the eradication of poverty.
In her concluding remarks, she said, the issue is defining principles under which we can “govern ourselves” — let’s debate this,” insisting that it is not only necessary to approach the problem on this higher level, but possible.


[[File:Aleksandr Novak, 2012.jpeg|Aleksandr_Novak,_2012]]

Russia to Increase the Share of Nuclear Power in Its Grid

Dec. 14, 2022 (EIRNS)–Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandr Novak said Russia will increase the share of nuclear power in its grid from 20% to 25% by 2040. In an article for the Energy Policy magazine on Tuesday, reported by RT, “Novak wrote that the growing trend of expanding the use of civilian nuclear energy can provide a powerful impetus to further improve the industry in Russia and build up its export potential. `Russia is already a leader in the global nuclear industry, possessing colossal technological and scientific potential in this area,’ Novak wrote.”

Novak said that nuclear is currently 20% of Russia’s total energy mix, “whereas in the European part [of Russia] it is almost 40%, this being the biggest source of clean energy in the country.” He also said that Russia’s share in the global market of low-power nuclear reactors would reach 20% by 2030.


Biden’s Fusion Breakthrough Brag Comes from a Nuclear Weapons Program

Dec. 14 (EIRNS) — The Dec. 5 experimental result at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility (NIF) raises the issue of the fourth of Lyndon LaRouche’s four laws, and his Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF)’s approach to the most important scientific frontiers.

The result reported in an Energy Department/National Nuclear Security Agency press conference Dec. 13, followed by a technical panel of NIF team leaders, was an ignited plasma fuel with an output power gain of 50% over the input laser power–not 20% as had been reported in media leaks Dec. 12. This was a very large improvement over the August 2021 shot, which was a {huge} (25x) improvement over any previous experiments there. Moreover, Dec. 5 was the first net gain in the worldwide history of fusion power R&D.

The energetics of the experiment – which also make clear fusion energy will not be commercialized with this kind of set-up – were given as: “wall outlet power” for the laser array, 300 megajoules; laser input power delivered to the target fuel, 2.05 megajoules; output from ignited fuel, 3.15 megajoules. All in part of a nanosecond. (Note extremely low 0.6% power efficiency of the laser array.)

The key innovation which has probably advanced the NIF experiments of the past two years more than any other – namely, the use of an electric coil to surround the laser-imploded fuel pellet {with a strong magnetic field as it explodes} – was never mentioned by any director or team leader in the 75-minute presentation of the results. This, despite a {Physical Review Letters} article on just that subject published Nov. 4, 2022. The lead author and the innovation’s originator, John Moody, wrote, “The application of an external 26 Tesla axial magnetic field to a D2 gas-filled capsule indirectly driven on the National Ignition Facility is observed to increase the ion temperature by 40% and the neutron yield by a factor of 3.2 in a hot spot with areal density and temperature approaching what is required for fusion ignition.” This was written {before} the Dec. 5 experiment’s much better result.

Why did no one mention this? Perhaps it is irrelevant to the reason for existence of this ICF program at Livermore: To analyze U.S. nuclear warhead performance without nuclear weapons tests. The program will get $641 million in the Fiscal 2023 NDAA –by Chuck Schumer’s efforts according to him–while most fusion R&D now depends on private funds.

If a serious national fusion energy development program were launched, this successful step in “hybridization” of magnetic and inertial confinement fusion would be of great importance. (One might say the idea is “as old as the FEF,” or older.) But apparently not, if improving U.S. warheads for possible nuclear exchanges with other powers is the reason for the United States government funding fusion research.

Other institutions involved in the NIF work at LLNL are: DoE’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and Nevada National Security Site; General Atomics; academic institutions including the University of Rochester’s Laboratory for Laser Energetics, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of California, Berkeley, and Princeton University; international partners including the UK’s Atomic Weapons Establishment and the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche on China Plus ‘World Today’ Program on Scholz’s Beijing Visit

The transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s participation in the panel interview, ‘What’s the Outlook for China’s Foreign Policy in the Next Five Years?’ on Nov. 4, 2022 follows:

China’s diplomatic efforts are in full swing, with the first round of visits by foreign leaders since the conclusion of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to China, as the first EU leader since the start of the pandemic, follows that of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan. What does it say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress? Host Ge Anna is joined by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder of the Schiller Institute; Dr. Rong Ying, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow, China Institute of International Studies; Hamzah Rifaat Hussain, News Anchor, Indus News, Islamabad, Pakistan.

GE ANNA: China’s diplomatic efforts are in full swing with the first round of visits of foreign leaders since the conclusion of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. What does it say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress? Welcome to World Today, the panel discussion with Ge Anna. We come to you from our studio in Beijing with a different perspective.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Beijing, noting the complex international landscape, the Chinese President underscored the need for China and Germany—two major countries with significant influence—to work together in times of change and instability and contribute more to global peace and development. Scholz’s visit to China as the first European leader after the 20th CPC National Congress follows that of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan.

So, what does China’s intensive diplomatic efforts say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress, as China strives to translate its visions into reality? What can the rest of the world’s developed countries and developing ones alike expect from the rapid growth in the country?

To delve into this and more, let’s have: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank; Dr. Rong Ying, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow, China Institute of International Studies; Hamzah Rifaat Hussain, News Anchor from Indus News, Islamabad, Pakistan. Thanks for joining us today.

Zepp-LaRouche, the just-concluded 20th National Congress of the CPC has laid out a new blueprint for China’s future development, including shaping the trajectory of its engagement with the world. So, with such a background, what messages are being sent by China’s active diplomacy this week, shortly following the Party Congress?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this constitutes a major new initiative towards harmonic development in the world. I think this is a very important step, because the world is in deep trouble. We have incredible challenges as President Xi Jinping has always emphasized; challenges which have not been seen since 100 years. We face the danger of nuclear war; we have out-of-control inflation in many of the countries of the trans-Atlantic sector. I think what China is bringing into this world is a completely different approach. I think the potential of the combination of the Belt and Road Initiative, the global development initiative, and the global security initiative, are all conceptions which can bring a completely different paradigm into the world situation.

[Ge asks other guests questions.]

GE ANNA: Speaking of the purpose and objectives of China’s foreign policy, that is, to maintain world peace, promote common development, and a view to a community with a shared future for mankind, Helga, how do you read these objectives of China’s foreign policy? Especially when many believe we are living in a world where forces are keen to draw ideological lines and provoke confrontation between camps?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think this idea of a community with a shared future of mankind is very important, because it should remind people that we are sitting in one boat. And especially in times when the danger of a global nuclear war is on the horizon, I think it is a very useful concept to remind people that if it ever would come to that, nobody would survive such a war. And at the same time, it’s also a forward looking conception for the New Paradigm, because I think we have reached an epochal change in the history of mankind where we have to overcome geopolitical thinking. Geopolitical thinking was the cause for two world wars in the 20th Century, and if we continue to think in terms of blocs, this can go awfully wrong. So, the idea of the shared community of the future of mankind is the idea that we have to think about the one humanity first; that there can be no national interest, or the interest of a group of nations which would be in contradiction to the one humanity. I think this is a very important concept, and I think it would be very good if the Western countries would not just push it aside, but recognize that this is a philosophical idea which does give a concept for how we can build a future where all of humanity can prosper and survive.

[Ge asks other guests questions.]

GE ANNA: Helga, what’s your take? How do you look at the centrality accusation against China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think if you go away from the words and actually look at the substance, behind all of this is the fact that the Western countries have pursued the neo-liberal model of economy and that is collapsing right now. I would even say that we are in the final phase of a hyperinflationary blow-out of the trans-Atlantic system. Because of that, they look at the rise of China as a systemic threat.

China is doing nothing to give a reason to be regarded as a threat, but I think it’s the idea that only if you contain the rise of China, if you decouple from Russia, from China, that you can somehow maintain what they call the “rules-based order.” Now, what this rules-based order is, nobody knows exactly. It’s also not so clear who is making these rules. We have the UN Charter, which should be the standard for international law, but I think the idea that China should be a systemic rival is not what the majority of the world population thinks. I think more than 150 countries that are cooperating with China in the Belt and Road Initiative do not see China as a systemic rival, but they see China as the country which helps them to overcome the relics of colonialism and poverty and under-development.

So, I think it’s really a tragedy that the Western media are so absolutely unified—the German word is Gleichschaltung—that they don’t allow anymore any truthful coverage. Because if the people of Europe and the United States would know the reality of what enormous progress China has made, they would not believe the story about systemic rivalry, because China has said many times that there is absolute room for everybody. Xi Jinping has made many times offers, especially to the United States, saying that there is a new concept of great power relationships; that the two strongest economies of the world must cooperate. I think the idea of finding a win-win cooperation remains the only way how we will get out of these many calamities in which the world is right now.

GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, another question based on what you were just talking about, because China has repeatedly stated that it will never accept any zero-sum game, or the law of the jungle. But many experts believe this is a challenge to Western values. How do you look at such accusations?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: What is behind that, is that since about 2017, especially the British, but also the U.S. National Security papers, the National Security doctrines, started to characterize China as a systemic rival, as a competitor, and even harsher words. In a certain sense, China pursues a policy of harmonious development. I have not found—and I’m really a critical observer of politics—I have not seen any country of the developing sector, of the Global South, that would complain that they have been coerced by China. These accusations only come from the Western media. I think China has, on the other side, learned the lesson from its long history; from the century of humiliation, the enormous struggles of the 20th century. Now that China is finally strong enough to not have to put … [show goes to break while Zepp-LaRouche is still speaking].

GE ANNA: Let’s move on to the most recent visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This is the first visit by a leader of a European Union country since the start of the pandemic, and the first visit by Scholz since he took office as Chancellor of Germany. This trip also attracted much attention from the media. Zepp-LaRouche, what do you think makes this meeting so significant to China and Germany in particular?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is extremely important, because it brings together the second- and fourth-largest economies of the world. Obviously, their collaboration is extremely important to solve any problem in the world. It is also very noteworthy because Scholz did this trip despite enormous pressure to not have a good relationship with China. He’s being pressured enormously from the U.S., from the British, and the Atlanticists inside Germany. As a matter of fact, the German Foreign Minister Baerbock, she is completely unreasonable in relationship to China. Therefore, I think it’s very important that Scholz does this, especially as the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and Germany has just occurred last month. Obviously, with the enormous rise of China, Germany has profited enormously, a lot of the living standard in Germany was also supported by the strong integration of the two economies. So, I think it is extremely important, and I’m actually happy, because I hope that this will be a signal for all the other European countries, and it will be a sign of at least a little demonstration of sovereignty on the side of Germany.

GE ANNA: But the German-based media has been bombarded for days with commentary on whether Scholz’s visit to China is showing weakness to Beijing, or is buying time for Germany to wean itself off its dependence on China. What’s your reflection on their perspective? What’s the meaning, in your opinion, of Scholz’s trip to China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Scholz just wrote a longer piece in the German newspaper FAZ, where he says he wants to reduce the dependencies on certain supply chains. That makes sense, because as we have seen in the pandemic, if you don’t have a certain security in terms of essential goods, this can be devastating in times of crisis. But that is different than to say that Germany should decouple. If Germany would decouple right now, because of Atlanticist pressure the relationship with Russia has already been completely ended. Right now, there is no relationship between Russia and Germany anymore. These are the words of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think if Germany would give in to this pressure, and also decouple from China, that would be the end of Germany as an industrial nation. We will look for an enormously difficult period in the coming fall and winter. The energy prices, the food prices, the inflation; we are looking at the potential de-industrialization of Germany. Many leaders of German industry have said that very clearly.

So, I think for Germany, the relationship with China must absolutely be a cornerstone of the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. But I’m optimistic that the industry leaders who are accompanying Scholz on this trip have said very clearly that they see the future of the German economy being very closely tied to that of China.

But it will be a battle, because I expect that the pressure is coming from the U.S. and Great Britain, so it will be a question of whether Germany can assert its sovereignty and its own interests. Hopefully that will happen, and then the future is bright. I have said many times that the fact that there is now a new economic system developing between the countries of the Global South, the BRICS, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union—these countries are all building a new economic system. It would be in the fundamental interest for Germany, which is an export nation, to cooperate. Hopefully if Germany goes in this direction, many other European countries will see the benefit for themselves as well.

[Ge asks other guests questions.]

GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, besides differences between China and Germany, both China and Germany are actually the beneficiaries of globalization, and are striving for a more just international order with less political gains, sanctions, and confrontations. Do you think both sides do have the same vision in these turbulent times, as Dr. Rong suggested? In what areas can China’s and Germany’s cooperation and communication better insure multilateralism in the world?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously, when you think small-minded, then you think that the world is only made up of competitors. But if you think creatively, and you think that scientific and technological progress are what make the economy progress, which was the philosophy of Germany for a very long time, and it is now the philosophy of China with the continuous application of innovation. If those two countries would join their creative efforts in discovery of new fundamental physical principles, scientific and technological progress, and they would cooperate, they could become so strong as a locomotive of the world economy.

For example, if Germany and China would cooperate in the area of artificial intelligence, digitalization, manned space flight, it would open up a whole array of new technologies; real fundamental breakthroughs as they go along with space science and space travel. It would really be a complete science driver for the whole world. So, hopefully, those elements of the German economy which are still in the traditional German sense and have not been infected by the Green delirium as Vaclav Klaus, the former President of Czechia, was calling it, then these two countries could cooperate tremendously to the benefit of the whole world. Because the industrial capacity of the entire world economy presently is below that which is needed to create enough food and development for all countries. That is the reason we have world famine and lack of clean water and all of these problems.

I think philosophically we must go back to the spirit of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was a philosopher in the 17th and 18th centuries, who in 1697 wrote the beautiful Novissima Sinica, What Is New from China. He was at that time advertising that Germany and all of Europe should cooperate with China, to reach out and touch their hands and develop all the countries on the planet. I think that would be the joint mission for China and Germany to adopt in the best tradition of the Leibnizian outlook, which was the most advanced philosophical conception Germany had.

[Ge asks other guests questions.]

GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, what’s your reflection on China’s emphasis on neighboring diplomacy as a top priority of these foreign relations?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the success of that outlook is pretty obvious, because, for example, when you look at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which was founded in the beginning of this year, this has now become the largest free-trade zone in the world. In ASEAN you have a similar very good cooperation. And all the other economic and political alliances, partnerships China has, the BRICS, for example—that’s not all neighbors, but nevertheless—the SCO, all of these are examples of extremely well-functioning relationships among China and its neighbors. I think the success of that is seen by the fact that the economic dynamics in the world have clearly shifted to Asia. I think the Asian economic cooperation, not only China, but many other Asian countries, has become really the motor of the world economy. I think this is very important for the future, because we are in a transition form. It’s very clear that the old system of geopolitical control and bloc-building, this will not be suitable for the future, and a new model for cooperation has to be found. And I think what China has done in making these new kinds of diplomatic relations, that can actually be a role model for many parts of the world based on sovereignty, non-interference, acceptance of a different social model. All of these are ideas which would be very useful for other countries to study.


Sabotage under Cover of Fog, By Lt.Col Ralph Bosshard

Ralph Bosshard, a retired Swiss lieutenant colonel, served in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission (OSCE SMM) in 2014, where he was a senior planning officer. His duties took him to Kiev, Mariupol, and Dnepropetrovsk, among other places. Until 2017, he served as a special military advisor to the Swiss Permanent Representative to the OSCE and the Swiss Ambassador in Kyiv. From 2017 to 2020, he served as an operations officer in the OSCE High-Level Planning Group, which planned a military peacekeeping operation in the South Caucasus. He kindly provided EIR with his assessment on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. In doing so, he points to the physical realities of conducting such an operation, and then points out the resulting, devastating paradox: When NATO countries blame Russia for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, they are telling the world that Russia has seabed warfare capabilities far superior to those of NATO! Still he considers that “a Western authorship is much more plausible than a Russian”.

The copyright is held by the author and the full article cannot be published without his permission.

Examination of the feasibility of an act of sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 natural gas pipelines off Bornholm confirms that a Western authorship is considerably more plausible than Russian. Nevertheless, stories about a Russian false-flag operation continue to circulate in Western media. This does not seem credible. However, if the Russians were in fact responsible for the destruction of Nord Stream 1 and 2, that should give rise to the greatest concern in Western capitals.

It has been bandied about, among other things, that the Russians had already mined the gas pipelines during the construction phase, to be able to then destroy them at any time. Apart from the lack of logic of such an event, there are some technical arguments against it.

A first counterargument is that explosives age chemically. This aging process causes explosives to decompose over the years to such an extent that an explosion is no longer guaranteedi. But the opposite can also occur: stockpiled explosives can explode years later due to the slightest environmental changes. In planning the destruction of underwater pipelines that have a life span of 50 years, this may well be a problem. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE, in its so-called stockpile management projects, has accumulated much experience with stockpiled ammunition, which can explode at the slightest incident and is accordingly dangerous to handle. In armed forces that are experienced in dealing with permanent blast sites, such as the German Armed Forces, the Austrian Armed Forces and the Swiss Armed Forces, the maintenance of such blast sites was ensured by professional formations, such as the Wallmeister organization or the Fortress Guard Corps. An explosive charge attached to a pipeline already under construction would require regular maintenance, including replacement of the explosive if necessary. This can be complex.

Control and maintenance of pipelines underground is handled by so-called “pigs”ii. These are autonomous devices that travel back and forth inside the pipes and monitor the condition of the pipe with various measuring devices. However, the deployment of a so-called pig several hundred kilometers away from where it was inserted is a technical challenge that should not be underestimated. But if such a maintenance pig inserted an explosive charge in the Nord Stream pipelines from the inside, the damage pattern would reveal that immediately. However, whether a truly independent investigation of the sabotage act will ever take place is very much up in the air.

Another technical challenge involves the detonation of an explosive charge in a place so difficult to access as underwater pipelines, because the detonators (blasting caps) also undergo aging processes, so that they no longer function reliably years after they were produced. An electrical ignition cable several hundred kilometers long would also require regular inspection and maintenance. The idea that a pipeline could be destroyed decades after it was built, from a blast site several hundred kilometers away, by hitting a button so to speak, is naïve.

On the Ground Saboteurs

It would be significantly safer to produce the electricity required to detonate an electric detonator at a safe distance from the blasting site with a blasting machine, for example by means of a hand crank. For this, an electric detonator would have to be put into the explosive at a prepared location beforehand and connected to the blasting machine with a cable. This also requires the physical presence of the saboteurs on site.

The variant of remote detonation by a radio transmitter or a cell phone would, of course, also have to be considered. However, in the cold water at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, the required accumulators and batteries discharge quickly. And electromagnetic waves do not penetrate deep enough into the waters. Submariners are aware of reachability problems of submerged submarines, and even the long waves used for submarine communications do not penetrate to depths of 70m and more. For this variant, a relay would have had to be set up near the scene of the crime before the sabotage operation, to ensure the connection between the trigger and the detonation site.

All these considerations suggest that the acts of sabotage at the two gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and 2 were carried out on site. Given the distance between the crime scenes, the same group of persons could conceivably be responsible for both acts of sabotage. However, the shortest connection between the two locations crosses a Danish Navy maritime training area. The physical presence of a ship, a submarine or a submarine drone is much easier to ensure from NATO territory than from the Russian Navy bases in Kaliningrad oblast, 300 km away. If, however, the Russian Navy did manage to overcome all these technical and tactical obstacles and to approach the scene of the crime undetected, then carry out extensive preparatory work there, trigger the detonation and depart again undetected, this would be quite an accomplishment, which should set off alarm bells in Western capitals.

Deployment of submarines and submarine drones

All these problems can be avoided if one simply places a large explosive charge weighing a few hundred kilograms on the pipeline from a submarine or a submarine drone. Transporting such a charge undetected through 300 km of NATO-controlled waters, however, is not that easy. If the Russians had succeeded to do that, then virtually every underwater infrastructure of NATO countries would be jeopardized, including the gas pipeline “Baltic Pipe”iii that just opened a few days ago, as well as all underwater communication cables, as well as numerous electricity lines.

Map: Sumarine Cables around Europe
Source: submarine cable map, https://www.submarinecablemap.com/.

 

This would also drastically change the image of the allegedly incompetent Russian armed forces, which Western sources have amply spread in recent months, and at the same time cast a negative light on the naval forces of the NATO countries and candidate countries involved. It is possible that Seabed Warfare has now arrived in Europe, and the question arises as to whether we are on the eve of an unprecedented wave of sabotage targeting the undersea infrastructure on Europe’s periphery, that cuts the continent off from gas and telecommunications. If that occurs, in the West’s war against Russia, events on the front lines in eastern Ukraine will suddenly be irrelevant.

Bottom line

Anyone who objectively examines the feasibility of an act of sabotage against the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines off Bornholm must come to acknowledge that Western authorship is considerably more plausible than Russian authorship. If, however, the USA, Denmark, Poland and perhaps other NATO allies were responsible, Germany in particular would have to draw the consequences.

One may now ask what the purpose is of the speculation and conspiracy theories circulating in Western media in recent days around the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines. The aim may simply be to surround in fog the obvious and most plausible version of a U.S. authorship. In the future, one would do well to consider Western communications with a certain degree of skepticism.


iThe author experienced this himself in destroying unexploded ordnances.

iiSee Andree Büchner, Harry Hauck, Hans Langenhagen, Jörg Voigtlände: Inspektionsmolch für Pipelines, Jahresbericht 1996 Zentralabteilung Forschungs- und Informationstechnik, Abridged version, online at https://www.hzdr.de/FZD/TT/Molch.pdf. See home pages of commercial suppliers in the branch, eg. Cryotainer, online at https://www.cryotainer.com/de/dienstleistungen/molchen-von-rohrleitungen and ARS Betriebsservice, https://ars-bs.com/leistungsspektrum/pipelineservice-betriebsfuehrung/molchung/durchfuehrung-von-reinigungs-und-entleerungsmolchungen.

iiiSee the die entsprechende Mitteilung der Europäischen Kommission unter https://germany.representation.ec.europa.eu/news/gas-von-norwegen-nach-polen-eu-geforderte-baltic-pipe-eroffnet-2022-09-27_de.


Lt. Col. (ret.) Ralph Bosshard’s first article “Sabotage of the Nord Stream Pipelines: For Once, the Question ‘Cui Bono?’ Is Not Sufficient” appears in EIR magazine.


Page 7 of 18First...678...Last