Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Mary Jane Freeman

Author Archives

Franco-Chinese Cooperation for Peace: The Example of Nuclear Power

Hervé Machenaud – Mr. Machenaud is former Executive Director of the EDF Group (for engineering and electricity generation) and former Director of the Asia-Pacific Branch, France.

Mr. Ambassador, Madame President, Chairmen, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear Friends,

I am particularly pleased and grateful to have been invited by the Schiller Institute to speak about what I believe, in all objectivity, to be one of, or perhaps even the finest cooperation project in international industrial history.

I’m talking about cooperation between France and China in the field of civil nuclear power.

In the early 1980s, France was chosen by China to help her launch its nuclear program. The contract signed in 1986 for the construction of the Daya Bay power plant was a pact of trust between France and China, between EDF and GNPJVC, the Guangdong Nuclear Corporation created for the purpose.

A pact of trust because, in addition to training dozens of Chinese engineers who have come to France to work in EDF power plants, China asked EDF to manage the project and guarantee its successful completion. I’m proud to have been the Chinese company’s first Technical Manager.

A pact of trust, because very quickly, the hundred or so highly-qualified Chinese engineers in charge of observing, monitoring and questioning our practices were, at their request, integrated into EDF’s engineering teams. We are no longer under surveillance, but partners, a truly integrated team.

A pact of trust, because when EDF studies the upgrading, after ten years of operation of the Gravelines power plant, the Daya-bay reference, it offers without hesitation to make available to GNPJVC the 110 modifications, the invaluable fruit of know-how acquired over hundreds of years[PU1]  of feedback. China will appreciate this gesture.

As a further act of trust, shortly before Daya Bay was commissioned, GNPJVC asked EDF to take responsibility for the first few years of operation. EDF then sent some sixty operators to start up the plant and train the Chinese teams, who within a few years would be taking the reins of their plant.

In 1995, just as Daya Bay was coming on stream, CGNPC commissioned a second plant based on the same French model, on the same site. EDF will provide technical assistance and French companies will act as suppliers, but Ling Ao will be a Chinese power plant, built under Chinese responsibility by Chinese companies. China has acquired its autonomy in this area.

This will not prevent close cooperation between French and Chinese operators: exchanges of experience, spare parts, support in the event of incidents… Daya Bay and Ling Ao take part in performance competitions for French power plants, often winning first prize. This cooperation continues today between the operators of the 56 French reactors and the 36 Chinese reactors of the same technology.

In 2007, CGN invited France to build two EPR reactors on the Taishan site, and EDF to invest alongside it. This agreement, unique in China’s history, was signed for the plant’s fifty-year lifetime.

The next step, in 2013, will be CGN’s commitment to EDF to build and operate two EPRs at Hinkley Point in the UK, with the prospect of building two more at Sizewell and two HPRs, the Chinese Hualong model, at Bradwell.

This cooperation is set to last a century.

The partnership between France and China culminated in Premier Li Keqiang’s trip to France at the end of June 2015.The joint declaration on deepening Franco-Chinese cooperation on civil nuclear energy was made public on the occasion of his visit. It provides for comprehensive cooperation “from mining to reprocessing,” in all areas of operation, the design of new medium- and high-power reactors, their construction in China, France and third countries, the association of industrialists from both countries and the construction of a reprocessing plant in China. All French companies, starting with AREVA and Alstom, and the hundred or so members of the Partenariat France Chine Electricité (PFCE) association, are involved in this agreement, which opens up immense prospects.

Confidence is at its zenith.

The industrial alliance between France, which has the world’s most extensive operating experience, and China, which is going to build the biggest nuclear program in history, is an asset for both countries, and beyond, for the safety and progress of nuclear power worldwide.

This historic partnership is the fruit of the work of men and women who have put their faith in projects to be built together, and have given each other their trust. Today, they are tied by bonds of friendship.

In a field as strategic as nuclear energy, such a partnership is a cornerstone for building cooperation and peace between peoples and nations.

And if today, this cooperation has weakened somewhat under the effect of various negative influences, let us hope that it is revived. Its foundations remain intact, and it is certainly not only in the mutual interest of our two countries, but also a contribution to progress and peace in the world.

Planning for Integration, Cooperation and Growth with the BRICS: Missteps and Risks

Julio Miguel De Vido – Mr. De Vido is former Minister of Federal Planning, Public Investment and Services (2003-2015), Argentina.

I would like to begin this presentation, which I titled “Planning for Integration, Cooperation and Growth with the BRICS: Missteps and Risks,” by first thanking the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Dennis Small for the honor of being invited to this conference.

I have been able to reflect on the working paper by Dennis Small and Mary Jane Freeman entitled “Some LaRouche Essentials for the Transition to a New International Financial System.” Here is my contribution to that reflection:

The disappearance of the global financial system as we know it today, depends on the success of the BRICS, conceived of as the possibility of putting together a platform for intercontinental integration of economies that paradoxically have, as an advantage, large natural resource reserves and a determining role in the global supply chain (energy, food, water and biodiversity); and, as a disadvantage, that they bring together very powerful real or potential economies, but very unequal ones. A simple review of the social landscape of many of these countries provides the evidence of these asymmetries.

Therefore, my view is that, in addition to the agenda of speaking honestly and taking a stand about the war between Ukraine and Russia, and the agenda of domination itself that perpetuates dependence on the world financial system (thanks to organizations such as NATO), it is necessary to build that platform for integration which is the BRICS with an eye to and respecting the sovereign views of those countries, connecting their willingness to cooperate, to trade ties and definitions in foreign policy issues that go along with it.

The situation today is one of a “delicate balance.”

There are many of us who agree with the need for a new way of participating in the institutions of global governance, especially among the countries that share a common history of struggle against imperialism, colonialism, exploitation and underdevelopment. But there are many missteps and risks, if the foreign policy and the insertion strategies are not clear in their characterization and are erratic. In addition, the agreements and commitments to represent the so-called “Global South” must be balanced and firm within each of the countries—those that today make up the BRICS and those, like Argentina, that seek to join that bloc.

The historical moment and the context should encourage us today.

Dennis Small writes that “The only way the Argentina-Brazil-BRICS vs. IMF conundrum will be solved, is by getting China’s Belt and Road Initiative actively underway in the region—to put ‘shovels in the ground’ and start building the long-awaited bi-oceanic rail corridor(s) across the continent, in particular, based on multi-billion non-dollar credit lines.”

I would like to recall here that Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela—led at that time by Néstor Kirchner, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva, Rafael Correa, Nicanor Duarte Frutos, Tabaré Vázquez and Hugo Chávez, respectively – we signed in 2007 the Founding Charter of the Bank of the South, guided by the purpose of developing, promoting and fostering the economic and social integration of the member nations of UNASUR (Union of South American Nations).

The process of creating this Bank of the South was part of the joint commitment to create a new regional financial architecture. It was a way to prevent national savings from flowing to more developed economies, instead of being invested in regional projects. In a way, it was for us a first step to get out of the financial and trade globalization of the time, and to be able to revitalize investment, correct asymmetries, and develop integrating infrastructure. In short: the goal was to mitigate the foreign vulnerability of our region.

Unfortunately, we recognize it today as a failed experience of the UNASUR regional block. The non-collaborative technical-administrative superstructures during the first years of UNASUR’s life, with their procrastination, opened the door to a reconfiguration of forces that, by 2011, had an impact on the integration process and, of course, on the project of the Bank, as a result of the political changes in the region.

The effort and political will of many of us with experience in government administration, to break the U.S.’s hegemony and enter fully into multilateralism and into a change in the International Order, has to aim at:

First – Define what we mean by the Global South. I find it necessary to characterize the subject. Today we know the potential of the G7, with low representation in terms of world population (10%) and an economic size of 31% of world GDP. We know the potential of the BRICS, with high population representation (40% of the world’s population) and an economic size of 24% (in terms of world GDP). The open question is to estimate its geopolitical weight in order to establish joint positions regarding world political and economic functioning, to counterbalance a G7 that today includes industrialized countries, with a BRICS composed of countries that appear to be in political and economic crisis as a result of submission to the “prescriptions” of the multilateral credit institutions.

Second – Urgently address the shared vulnerabilities of the economies of the Global South. We have seen that the assessment of the so-called Agenda 2030 in these countries, which the U.N. imposed as part of the world order, is that it was a failure. I am talking about poverty, inequality, climate change. As presented in the Agenda, “sustainable development” went over the top. As a result, and by way of example: extractivism, as a fundamental tool for the concentration of wealth that limits development, and also for the export of natural resources, which in my country is a way of obtaining dollars to pay the debt to the IMF, are clearly very dangerous ways of acting in disregard of sustainable development (environmental and social).

This recognition of the reality within countries should be the platform from which the BRICS work for the global economic recovery which we seek to lead from there, to position these emerging economies on the path of development and self-sufficiency, which, along with the type of proposals being analyzed in this forum, will allow us to define a New World Order.

One such proposal, to quote Small and Freeman when they pose the need for a new currency: “Productive credit must be issued in that new currency to finance great development projects, with a heavy emphasis on science and advanced technologies, in and among participating nations, to quickly boost the physical economies and thereby provide the only possible solid backing for the value and stability of the new currency.”

In that light, we must bring a new international order into being that is truly inclusive, equitable, fair and sustainable, one that allows for reforms to be agreed upon and planned in the areas of energy, transportation, and infrastructure; as well as the greatest possible investment from the BRICS in the economies of its partner nations to allow for the growth of local industry in each of them, as well as the real improvement in the indicators of the Agenda 2030 guidelines and an ongoing improvement in foreign trade and market access.

In the short term, the BRICS platform must help member countries resolve their debts with multilateral credit institutions, supporting the growth of each of them, the creation of genuine employment, and the improvement in the living conditions of their inhabitants; and over the long term, establish new financing mechanisms outside those institutions and the mandates of the United States and its allies.

My understanding is that that is the path to launch the new world economic agenda, so that the world financial system, as we know it today, disappears, and so that the BRICS can create a counterweight in global geopolitics under conditions of respect from the West for the so-called “Global South.” Thank you.

What Russia Really Wants in Its Relations with Europe—Peace or War?

H.E. Ilia Subbotin – Mr. Subbotin is Minister-Counselor of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in France.

Dear participants of today’s International conference, organized by the Schiller Institute,

Dear Ms. Zepp-LaRouche, Dear Mr. Cheminade,

Dear friends,

I’m stressing the word friends, because I really hope that this morning I speak in front of people, who are at least ready to listen and who do not have a “pre-cooked” vision of the international reality, like the one broadcast by the mainstream Western media.

From what I was able to find in open sources about the Schiller Institute and its founder, Lyndon LaRouche, I conclude that this audience will be able to think critically and to make its own conclusions.

The topic of today’s panel is “Peace in the world through architecture of security and mutual development, to the benefit of each and every country.” I will present to you a view, based on the official position of my country and on my personal experience, including 23 years of diplomatic service.

I remember vividly my first contacts with US high school students in 1990-91, during the last years of existence of the Soviet Union. There was a program called “Friendship Caravan,” under which young Americans were visiting Soviet schools, spending several days in Russian families. After decades of the Cold War it was a breath of fresh air. We were happy to make new friends. The future seemed bright and marvelous.

In July 1989 then-President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev visited Strasbourg and spoke in front of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). In that historic speech he put forward the idea of the “common European home” and called for substituting “the geopolitical balance with the balance of interests” in order to create the wide economic space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. I see here a link to Point 7 of Helga’s “10 principles for tomorrow’s world.”

That was the turning point of the Russian foreign policy. For 30 years after that speech, my country spared no efforts to build the common humanitarian, legal and economic space, which would cover Greater Europe. Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe from 1996 until March 2022 was the most visible proof of that course.

Before I continue on the track of European integration, allow me to draw your attention to one circumstance, which is key for understanding of the later developments. After the failed coup d’état of August 1991, in December of the same year the Soviet Union was peacefully dissolved. Let me stress the two opposite versions of what happened—the US leadership (namely President Bush, the father) already during the 1992 electoral campaign started to talk about the victory in the Cold War, and the collapse of the USSR because of that “victory.” For us in the former Soviet Union, the perception of the events was radically different. We never felt we had lost the Cold War. In fact, it was our President who stopped it. The disintegration of the USSR became a kind of “collateral damage” of the titanic shift in Russian policy. And, believe me, when it was happening, almost nobody understood what exactly was happening. Most of the people in former Soviet republics, except the Baltics and Georgia, wanted to continue living together. And I remember very well the feeling of the first months of 1992 that some kind of new union of the same republics would emerge very soon. The reality unfortunately turned out to be different. Deep economic crisis, unemployment, criminality, interethnic conflicts in a number of post-Soviet republics….

With all these difficulties Russia still stood firm in its desire to become a part of the Western world. In 1996 we joined the Council of Europe with its Court of Human Rights and many other institutes and instruments. In 2002 the NATO-Russia Council was created. As of 2003 we agreed with the European Union on the creation of four common spaces, which would cover economic issues; issues of freedom, security, and justice; external security; and, finally, research and education.

Meanwhile, in 2000 I graduated from the MGIMO University—the well-known Russian diplomatic school, and was appointed to my first diplomatic post, in Chile. Here I would like to recall one more personal episode from the late ’90s. In spring, 1999 I was doing a Master’s [degree] in international relations in Madrid, Spain. I lived in a shared flat with some other students, including a Yankee boy, called Stephen. We were going along quite well until NATO started to bomb Yugoslavia. For me this is another turning point of European history of the last 30 years. Russia today is accused of bringing the war back to Europe. As if the aggression against Yugoslavia never took place! On the night when Russian paratroopers took control of Pristina airport, we had a physical fight with my US neighbor. He started the fight, shouting something about “Russian pigs.” The US might be successful in Yugoslavia but not in Madrid flat…

In terms of Russia-West relations, the Kosovo crisis is well known by the U-turn of the Prime Minister Primakov’s plane over the Atlantic (24 March 1999) and the beginning of a U-turn in global Russian politics—although, as we know now, it took my country 20 more years to do the complete U-turn. The former prime minister and foreign minister Primakov was a truthful partisan of the concept of a multipolar world. In his active years in politics, he advocated for the multipolar system, which is becoming reality before our eyes now.

In 2007, I was for the first time appointed to Strasbourg, to the Russian permanent mission to the Council of Europe (CoE). Since then I have been dealing with the CoE file in different capacities. On February 10, 2007, President Vladimir Putin delivered his landmark Munich speech. He spoke about the indivisible nature of security, of the failure of the unipolar world (may be it was too premature, but seen from today, that was the right conclusion), of the excessive use of force by the US and NATO… Recalling the events of the late ’80s, President Putin stated clearly: “[T]he fall of the Berlin wall became possible thanks to [the] historic choice of [the] Russian people in favor of democracy, freedom, openness and sincere partnership with all members of the big European family.” And of course he was advocating for the more balanced system of security (Point 1 of Helga’s principles —international security and development architecture as a partnership between sovereign Nation-states).

Was my President heard in Munich? Judging by the events which followed, he was not. In August 2008 Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili attacked civilians and Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinval. Together with my colleagues I spent long hours of discussions in the Committee of Ministers to prove the obvious, that the attack was started by the Georgian side. An international inquiry commission headed by the Swiss Ambassador, Heidi Tagliavini, came to the same conclusion. However, none of these conclusions was able to correct the fact that an armed conflict between the Russian army and a US-trained and -equipped Georgian armed forces took place. Luckily, the war lasted only few days and, as we see now, became a very good vaccine for the Georgian society and leadership against any future attempts to start an armed conflict with Russia.

In 2009 we celebrated the 60th Anniversary of the Council of Europe. Former [Soviet] President Gorbachev was invited to pronounce the main speech at the solemn ceremony. On that occasion, I was lucky to spend three days with the man who had changed history. He is often seen in my country as too pro-European, but allow me to quote some key messages from his 2009 speech: “Europe hasn’t fixed the key question, namely, creation of the solid basis for peace, of the new security architecture.” President Gorbachev, not Putin, 2009. Another quotation: “[T]he roots of actual problems are in the wrong assessment of the events, related to the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union.”

Sorry for the prolonged excursion into the modern history, but I’m deeply convinced that to understand today’s reality, we must have a clear picture of what happened yesterday.

In 2012–2015 I was working as a seconded political advisor of the Council of Europe’s Brussels office. It was a unique chance to learn the “Brussels bubble.” Moreover, it was a period of time when foundations for the current Ukrainian crisis were laid. You might remember that the EU and Ukraine were negotiating an Association agreement with a free trade zone, which would enter into conflict with the already existing free trade zone between Russia and Ukraine. My close colleague and friend was among the top negotiators on our side at the EU-Russia talks to find way out of the dead end. According to him, there was no will [shown by] the EU side to come to mutually beneficial agreement during these talks. The refusal by [Ukrainian] President Yanukovich to sign the Association agreement was used to spark the Maidan coup d’état, which led to the civil war in Ukraine. And again, we witnessed the unwillingness of the Western leaders to implement the Minsk agreements, which stopped the open hostilities from 2015 till 2022.

Now we all have heard the confessions of [former French President] M. Hollande  and [former German Chancellor] Mme Merkel that they had no intention to implement the Minsk package and that the only goal of the deal was to give Ukraine more time to re-arm and conquer the rebel regions by force. What was the intention of the Russian leadership? For me the answer is quite clear—my President, supported by political class, wanted a genuine peace deal, of course on the decent conditions, where the key is recognition of Russia’s leading role in providing security in Europe. The guys in Washington, D.C., apparently did not see such a role for my country. To a large extent, this explains why we’re still in open conflict.

Let me go back to 2017. I took the post of Deputy Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, responsible for the Council of Europe file. My biggest headache was the institutional crisis. The Russian delegation in PACE was deprived of its key rights, and consequently my authorities decided to stop paying our contribution to CoE budget until these rights were fully restored. By Summer 2019, working closely with Secretary General Jagland and the reasonable part of the members of PACE, we were able to fix the problem. The Russian delegation returned to the Assembly with full rights. The Russian contribution to the CoE budget was fully paid. Would all this be possible without the genuine desire of my President, of our political class, to keep Russia as part of the Greater Europe? Definitely not! We were also lucky to have at that moment of history the responsible and independent leadership in the CoE (Jagland).

What happened next? Russia realized that the United States in Ukraine were preparing the worst scenario. We made the last effort—the “diplomatic offensive” of December 2021 – January 2022. It happened that I was able to discuss these events personally with two main Russian envoys—Deputy Minister Riabkov (he worked with the US) and Deputy Minister Grushko (he was in charge of NATO track). The parallel conclusion of both esteemed colleagues: there was no wish on the US/NATO side to seek any compromise with Russia.

In these circumstances, the special military operation became the just and non- alternative step to guarantee Russia’s security and to protect Russian people, whom the Kiev regime wanted to deprive of their language, religion, culture, values. What was the reaction of the West—hatred and mantra that the only way out is a “strategic defeat of Russia at the battlefield.” And no effort is spared to reach this aim—according to open sources, more than $150 billion has already been spent to arm Ukraine. By the way, a couple of years ago the G-20 agreed to accumulate $100 billion to help the green transition of the developing countries—this commitment has never been implemented!

Let me stress that it was not Russia that broke relations with Europe (that was exactly the case with our withdrawal from the Council of Europe). The breakup was the initiative of the Western countries (the second part of the title of our session, the essential strategic autonomy of the European states). I will not discover America if say that now there is no such autonomy and that the European political class is almost totally controlled by the US. Can this situation change? I hope so, and the fact that such organization as Schiller Institute exists, makes this hope stronger.

The Multipolar world is emerging. It’s a fact of life. New centers of economic [development] are here. The financial growth in China, India, Brazil, Turkey, and Gulf countries’ power and political influence go along with the economic success. The share of the G7 in the world’s GDP is already less than that of BRICS. The hegemon which loses its dominance reacts maliciously, by staging internal conflicts and wars between brotherly nations, like those in former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Will Washington be able to change the course of history? I do not think so. I am sure most politicians in the West understand this. The open question is, when will Europe—Germany and France primarily—wake up and free themselves from the shackles of US control? When and if this happens, Russia will be ready for mutually beneficial dialogue of equals, on the basis of our fundamental interests. We are not looking for self-isolation.

China’s Role for Peace and Development

H.E. Lu Shaye – Mr. Shaye is Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China in France.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to thank the Schiller Institute for inviting me to Strasbourg, the “second capital of Europe,” to share my thoughts on the international situation.

At present, changes unseen for a century are taking place at an accelerated pace, giving rise to unprecedented transformations of our world, our times and history. The ongoing conflict on the European continent is attracting worldwide attention. More than a year after the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, where does the outcome lie? The answer to this question is being sought not only by the countries involved in the conflict and the European countries with a close interest in it, but also by peace-loving people the world over.

Depending on the positions and interests of the various parties, there are two diametrically opposed options: the first is to continue hostilities until one side prevails over the other; the second is to promote peace talks to find a solution acceptable to both antagonists.

The world is thus divided into two camps: the pro-war camp, led by the United States, which, under the guise of defending justice, is prolonging the war by constantly supplying arms and other forms of military assistance to Ukraine; and then the pro-peace group, which is actively engaged in shuttle diplomacy in favor of reconciliation and peace talks.

The Russian-Ukrainian conflict highlights two ways of thinking in today’s world, pitting two strategic choices against each other: that of confrontation and conflict versus that of dialogue and cooperation, or that of the zero-sum game versus that of mutual benefit and win-win. Moreover, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is itself the disastrous consequence of America’s obsession with the logic of bloc confrontation after the end of the Cold War, reflected in NATO’s continued eastward expansion to restrict Russia’s strategic space and drive it into a corner.

And today, the USA is trying to launch a “new Cold War” against China. On the political front, it is sticking ideological labels on other countries, calling China an “authoritarian dictatorship” and rallying “value allies” under the banner of defending “democracy” to launch a “new crusade” against China. On the military and security front, the US is busy creating “little clans”: from bilateral military alliances to the trilateral partnership (AUKUS), from the quadrilateral dialogue (Quad) to the Five Eyes alliance, via the “Indo-Pacific version of NATO.” On the economic, commercial and technological fronts, projecting its own model onto China by assuming that any great power practices hegemony, the US is building “little courts surrounded by high walls,” and seeking to decouple and break supply chains in order to crack down, comprehensively, multi-sectorally, intensively and continuously, on China’s high-tech enterprises and critical industries such as semiconductors.

European countries have been forced to choose sides. On the Russian-Ukrainian issue, from participation in sanctions to the current dispatch of fighter jets and pilot training, Europe is becoming more involved in the conflict by the day, while the prospects of resuming dialogue with Russia and rebuilding a new European security architecture grow ever more remote. As for relations with China, the United States is deliberately linking China to Russia and playing on the false narrative of “today’s Ukraine, tomorrow’s Taiwan,” fanning anti-Chinese hatred in Europe and poisoning Sino-European relations.

Against this backdrop, it’s worth noting that some European countries have demonstrated a stronger commitment to strategic autonomy, refusing to choose sides between China and the USA. They have stressed the need to defend their strategic and economic sovereignty on the basis of their own interests, to maintain channels for dialogue and to play a role as a balancing force between China and the United States.

Developing countries have also largely refused to fall into the logical stereotypes and discursive traps of bloc politics and confrontation of camps. They reject the blind wave of condemnation and sanctions against Russia, and pursue their policy of friendship towards China. Peace and cooperation remain the aspiration of the peoples and the general trend.

At the same time, confusion and anxiety on all sides are far from over. Some countries, anticipating an escalation of confrontation and an “eventual war” between China and the USA, are betting on both sides geopolitically, and economically, they are erecting trade barriers and practicing investment screening, industrial relocation and blocking of critical technologies vis-à-vis China, insisting on “dependency reduction” and “derisking.”

In a turbulent world, China remains as clear-sighted and determined as ever. Ten years ago, President Xi Jinping innovatively put forward the vision of a community of shared future for humanity and the Belt and Road Initiative, and since 2021 he has successively presented the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative. These are Chinese proposals for solving global development problems, meeting international security challenges and promoting mutual enrichment between civilizations

An African proverb says: “Alone we go faster, together we go further.” Those who ignore the interests of others will never get far, those who want to rely solely on their own strength by getting rid of others are living in illusion, and those who think only of blocking the development of others will not be able to fundamentally solve their own problems.

In presenting the Global Development Initiative, China advocates solidarity and cooperation. Aimed at rapid implementation of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the initiative identifies eight key areas of cooperation, including poverty reduction, food security, development financing and the digital economy. It has received the support of over 100 countries, as well as the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, as it corresponds to the broad common interests of the international community.

Thanks to the joint efforts of all parties, the Global Development Initiative has come to fruition very well, with many early results to the benefit of different peoples. For example : mechanisms such as the “Special Action to Promote Food Production,” the Global Alliance for the Development of Technical and Vocational Education, the International NGO Cooperation Network for Poverty Reduction, the China-Africa Alliance for Poverty Reduction, the China-Pacific Island Countries Climate Action Cooperation Center, and the Center for the Promotion of Global Development; more than a hundred concrete cooperation projects are on the Initiative’s project list, benefiting nearly 40 developing countries, and offering more than 20,000 training places via 1,000 capacity-building projects; China has launched the world’s first scientific satellite dedicated to the 2030 Agenda, shared its data with the rest of the world, and donated several data products to the United Nations.

As part of the Belt and Road Initiative, more than 3,000 cooperation projects have been signed, generating almost $1,000 billion in investment, creating 420,000 jobs and helping almost 40 million people out of poverty…. The facts prove that what the world needs is not “decoupling” or “broken supply chains,” but open, inclusive, win-win cooperation. China is ready to continue sharing development opportunities with Europe and other countries around the world to promote common prosperity.

Attached since ancient times to the primacy of peace and concord between all states, the Chinese nation has no genes in its blood for aggression or hegemony; on the contrary, it has always sought peace, harmony and concord. Faced with a profoundly restructuring international landscape and complex security challenges, China advocates a common, integrated, cooperative and sustainable security concept, and pursues a new security path based on dialogue rather than confrontation, partnership rather than alliance, and win-win rather than zero-sum game.

Last February, China published the Concept Paper on the Global Security Initiative, which lists 20 priorities for cooperation, including: firmly supporting the central role of the United Nations in security governance; promoting consultation and healthy interaction between major powers; actively promoting the peaceful resolution of burning issues through dialogue; effectively addressing conventional and unconventional security challenges; and continuously strengthening the world’s security governance system and capacity development.

On the question of Sino-American relations, we have no intention of challenging or supplanting the United States, nor of becoming a new United States, nor of waging a “new Cold War” of bloc confrontation. Recently, when he received US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chinese President Xi Jinping stressed that “the world needs an overall stable Sino-American relationship,” that he is “confident that the two great powers can overcome all difficulties to find the right way to get along in mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation,” so as to “stabilize and improve the Sino-American relationship.”

On China-EU relations, China and Europe have no fundamental conflict of interest. On the contrary, we both benefit from each other’s development, both advocate strategic autonomy and multilateralism, and we have a broad consensus on global issues such as the fight against climate change. China and Europe should strengthen mutual trust, remove doubts through fruitful cooperation, and work hand in hand to inject stability, certainty and positive energy into the world.

On the question of Ukraine, in the document entitled “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis” published last February, China put forward 12 points of proposals, including respect for the sovereignty of all countries, rejection of the Cold War mentality, cessation of hostilities and the opening of peace talks. These proposals take into account the concerns of all parties and can constitute the highest common denominator for negotiations. China has also made concrete good offices efforts to promote reconciliation and peace talks. We are convinced that there is no winner in an armed conflict and that the only viable issue to the crisis is dialogue and negotiation. We hope that the EU will work with us to promote the earliest possible launch of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, so that peace can be restored to the European continent as soon as possible.

As a Chinese saying goes, “the secret of making a good dish is knowing how to combine flavors.” The beauty of our world lies in the mutual enrichment of civilizations. China is against the dualism of black versus white, and the distinction between superior and inferior civilizations. Through the World Civilization Initiative, we advocate respect for the diversity of civilizations, promotion of humanity’s shared values, commitment to the transmission and innovation of civilizations, and the strengthening of intercultural exchange and cooperation. We respect all civilizations in their differences, and support their right to development. We are convinced that individual countries can find their own development paths and institutional models adapted to their national conditions, and that through human and cultural exchange and cooperation, the radiance of all civilizations will produce a magnificent symphony of splendors.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Humanity is a community of destinies, sharing both good times and bad. More than ever, nations are interconnected and interdependent, and more than ever, they are called upon to work together to meet challenges and achieve progress.

Europe was the main battleground of the two world wars and is the scene of the current conflict. Europe should therefore have a more direct experience and a deeper understanding of the importance of peace and development. As we stand at a critical new crossroads in history, I hope that Europe’s far-sighted leaders will engage in deep reflection, actively play their part and contribute their wisdom and strength to lead their respective countries and the whole of humanity to make the right choice.

The Emergence of the Global South Against Geopolitical Blocs

Jacques Cheminade – Mr. Cheminade is President of Solidarité et Progrès, France.

We are gathered here in Strasbourg in the face of the risk of a conflagration in the world, the risk that “humanity will one day annihilate itself in monstrous destruction.” Today, we are experiencing the first signs of this conflagration in Europe, and particularly in my own country, France.

It is at such tragic moments that it is essential to restore hope. That’s why I want to start by showing you the four bas-reliefs on the base of the statue commemorating Gutenberg, just a few minutes’ walk from here. This work, executed in 1844, carries the impetus of social emancipation for all the peoples of the world. You’ll see Europe, Asia, Africa and America, everywhere doing justice to our share of humanity. You’ll find Schiller and Franklin, Confucius and Râm Mohan Roy, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Mahmout II and Abbé Grègoire. From this Râm Mohan Roy, the Tagore family, from Indian Bengal, was the political and spiritual heir, and in the 20th Century, Rabîndranâth Tagore is the most accomplished expression of this heritage. Xi Jinping addressed the 23rd summit of the Shanghai Economic Cooperation Organization (SCO) on July 4, quoting “the great Indian poet Rabîndranâth Tagore”: “The ocean of danger, doubt and denial that surrounds man’s little island of certainty challenges him to dare the unknown. We must rise to the call to action of our time.”

In the midst of the storm, here and now, this is the call we are hearing from the countries of the global South and East. The 23rd SCO summit was attended by [Indian President Narendra] Modi, [Chinese President]Xi Jinping and [Russina President Vladimir] Putin, representatives of East Asian countries, Pakistan, and new SCO member Iran, via video-conference. Discussions focused on security, respect for national sovereignty and the desire to gradually develop trade in national currencies rather than dollars. In all, representatives of over 40% of the world’s population. If we add to this the members of the BRICS+, we’re talking about over 66% of the world’s population and, in terms of National Product measured in purchasing power parity, practically the same percentage in relation to the production of physical goods. Clearly, Western countries are proportionally in the minority. This tilting of the world is not a partial or temporary phenomenon, but a global groundswell.

It is a matter of life and death: the battle between the Malthusian, domineering financial oligarchy that occupies our Western countries and those who believe that the human species has a right to development, the right proclaimed by Lazare Carnot “to elevate all individuals of the human species to the dignity of man.”

The countries of the global South have clearly understood that the dumping of counterfeit money by the G7 central banks has resulted in the accumulation of fictitious capital in the form of debt and financial securities, to their detriment. To the detriment of their peoples and producers. They have understood that this neo-liberalism, organized and protected by military means and physical threats, imprisons them in the trap of continuous indebtedness. They have realized that the liberalism of the Washington Consensus, imposing on them the freedom of financial foxes in their minimized hutch states, no longer applies as soon as it is necessary to divert public funds to save the possessions of the financial oligarchy or arbitrarily freeze the assets of those who oppose it. They have understood that the damage inflicted on them, the dismantling of their social services and public sectors, has not been done by mistake or inadvertence, but with the conscious aim of preying on them. They have understood that they are victims of a rigged economy in which the dollar is militarized, a weapon of war pointed at them. So, it should come as no surprise that they feel concerned when Vladimir Putin says, at the St. Petersburg Forum just held from June 14 to 17: “Today, around 90% of trade within the member countries of the Eurasian Economic Union is conducted in rubles, and 86% of trade with China is conducted in rubles and yuan. This means that the harmful neo-colonial international system has ceased to exist.”

 It should come as no surprise that the Russian-Chinese alliance, consecrated on February 4, 2022, appears to them as a positive option and a chance to escape the trans-Atlantic straightjacket. And when Xi Jinping speaks of “the common future of mankind,” they see that China, without inflicting more or less hypocritical moral lessons on them, is building bridges, railroads, dams or harbors, and thus see that words are followed by deeds. Even if the achievements are imperfect, for them it’s better to have something than the “Western” almost nothing.

With this in mind, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Brazilian President Lula and Chinese Premier Li Qiang each addressed Emmanuel Macron at the summit for a new global financial pact held in Paris on June 22, 2023, criticizing existing financial institutions and what remains of the Bretton Woods order. Lula tore up his prepared speech, condemning the “inequalities” in the governance of international financial institutions and calling for a new order that “responds to the aspirations of the world.”

These countries of the global South, we are told, are not united and have no common project. No doubt, but they do have a common rejection. They have understood that Western leaders are wary of China’s development, because they think in geopolitical terms of friend and foe, and fear those who challenge their privileges. In the growing number of international meetings, on which the Western media report so little, links are organized outside the dollar system, which is no longer even an American currency, but that of a financial oligarchy reigning over a market economy without a market. The Schiller Institute welcomes this development as a fundamental step towards a road to peace through mutual development.

For those of you who don’t know, because it’s not the sort of thing the Western media report, Russian economist Sergei Glazyev, Minister of Integration of the Eurasian Economic Union, now organizing the implementation of de-dollarization, declared on September 8, 2022, that “it is the principles of physical economics championed by Lyndon LaRouche that underpin the Chinese economic miracle today, and that are the basis of India’s economic development policy.”

For those who don’t know, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, president and founder of the International Schiller Institute, is Lyndon LaRouche’s wife. This means that the long struggle we have waged, and continue to wage, is in the name of LaRouche’s conception of a successful economic policy: increasing the potential for relative economic density, a welcoming policy that is anti-Malthusian in principle. LaRouche’s conception, based on the human capacity to discern new physical principles applied in the form of technologies that produce more with less physical effort, goes beyond the short-term appearances of those “sense organs that lack the capacity to think and allow themselves to be obsessed by external things” evoked by Mencius, the spiritual heir of Confucius. He added: “As long as we begin to build what is great, smallness will not prevail within us.” This presupposes, of course, the long-term vision we lack today in our “world of money,” currency and immediate appearance. Let’s listen to Tagore, in his Religion of Man, before or perhaps after his dialogue with Einstein: “Of all creatures, man alone lives in a boundless future. Our present is only a part of it. Ideas yet to be born, minds still unformed, provoke our imagination with an insistence that makes them even more real to our intelligence than the things around us.”

It was with this in mind that seven African countries organized their delegation of mediators in the Ukrainian conflict. “We’re not here as beggars, we’re not going to ask for favors from one or other of the belligerents,” declared [South African President] Cyril Ramaphosa, “we want to be essential players on the world stage.” The “South” is thus directly and independently involved in the affairs of the “North,” outside the realm of NATO. Under China’s auspices, Saudi Arabia and Iran are renewing diplomatic relations, an Africa-Russia summit will be held in St. Petersburg on July 26 and 27, India is using Chinese yuan and even UAE dirhams to buy oil from Russia, and even [French oil giant] Total, to conclude a contract involving the Emirates and China, is also concluding a contract in yuan. Emmanuel Macron is striving to be invited to the 15th BRICS summit, to be held from August 22 to 24 in Johannesburg, but member country Russia feels he has no place there as “an adherent to the NATO line.”

The world is changing and becoming multilateral. Western leaders are slowly waking up to this fact. It is not from them that we can expect a step towards peace in the world, because to accept its foundations would be to put an end to the preponderance of the oligarchy that dominates them. It is therefore the rise of the global South that offers a chance for peace, outside the logic of blocs. We have seen how this is taking shape, and how necessary it is for us Europeans to follow this rise and understand its causes. But of course, this is not enough. We need to rediscover our own national sovereignty and independence, buoyed by this example. This is the first of the ten points proposed by the leader of the Schiller Institute for our consideration. This requires not only a change of direction in the politics of our countries, but also a change in ourselves.

France and even European countries alone cannot change the direction of a world that is self-destructing under piles of counterfeit money and increasingly destructive weapons. We must rely on this planetary South to prevent us from continuing to be the darlings of a tragic face, in which a “war economy” leads us to war at all. A war that will cross the nuclear threshold of our destruction if we don’t root out the roots that lead to it.

This means defining together the new architecture of peace through mutual security and development that the countries of the global South are rightly demanding. This is a force without which, given the interlocking production and value chains of today’s Western countries, we will not be able to change direction. It is this voice, along with China, the SCO and the BRICS, that my country should carry to the United Nations Security Council. We have fewer excuses than others, for we are the only country in Western Europe without American bases and, for some time to come, an independent nuclear military force and civilian industry.

Our challenge, to avoid a future war between blocs, even if we escape the present threat, is to change the economic, political and cultural direction of all the countries of the Atlantic world. By making our peoples understand that they are suffering, within our States, the same damage as that inflicted on the countries of the global South, from which they are striving to extricate themselves.

Citizens of the world, unite! But this presupposes an effort on our part to stimulate our curiosity and imagination to explore the unknown, without any fascination for violence or submission. A capacity, for each citizen, to prioritize collective interest over personal interest, so that the advances in world knowledge that are the expression of our sovereignty can lead to a higher level in which the conjunction of opposites becomes the harmony of dissonances. That’s what I was thinking confusedly, between French culture and Argentine culture, looking to the Crux (Southern cross) constellation of my childhood to find a beyond that encompasses both without betraying either.

Let’s dare the unknown so that the beauty of the world is not destroyed!

Let a Garden Amidst a Million Gardens Bloom!

By Helga Zepp-LaRouche

This is Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s prepared text for her presentation to Panel I, “Peace in the World Through a New Security and Development Architecture for Each and Every Country: The Indispensable Strategic Autonomy of European Countries,” of the Schiller Institute’s July 8–9 conference, “On the Verge of a New World War—European Nations Must Cooperate with the Global South!” It was translated from the German and edited for EIR magazine. (Subheads have been added.)

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche is the founder and leader of the Schiller Institute.

Excellencies, distinguished guests, dear friends of the Schiller Institute!

What a joy to welcome people from so many nations here in Strasbourg in person, after circumstances forced us to hold our Schiller Conferences only virtually for over three years! But we used this time well to bring together so many new forces worldwide, with which we can intervene together at this crucial moment in world history to create a new paradigm for the future of humanity!

Let me say it straight away: Even if our continent is in an existential crisis, we will not allow its demise. Rather, we will revive the best of what European culture has produced, and what is now buried under the speech balloons of a decadent counterculture and the barbarism of the diehards of the past, and we will bring that into the shaping of the New Paradigm!

Unquestionably, we are now in the most dangerous moment the human species has ever faced, as we are extremely close to extinction as a species on this planet, because that would be the consequence of a global nuclear war. And contrary to what the propaganda of the trans-Atlantic mainstream media claims, the danger is not due to “Russia’s unprovoked war of aggression” nor to “China’s increasingly aggressive imperial power grab,” but to the trans-Atlantic forces who are unscrupulously playing with nuclear fire, while attempting by all means to exert unipolar dominance over the world when it has long since been moving in a multipolar direction.

While the mainstream media in unison slander as a “Putin sympathizer” anyone who dares to think that history did not begin on Feb. 24, 2022, and while NATO and the U.S. government fund organizations that put people on lists that put their lives in danger, the nations of the Global South have very much gained an independent view of things.

The sixfold expansion of NATO to the East, coming a thousand kilometers closer to the borders of Russia, despite promises to the contrary, can be as little covered up as the efforts of the Northern “ATLANTIC” defense alliance to expand in the Indo-Pacific region as Global NATO. Above all, with the increasingly blatant and arrogant appeals with which representatives of the “rules-based order” demand that the whole world submit to their intrigues and their “indulgences” in modern garb (such as a carbon tax or CO2 emissions trading), they have crossed the Rubicon. But by such means they hope to prolong the existence of the hopelessly bankrupt neoliberal financial system at least a bit longer.

We are currently experiencing a change of epoch, albeit not of the kind that Chancellor Scholz referred to on Feb. 24, 2022, which amounts to the militarization of Europe as a protectorate of the United States. Rather, we are seeing the end of some 500 years of colonialism, which the countries of the Global South are determined to finally shake off with the help of China and the BRI. For example, at the recent Global Financing Summit in Paris, President Ramaphosa demanded that the international community provide investments for the Grand Inga Dam project:

“Let’s get that done and then we will be convinced that you are serious with the promises that you make…. “

It is estimated that the cost today would be perhaps $120 billion, and that it would generate at least 44 gigawatts of electricity, which would have an absolutely revolutionary impact on the entire continent’s energy supply and economy.

More than 30 nations have applied for membership in the BRICS, which would then include the world’s most populous countries. The attempt, coming mainly from the U.S. and the UK, to “decouple” from China or to “de-risk,” as this foolish phrase has come to be called—when all these countries are closely linked with China—can only lead to economic suicide, or to an equally suicidal formation of geopolitical blocs, which would carry the seeds of a world war.

In the face of this tectonic shift of power, which occurs at most once or twice in a millennium, the European nations—but also America—must decide whether they want to cooperate productively with this emerging world order, or whether they (with NATO, the U.S., and the UK) will opt for total confrontation and the attempt to oppress the absolute majority of the human species. The decision between these two options will test, at the same time, our moral fitness to survive: Are we, as rational beings, able to give ourselves, together with the Global South, an order that guarantees the coexistence of us all and, as Leibniz would put it, allows the happiness of future generations? Or are we soulless human machine guns, hatefully directed only toward the destruction of the supposed enemy?

Nuclear War ‘Options’

This is not an academic question, as will become obvious in four days at the annual NATO summit in Vilnius, at which the Hungarian government—thankfully— announced that Ukraine’s admission to NATO will remain out of the question for as long as the war continues, which should actually be self-evident. Now, however, there are recent statements by Berlin’s two leading think-tanks—Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP), both are close to the government—about possible security guarantees for Ukraine outside of formal NATO membership. Even if these are only ideas from think-tanks, and not necessarily the policies of the Berlin government, these papers deserve the closest attention, because their authors are typical of the so-called “experts” who speak non-stop on the talk shows, and in this way influence the views of the population.

It is not only in France that there has been a great deal of concern recently about Germany’s seemingly complete loss of all sovereignty (which was never very good), as could be seen in the German government’s lack of response to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines.

Now, it must be taken into consideration that the SWP, which advises the government, the Bundestag, the EU, NATO and the UN among others, was created on the initiative of the BND [Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany’s foreign intelligence service], which, when it was founded under the aegis of the American occupying power in 1962, incorporated personnel from the military intelligence service Fremde Heere Ost and the Gehlen Organization. The SWP was initially based in Ebenhausen, a small town near Pullach, where the headquarters of the BND was located. The much larger DGAP (the German Council on Foreign Relations), 2800 members, was founded as early as 1955 in cooperation with, and modeled on, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations and the British Royal Institute for International Affairs, known as “Chatham House.”

In an SWP paper of June 29, 2023, entitled, “From ad hoc support to long-term security guarantees as a NATO member,” it is stated that there are two options, apart from full NATO membership, that would really guarantee Kiev’s security. The first is “demilitarization” of Russia by reducing its armed forces and arms industry to a level that rules out “offensive operations.” This would only be possible through “external shocks,” a clear defeat of the army, a renunciation by the leadership of its “neo-imperial understanding of its role,” which would require a change of regime, and the simultaneous denuclearization of Russia’s military potential. That, however, they say, is “currently unrealistic.” The second option would be for Ukraine to build up its own nuclear arsenal.

Just in case, the DGAP provided yet another option, circulating under the keyword “hedgehog,” as an animal symbolizing such a massive rearmament of Ukraine—into a super armory so to speak—that it would deter all future attacks. This includes the variant proposed by the chairman of the British defense committee, Tobias Ellwood, which envisages support from a coalition of the willing and a powerful task force, a Joint European Defense Initiative (JEDI). Germany’s Rheinmetall Group has already announced plans to build a modern tank factory and other weapons factories in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, U.S. defense contractors Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin sponsored champagne receptions at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, not least to celebrate the MoU [memorandum of understanding—ed.] that the world’s largest financial services firm, BlackRock, which manages $10 trillion in assets, landed with the Ukrainian government. JEDI is only intended to help bridge the gap; in the long term, NATO membership is indispensable. The goal is to anchor Ukraine irrevocably in the Euro-Atlantic structures. The priority, therefore, is to proactively communicate to their own populations the “meaning, purpose and goals” of NATO membership for Ukraine and to take action against institutions that claim to be part of civil society but are in fact controlled by the Russian state. For the record, we are not controlled!

What a nightmare! The largely destroyed Ukraine is to be transformed into a mega-armed country, a “hedgehog,” or rather into a permanent cash cow for the military-industrial complex on both sides of the Atlantic; it will become a “frozen” conflict that can be activated at any time, as a permanent crossing of the red lines defined by Russia which, in the meantime, is supposed to be “ruined” according to [German Foreign Affairs Minister Annalena] Baerbock, or permanently weakened (according to [U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd] Austin, RUSI [the British Royal United Services Institute], [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, etc.).

There’s not a single thought about ending the war through diplomacy, no peace negotiations, no positive vision for the Ukrainian people, and certainly not a peace order for the world as a whole! What an ugly, destructive spirit rears its head here, no human emotion influences the thinking, it’s cold as a robot which is steered by a worm-eaten algorithm!

A New Economic Order

But the arrogance that leads some to claim that they belong to the camp of the “good people,” and can therefore suggest the most horrendous things with impunity, also blinds them. The reality is by no means that the Russian economy is collapsing, quite the contrary. Economic growth in May was [when annualized] 5.4%, while Germany is officially in recession, and Russia was forced by the sanctions to build up many branches of production for its own benefit and redirect trade patterns from the West to Asia, where the momentum of the world economy is anyway.

The trans-Atlantic financial sector, on the other hand, is sitting on a bubble of 2 quadrillion dollars of outstanding derivative contracts—that’s a 2 with 15 zeros—which ultimately means hopeless systemic debt. Central banks are switching back and forth between QE and QT [quantitative easing and tightening—ed.] in apparent disorientation. But Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, takes the cake. He recently stated with utmost arrogance at the European Diplomatic Academy in Bruges, that Europe is a garden, while most of the rest of the world is a jungle that could intrude into it.

Such a point of view will find no sympathy among the 5,000-year-old cultures of the peoples of Asia, who together with the other countries of the Global South have long been putting into place a New World Economic Order—and where Mr. Borrell is now regarded as a comedian but not one to invite for a visit—or among the nearly 50 percent of German companies that are fleeing the country, due to the mismanagement of the German government and the unaffordable energy prices.

Hearing Borrell’s misplaced comparison to a garden, one is reminded of Scene X in Act II of Schiller’s play Don Carlos, when the Marquis of Posa, who sees himself as a citizen of the world and carries the liberation of Flanders from the Spanish yoke in his heart, confronts King Philip II, the absolute ruler of Spain, the empire on which it was said at the time that “the Sun never sets.” 

Phillip says something very similar:

“Behold my Spain, see here the burgher’s good blooms in eternal and unclouded peace. A peace like this will I bestow on Flanders.”

And the Marquis answers:

“The churchyard’s peace!… And do you hope to end …

The universal spring, that shall renew

The earth’s fair form? Would you alone, in Europe,

Fling yourself down before the rapid wheel

Of destiny … Vain thought!”

The absolute majority in Germany, for example, has lost confidence in the government, and according to recent surveys, 79% are not satisfied with the government’s policies. Here in France, we have just seen what state the social fabric in this garden is in. No wall can be built high enough to protect the garden, Borrell says? Well, we see at the external borders of the EU, what these walls look like. Pope Francis described the reception camps for refugees in the border countries of Europe as concentration camps, which are surrounded by high walls topped with NATO barbed wire, and are repulsive enough to deter people from venturing in small boats over the Mediterranean Sea, which itself has long since been turned into a horrendous mass grave.

No, Mr. Borrell, this Europe is not a garden, it is a continent that competent politicians, such as Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer, wanted to bring out of the rubble of the Second World War into a better future, and which a thoroughly decadent political caste, having thrown out the window its duty of peace, is now leading into a renewed catastrophe that threatens to far surpass the horrors of the Second World War.

And if large parts of the world outside Europe resemble a jungle, it’s because Europe has not developed Africa in the past centuries, but well-known families in the trans-Atlantic world have built their fortunes on the slave trade, drew profits from the opium trade, or are profiting from the modern successor of colonialism—the casino economy—in which the wealthy determine the rules of our oh-so-fantastically-organized rules-based order.

Or maybe other regions are a jungle because the trans-Atlantic interventionist armies took up residence there, as NATO did for 20 years in Afghanistan, during which time nothing was built, and then left the country in ruins. Or as in Iraq, where a country rising to modernity was bombed back into the Stone Age, and concerning which Madeleine Albright said the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was a fair price to pay for the right to continue ruining the country. And the list of why some countries of this world are not gardens could go on: Syria, Yemen, Libya, Haiti, etc.

But there is a way out. The nations of the Global South, whose existence was just recently discovered by the G7, and which represent the overwhelming majority of humanity, have long been shaking off the shackles of modern colonialism and creating a new international currency, new development banks, a new credit system. Over 30 countries have applied for membership in BRICS-Plus; the SCO, AU, ASEAN, EAEU, Mercosur and other organizations have moved to carry out their trade in national currencies. One hundred and fifty-one countries cooperate with China’s BRI [Belt and Road Initiative], which this year celebrates its tenth anniversary, and managed during that decade to make sure the term “developing countries” really does apply to the countries of the Global South.

Europe and the ‘Global South’

We in Europe, and even in America, have to give up the already doomed attempt to contain the rise of these countries by decoupling or “de-risking.” We have to replace confrontation, which in any case only benefits the military-industrial complex, with cooperation. Germany, France, Italy, and all other European nations must become part of the new paradigm in international relations; our middle class, now bankrupt under the old paradigm, can not only help build the Inga Dam, but realize the Transaqua project that will provide electricity to twelve more nations in Africa. We can cooperate with China to provide the entire Global South with a high-speed rail system, we can build ports and waterways, green deserts through large-scale desalination of seawater, and build new cities.

Yes, and while we’re at it, we can also modernize our own ailing infrastructure. Instead of enriching the defense industry and impoverishing the population, we can repair our schools, make the health care system functional again, intensify international cooperation on the ITER fusion project as a crash program in order to achieve commercial use of fusion energy faster, and we can spare ourselves all the pollution and the destruction of our landscapes with those unspeakable wind turbines. We can also rebuild Ukraine as a bridge between Central Europe and Russia as part of the new Silk Road.

To bring Europe, and America, onto this path, is our commitment. And let us remember what Posa said to King Phillip, and what we, together with Schiller, say to the many Borrells of today:

“Geben Sie die unnatürliche Vergöttrung auf,

die uns vernichtet!…

Sie wollen pflanzen für die Ewigkeit,

Und säen Tod? Ein so erzwungnes Werk

Wird seines Schöpfers Geist nicht überdauern…

“Geben Sie, was Sie uns nahmen wieder!

Lassen Sie, Grossmüthig, wie der Starke,

Menschenglück aus Ihrem Füllhorn strömen—

Geister reifen in Ihrem Weltgebäude,

Geben Sie, was Sie uns nahmen, wieder.

Werden Sie, von Millionen Königen, ein König!”

         ~ ~ ~

“Give up the unnatural deification that destroys us!…

You would plant for all eternity, and yet the seeds

You sow around you are the seeds of death!

This hopeless task, with nature’s laws at strife,

Will ne’er survive the spirit of its founder….

“Restore us all you have deprived us of,

And, generous as strong, let happiness

Flow from your horn of plenty—let man’s mind

Ripen in your vast empire—give us back

All you have taken from us—and become,

Amidst a thousand kings, a king indeed!”

Today, we no longer need a king, but as a variation on Posa’s words today,

let us say:

Let a garden amidst a million gardens bloom!

President John Kennedy



July 5, 2023 – In light of rapidly rising threat of nuclear war, the Schiller Institute releases the initial list of 186 prominent signers, from 55 countries on six continents, of Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from All Over the World to the (Next) President of the United States!. 

The appeal, issued May 17, calls for the Presidency of the United States to return to the peace policy of John F. Kennedy enunciated in his historic address at American University June 10, 1963. On June 10, 2023, the Schiller Institute (SI) accelerated worldwide diffusion of that speech on its 60th anniversary with this international online conference: The World Needs JFK’s Vision of Peace!

The SI urges everyone possible to add their name to the appeal, and to bring it to the attention of every organization concerned with the welfare of mankind that they can. Total current signers are 1300, with translations into 7 languages. The aim is to reach 5,000 before the worldwide peace actions on August 6, the anniversary of the U.S. nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, from 100 plus countries. The Institute particularly encourages maximum viewings of the Kennedy speech itself, by individuals, schools, and all categories of other groups, in a spreading world awakening. Here is the full 27-minute Kennedy Peace Address; here, a 4-minute set of video highlights, with subtitles.

The circulation of the Urgent Appeal and Kennedy speech has spurred the formation of a rapidly growing International Peace Coalition, initiated by the Schiller Institute on June 2. The summary press release of its most recent deliberation, International Peace Coalition Charts a Path to the New Paradigm, begins: “On Friday June 30, the International Peace Coalition (IPC) held its fourth meetings with approximately 60 organizers from Argentina, Germany, Guinea, Nicaragua, Span, Sweden Switzerland, the UK, the United States, and other nations participating in the proceedings. The meeting could be best characterized as a strategy session on how to expand the IPC through various means of direct action such as street organizing, social media, political interventions, and classes, with the goal of not only preventing the immediate threat of global thermonuclear war, but laying the foundation for a durable peace – a New Paradigm.”

Please add your efforts to the urgent expansion of the Coalition’s work. Contact the Coalition at

The conclusion of the Appeal, and initial list of prominent signers:

We the undersigned want America to be again the America expressed in that beautiful speech of JFK. We want the United States to be again a beacon of hope and a temple of liberty. We believe that this is the basis for “peace for all time,” as JFK said.

Initiating signer

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), founder Schiller Institute

Additional prominent signers

Daud AzimiAfghanistan/GermanyDipl. Ing. (Engineer); Board Member, Peace National Front of Afghanistan
Tse Anye KevinAfricaVice President, State 55, Afrika
Enrique Juan BoxArgentinaSocial communicator
Roberto FritzscheArgentinaProfessor, Dep’t of Economic Science, University of Belgrano
Carlos Perez GalindoArgentinaLawyer
Rubén Darío GuzzettiArgentinaArgentine Institute of Geopolitical Science
Gustavo RussoArgentinaLawyer; Professor of Juridical Sciences
Trudy CampbellAustraliaNorthern Territory secretary, Australian Citizens Party
Christian DierickBelgiumManager, Big Science Technology Club & Lead Energy Expert
William LindoBelizeExecutive member, Peoples United Party
Edwin Alfonso De La Fuente JeriaBoliviaFormer Commander in Chief of the Bolivian Armed Forces
Osman Vladimir Escobar TorrezBoliviaHuman Rights Secretary, Bolivian Labor Confederation (COB)
Max Yecid IbañezBoliviaFormer Secretary of Grievance Resolution, National Federation of Electrical and Telephone Workers of Bolivia
Jairo Dias CarvalhoBrazilProfessor, Philosophy of Technology, Federal University of Uberlândia
Lilian Simone Godoy FonsecaBrazilProfessor of Philosophy, UFVJM, Diamantina campus
Gabriel Tincani RamosBrazilPresident, Union of Socialist Youth — Campinas
Renata Welinski Da Silva SeabraBrazilESG Consultant; Former UNDP Executive Director for UN Global Compact Brazil; author, “A Regulamentação International Ambiental e a Responsabilidade Corporativa”
Julian FellCanadaFormer Director, Regional District of Nanaimo
Dimitri LascarisCanadaLawyer; Peace activist
Mario Guillermo Acosta AlarcónColombiaScientist and writer; General Director, CIFRA (Space Lab City)
Fernando Duque JaramilloColombiaLawyer; Master’s degree in Political Science
Pedro RubioColombiaUnion leader; public policy analyst
Enrique García DubonCosta RicaEconomist
Enrique Ramírez GuierCosta RicaBiologistç consultant
Tom GillesbergDenmarkPresident, Schiller Institute Denmark
Pernille GrummeDenmarkActress; peace activist; former Chair, Artists for Peace, Denmark
Alcibiades Jose AbreuDominican RepublicUniversity professor of mathematics, English and French
Alexis Joaquin CastilloDominican RepublicPresidential candidate of Alianza Nueva República. Lawyer; former Prosecutor of the National District
Ramón Emilio ConcepciónDominican RepublicAttorney at Law, Presidential Pre-candidate for the PRM party (2020)
Ramon Cruz PlacensiaDominican RepublicFormer Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (UASD)
Luis De León FerreiraDominican RepublicPresident of Fuerza Boschista. Educator, university professor at Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo (UASD). Politician
Marino J. Elsevyf PinedaDominican RepublicAttorney at Law; notary
Enrique Garcia FrometaDominican RepublicIndustrial engineer, master’s degree in public administration, appraiser and planner
Ramón GrossDominican RepublicPost-graduate Professor, Catholic University of Santo Domingo
Dantes Ortiz NuñezDominican RepublicHistorian; Professor of History, Autonomous University of Santo Domingo
Oscar Daniel Pérez QuirozDominican RepublicTheologian and Psychologist
Domingo ReyesDominican RepublicFormer professor of economics, Ph.D. in Higher Education
Rafael Reyes JerezDominican RepublicJournalist; TV producer, “cara a cara”
Enrique Antonio Sánchez LiranzoDominican RepublicLawyer, author, poet
Caonabo SuarezDominican RepublicPoet; Member of the Coordinating Committee of the Institute for Analysis and Conclusions (INAC), Dominican Republic
Patricia MerizaldeEcuadorFounder and President, International Feminist Poetry Movement, “Women’s Flight”
Ernesto Pazmiño GranizoEcuadorHuman Rights lawyer; university professor; former General Public Defender of Ecuador; former Vice-President, Justice Center of the Americas
Alexis PonceEcuadorRights advocate, National Association of Patients and Vulnerable Families of Ecuador
Napoleon Saltos GalarzaEcuadorUniversity professor; Member of Parliament (1996-1998), Quito
Jacques CheminadeFrancePresident, Solidarité et Progrès; former presidential candidate
Dr. jur. Wolfgang BittnerGermanyAuthor
Joachim BonatzGermanyVice President, East German Board of Trustees of Associations (Ostdeutschen Kuratoriums e.V.)
Dr. Ole DoeringGermany/ChinaProfessor, Hunan Normal University, China
Johannes PosthGermanyGeneral Director, Deutsche Telekom in Ukraine, starting 1996; head, Ukrainian-European Policy and Legal Advice Center, 2002-2005
Dr. Rainer SandauGermanyTechnical Director, Satellites and Space Applications, International Academy of Aeronautics (IAA)
Takis IoannidesGreeceAmbassador of Peace, Hon. Dr Literature, historian, researcher, poet.
Dr. Maria Arvanti SotiropoulouGreeceRepresentative, Greek Medical Assoc. for the Protection of the Environment and Against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat (GMA), Greek affiliate of Internat’l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Raul Anibal Marroquin CasasolaGuatemalaCoordinator of the Citizen Observatory for Peace “La pupila del cielo”, San Cristobal, Verapaz, Guatemala.
Otto Rene Quiñones CariasGuatemalaFormer Legislator (1991-1993); President, Board of Directors of Alternate Deputies
Beatriz Solórzano LeónGuatemalaLicentiateç Parliamentary Technician, Congress of Guatemala
Ahmadou DialloGuinea/United StatesSenior Member, Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom In.
Mamadu DjaloGuinea/United StatesSecretary, Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom Inc.
Khemraj RamjattanGuyanaLeader, AFC (Alliance for Change)
Donald RamotarGuyanaFormer President of Guyana
Oscar Abraham Lanza RosalesHondurasIndustrial engineer, retired; columnist for La Tribuna, Honduras
Andrea SzegóHungaryProfessor (ret.), economics
Dr. Balkrishna KurveyIndiaPresident, India Institute for Peace, Disarmament, and Environmental Protection
Maurizio AbbateItalyChairman of ENAC, National Institute for Cultural Activities, Italy,
Angelo AielloItalyFormer sport director of AC Milan
Prof. Bruno BrandimarteItalyProfessor (ret.), Applied Biophysics, Univ. of Rome, Tor Vergata
Renato CorsettiItalyProf. emeritus; Chair, Progressive Esperanto Speakers
Jorge FloresItalyPoet
Liliana GoriniItalyChairwoman of Movisol
Antonio IngroiaItalyFormer candidate for Italian Prime Minister
Nicola ListaItalyChairman, youth organization of MDC, (Movement in Defense of the Citizen)
Enzo PennettaItalyOrganizer, referendum to end Italian military aid to Ukraine
Vincenzo RomanelloItalySenior Nuclear Researcher and Project Manager, National Radiation Protection Institute (SURO)
Alessia RuggeriItalyTrade unionist
Daisuke KotegawaJapanFormer Executive Director for Japan, IMF; former Japan Ministry of Finance official
Pastor James AdundoKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Pastor Amos NyambokKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Pigbin OdimwenguKenyaYouth political party leader
Pastor George OutaKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Mohd Peter DavisMalaysiaBiotechnologist; biochemist; architect; consultant, deep tropical agriculture; Visiting Scientist, University Pertanian (retired)
Chandra MuzaffarMalaysiaFounder and Director, International Movement for a Just World (JUST); Co-founder, Saving Humanity and Planet Earrth (SHAPE)
Adam OuologuemMaliJournalist, Mali/Washington D.C.
Angel Coronel BeltránMexicoFormer Research Profesor, Physics REsearch Department, University of Sonora (UNISON)
Maria de los Ángeles HuertaMexicoFormer Congresswoman
Dr. Enrique López OchoaMexicoAngiologic Surgeon; Professor of Angiology, University of Sonora (UNISON) School of Medicine
Tenit Alfonso Padilla AyalaMexicoProfessor of Effective Communication, Technological Institute of Sonora
Jaime Varela SalazarMexicoFormer Director, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Sonora (UNISON)
Alex KrainerMonaco/CroatiaAuthor, “Grand Deception: The Truth about Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, and Anti-Russian Sanctions”
May-May MeijerNetherlandsChair and Founder, Peace SOS
C. (Kees) le PairNetherlandsPhysicist (ret.), University of Leiden; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Djamila le PairNetherlandsFreelance journalist; Free Assange activist
Mykeljon WinckelNew ZealandFounder, Voice Media
Bolívar TéllezNicaraguaLawyer and university professor, Nicaragua
David AjetunmobiNigeriaTrade union leader, auto sector
Adeshola KukoyiNigeriaFounder, Equilibrium Perspectives in Learning and Development/University of Lagos
Manuel HidalgoPeruPhD in Accounting and Business Sciences; Professor at Universidad Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú
Herman Tiu (Mentong) LaurelPhilippinesFounder, Philippine BRICS Strategic Studies think tank; TV and radio commentator; organizer, movement vs. new U.S. military bases in the Philippines
Leo SemashkoRussian FederationGandhian Global Harmony Association
Earl M. BousquetSt. LuciaVeteran Pan-Caribbean journalist/columnist; Editor, Voice of St. Lucia newspaper; President, St. Lucia-China Friendship Assoc.; Chair, St. Lucia Nat’l Reparations Cttee
Natasa MilojevicSerbiaPolitical scientist; former Member of Parliament
Meshack MoxongoSouth AfricaLeader, LaRouche South Africa
Princy MthombeniSouth AfricaSpokesperson, Africa4Nuclear
Ishmail PhaliSouth AfricaMember, LaRouche South Africa; member, Democratic Alliance – South Africa
Motutla Juda PhaliSouth AfricaMember, LaRouche South Africa
Hyung-Joon WonSouth KoreaViolinist; Founder and Director, Lindenbaum Festival Orchestra; organizer, North and South Korean peace concerts
Juan Carrero SaraleguiSpainPresident, Fundació S’Olivar; peace activist
Juan Jose Torres NunezSpainPoet, published author, freelance journalist
Dr. George MutalemwaTanzaniaGlobal Peace Studies for Sustainable Development; Africa Peace and Development Network (Mtandao wa Amani na Maendeleo Afrika (MAMA)
Bishop Lubega Geoffrey BobUgandaMinister
Ruslan KotsabaUkrainePresident, Ukrainian Movement of Pacifists
David DabydeenUnited Kingdom/GuyanaProfessor; former Guyanese Ambassador to UNESCO and China
Bernie HollandUnited KingdomSoka Gakkai International
P. D. LawtonUnited KingdomEditor, African
Dr. Athar AbbasiUnited StatesMayor (ret.), U.S. Army
Muhammad Salim AkhtarUnited StatesNational Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
Bernard Allen-BayUnited StatesCEO, Project Funding Consultants; Vice President, Oklahoma NAACP
David AnderssonUnited StatesCo-Director Pressenza IPA
Deborah ArmstrongUnited StatesJournalist
Dr. Elena BajenovaUnited StatesCreator and Organizer, Anti-War Coalition Group, Arlington, TX; President, Russian International Culture Center
Col. Richard Black (ret.)United StatesFormer Virginia State Senator and Delegate; former head, U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon
Kathleen BoylanUnited StatesCatholic Worker Movement, Washington DC
Lt. (ret.) Robert BrancaUnited StatesLt. (ret.) U.S. Naval Reserve
Ellen BrownUnited StatesAuthor, attorney
Malcolm BurnUnited StatesHost, “The Long Way Around”, WKNY Radio, Kinsgston, NY
Harry J. BuryUnited StatesTwin Cities Nonviolent; Association of U.S. Catholic Priests
Bob CushingUnited StatesChairman, Non-Violence Committee, Working Group for the Association of United States Catholic Priests (AUSCP)
T. Herbert DimmockUnited StatesFounder and Music Director, Bach in Baltimore
Daniel DonnellyUnited StatesLibertarian Party, New York
Brian EarleyUnited StatesCaptain (ret.), U.S. Army
Trevor FitzgibbonUnited StatesPresident, Silent Partner Inc.
Christopher FogartyUnited StatesFriends of Irish Freedom
Graham FullerUnited States/CanadaFormer Vice Chair, National Intelligence Council for Long-term Forecasting, CIA; writer; political commentator
David GeorgeUnited StatesProfessor of Economics (Emeritus), LaSalle University
Jack GilroyUnited StatesPax Christi, Upstate New York
Bennett GreenspanUnited StatesPhysician; expert in nuclear medicine; Past President, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI)
Ephraim HaileUnited States/EritreaEritrean Cultural & Development Center (ECDC) , Eritrean Diaspora Boston
Joyce HallUnited StatesCoordinator, Dallas Pax Christi, TX
Cathy HelgasonUnited StatesMD ;Professor of Neurology. (Retired)
Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Dana HicksUnited Statescomposer, musician, minister
Liz HillUnited StatesLiz Hill Public Relations, LLC
Diana HopeUnited StatesD & D Radio Show,”Delivering the Truth”, NYS, and Beyond
Ivan JonesUnited StatesShop Steward, Local 783, AFSCME (retired)
John JonesUnited StatesBoston Ward 14 Democratic Committee
Frank KartheiserUnited StatesMustard Seed Catholic Worker, Worcester, MA
Bishop Reginald L. KennedyUnited StatesPresident, Ministers Conference of Baltimore and Vicinty, MD
Dr. George KooUnited StatesChairman, Burlingame Foundation; retired business consultant, U.S.-China relations
Janice KortkampUnited StatesCitizen journalist, “American Housewife in Syria” podcasts
Igor LopatonokUnited States/Russian FederationDocumentary film director and producer, “Ukriane on Fire”
Jeff MahnUnited StatesNuclear Engineer (ret.), Sandia Labs, science educator at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History.
Joseph MarcinkowskiUnited StatesPax Christi. Veterans for Peace; Houston Peace and Justice Coalition
Imam Radwan MardiniUnited StatesInterfaith leader, American Muslim Center
George McGowanUnited StatesFormer Town Councilman, Lake George, NY; former Republican County Committee, Warren County, NY
David MeiswinkleUnited StatesAttorney-at-law; Past President and Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
Suzzanne MonkUnited StatesChair, Patriot Action PAC
James MooreUnited StatesExecutive Committee- ATA, NSRAA, AKI (fisheries and aquaculture)
Darrell NicholsUnited StatesBishop; Former President, NE Ohio NAACP; Former Vice-President, SCLC, Toledo, OH; Captain (ret.), U.S. Army
Nestor OginarUnited States/MacedoniaRetired Professor of English language and literature, New York; Representative, World Macedonian Congress at the UN; Leade, Macedonian Diaspora in North America ; Member, Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archepiscopy
John OLoughlinUnited StatesAuthor, “McDuff Lives! The life and untimely death of Thomas F. O’Loughlin, Jr.”
Jeff PhilbinUnited StatesNuclear Engineer, Technical Consultant, Independent Contractor
Cynthia PoolerUnited StatesBroadcast journalist, peace activist, NY
Earl D. Rasmussen, P.E.United StatesLt. Col. (Ret.), U.S. Army; International consultant
Coleen RowleyUnited StatesFBI Intelligence (ret.); FBI special agent and intelligence expert; whistleblower and author
Stephen SalchowUnited StatesViolinist, violist; member, Solchow Bow Maker and Repair family
Diane SareUnited StatesLaRouche candidate for U.S. Senate – NY
Martin SchotzUnited StatesCoordinator of JFK Peace Speech Committee, Massachusetts Peace Action, Traprock Center for Peace and Justice
John ShanahanUnited StatesDr. Ing. civil engineer; founder of website
Paul ShannonUnited StatesMA Peace Action
John C.SmithUnited StatesProfessional Engineer; Senior Project Engineer; PhD candidate, Colorado School of Mines
Steven StarrUnited StatesProfessor, University of Missouri
Jack StockwellUnited StatesMorning Radio Talk Show Host (1995–present), Salt Lake City, UT
Barbara SuhrstedtUnited StatesConcert pianist; President, Board of Directors, Framingham Lomonosov Association for Mutual Exchange (F.L.A.M.E.)
Dr. Mohammad A. ToorUnited States/PakistanChairman of the Board, P:akistani American Congress
Bob Van HeeUnited StatesRedwood County Commissioner, Minnesota
Zaher WahabUnited States/AfghanistanProfessor Emeritus of Education, Former Advisor to the Afghanistan Ministry of Higher Education
Frederick WeissUnited StatesMusician
Javier AraujoVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofBolivariano; former Councilman; current Alternate Councilman
Luisa Báez CatariVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofPresident, Diocesan Union of Confraternities, Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar of Guarenas, Miranda state
José BustamanteVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofSociologist
Reinaldo Cróes AriasVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofEconomist and public accounting professional
Andrés Ramón Giussepe AvalaVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFormer member, Latin American Parliament
Marco Antonio HernándezVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofSocial media organizer; Bachelor’s degree in education; professor
Alberto Mendoza UribeVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFundamaraisa Foundation
Emil Guevara MuñozVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFormer member, Latin American Parliament (2006-2011)
Thaidy TeránVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofCoordinator, Music Ministry, Our Lady of Copacabana Cathedral Church, Guarenas
Kelvin ChifulumoZambiaFounder, Educating Girls and Young Women for Development (EGYD)
Munashe ChiwanzaZimbwabweCivil Engineer

Act Now To Reverse Humanity’s Fast-Approaching Thermonuclear Self-Extinction!

May 7—The explosion of drones over the Kremlin on Wednesday, May 3, means the world is closer to thermonuclear war than at any time in history, including October 1962. Absurd stories in the American and European media have appeared (like those that covered up American and NATO responsibility for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines) that assert, without any evidence, that “the Russians flew and blew up the drones themselves.” But think: even if that lying absurdity were true, shouldn’t that also cause extraordinary alarm? If the United States flew and blew up drones over the White House, and then blamed Russia for supporting, say, Cuba, in a drone-weapon assassination attempt against the President of the United States, wouldn’t that mean the world was on the verge of a shooting war between Russia and America, a war potentially deploying thermonuclear weapons that would wipe out life on the planet?

Do you really think that it is sane to be more concerned about “saving the planet from man-made global warming” than saving humanity from madmen-made thermonuclear war? Citizens, wake up! It’s time to take back the United States government from the intelligence agencies that now dominate it, whether in the Congress, State Department, Pentagon or White House, as well as the “informal intelligence agency” called the “mainstream media.”

In each of the 435 Congressional legislative districts, individual American citizens have to stand up for sanity. Go to local meetings of your Congressional and state representatives, to city councils, to university lectures, to state fairs and public gatherings, and demand an immediate shut-off of funds to Ukraine; an emergency audit of American funds already disbursed; the immediate passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, to shut down the speculators that use debt to drive the war machine; and demand support for and discussion of the peace initiatives coming from the Vatican, Brazil and China.

While changing U.S. policy clearly requires Congressional and Presidential action, both these institutions are presently dysfunctional. “Average Americans,” that is, free citizens, have to now stand up, intervene, and be publicly seen and heard both advocating real solutions and implementing them. No partisan party politics! Thermonuclear weapons don’t distinguish between Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. This is a time for solidarity.

The people of Russia, China, and the world recognize, just as do Americans, that “War Is A Racket!” Now, it’s time that we dismantle that racket, and finally deliver on the promise made by President John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961 to “forge … a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West” to “struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.” In this most dangerous period in the history of the world, we are charged in these days ahead to act in such a way that it may be said, in future generations, that this generation proved that humanity, with all its faults, is greater than its presumed destiny.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Julian Assange Are Identical!

April 3, 2023–The “narrative” of the MSM is that there are countries, where freedom of the press thrives, such as Norway, which appears again at the top of the relevant index; and that there are countries, where it is suppressed. In reality, in the MSM honest journalism has almost entirely disappeared. The very notion of a historical or objective “truth,” which can be unearthed by investigative journalism, has been buried by a barrage of projectiles which pierce through that very concept. What has come in its place is an arbitrary variety of descriptions of that “truth,” which are either named as “fake,” or must be “debunked,” or even crushed before conception by being “pre-bunked.”

In reality there is a brutal fight for control of the “narrative” of the “rules- based-order,” where journalism has been degraded to serve as the executioner on behalf of the ruling elites. If this were an exaggeration, Seymour Hersh would have received a newly created Nobel Prize for excellence in Journalism in Norway, and all the Norwegian media would have excelled in reporting about the role of Norway in the sabotage of the Nord Stream Pipelines.

The heads of state who assemble this weekend for the coronation of King Charles can prove their commitment to freedom and democracy by congratulating the newly crowned King for making his first act the freedom of Julian Assange!

World War III or Peace? ~ Support China’s Peace Plan!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

No, not sleepwalking, but rather with eyes wide open, and without reason, backbone or conscience, the trans-Atlantic Establishment is pushing us to the edge of the cliff, beyond which a thermonuclear Hell is lurking, that threatens to annihilate all life on this planet. The 12-point program for a diplomatic solution to the strategic crisis between NATO and Russia, released by China on February 24, represents a possible last-minute lifeline to save us from jumping off. Although it was rejected out-of-hand by President Biden and the EU Commission, it has been increasingly supported for good reason by nations of the Global South, and consequently by most of humanity. It definitely needs to become an integral focus of all those forces worldwide that, in this time of existential threat for humanity, are committed to a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. It also represents a concrete option around which to orient the offer of Pope Francis to use the Vatican as a venue for peace negotiations.

The reason why China’s peace plan was immediately rejected by the United States and NATO is that their goal is the restoration of a unipolar world in which China would never be allowed to play the role of a broker for peace. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made clear Feb. 28, in his joint press conference with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin in Helsinki, he sees Ukraine’s future as a part of the EU and as a member of NATO (in the long run). Thus, for NATO, the option of a neutral Ukraine is off the table, although the NATO leadership knows perfectly well that Russia considers that a blatant disregard of its demand for security guarantees. In other words, the U.S., the UK, NATO and the Atlanticists defend the line: “Ukraine has to win on the battlefield,” and “Russia must be ruined.” Conversely, Russia naturally sees this as an existential threat, and will attempt to bring about a decision on the battlefield. 

The Russian government would be in a parallel universe if it did not take seriously the proposals discussed at a joint event of the Jamestown Foundation and the Hudson Institute in December 2022, concerning options for a complete breakup of the Russian Federation. Their “minimalist” goal is for Russia to be turned into “a looser, confederation-type administrative political structure”—de facto disempowering the Russian government, while the “maximalist” goal is the complete breakup and partition of Russia “along ethno-religious lines” and the simultaneous creation of separate states such as Chechnya, Dagestan, and Tatarstan. In that case, they say, demilitarization comparable to the Morgenthau Plan proposal, a “de-Sovietization,” would have to be carried out, and broad sections of society would have to be brought before a war crimes tribunal or re-educated. 

Since the collaborators of these two think tanks are recruited from the inner core of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex, i.e., the real U.S. power structure, Moscow must assume that these scenarios reflect the intention of the U.S. government. That, in turn, would fulfill the condition that the Russian military doctrine has set for the use of nuclear weapons, i.e., when the territorial existence of Russia is threatened.

According to experts from several nations, a military victory for Ukraine is far away. Ukrainian troops have suffered huge losses, averaging 1,000 men per day over the past three months and around 500 per day since mid-February. Some 10 million refugees—two million of them in Russia—unanimously say they do not want to return to Ukraine. Overall, the Ukrainian population has dropped from 37.5 million to about 20 million at present. Almost half of the urban infrastructure has been destroyed, while all critical industrial capacity is located in Russian-speaking regions.

In such circumstances, a war of attrition lasting many years, as the amount of weapons ordered by NATO would seem to indicate, will be a meat grinder in which the population will be wiped out “to the last Ukrainian.”

While U.S. military officials such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley are pushing for negotiations based on a realistic assessment of the situation, and even the Rand Corporation has advised against a “long war” in Ukraine for its own reasons, the hawks around the State Department are apparently following the proposal made by one of Britain’s leading think tanks, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which advocates escalating the war to the point where Russia would have to threaten to use nuclear weapons because of a threat to Crimea and thus to Russian territory. According to this perverse logic, the ensuing “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids” would “promote” the settlement of the war because Russia could thus be forced to surrender. U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria “Dr. Strangelove” Nuland, notorious for her active role in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev, recently reiterated her support for Ukrainian military attacks on Crimea. Thus, the danger of an escalation to a global nuclear war in the short term is knowingly accepted. Obviously, the lives of the Ukrainian population do not count in this scenario; the sole goal is to ensure the defeat of Russia in order to re-establish the status of American hegemony.

The European Council for Foreign Relations, the EU’s own think tank, points out in a recent study that although the U.S. and Europe have drawn closer to one another, the rest of the world is moving further and further away from the West. Those who wish to get an idea of this reality for themselves are advised to watch the video of a dialogue between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the head of the Indian think tank ORF (Observer Research Foundation), Sunjoy Joshi, at this year’s Raisina Dialogue. A good representation of the Global South’s elite meets regularly at this prestigious event sponsored by the Indian government. As Lavrov, among others, indicated, the Russia-India-China troika, first initiated by Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, continues to be a centerpiece of strategic cooperation, but has since greatly expanded into the BRICS Plus group, to which two dozen other countries of the Global South have applied for membership. Therefore, Russia is hardly isolated, as this includes an overwhelming majority of humanity.

And this majority supports the Chinese peace proposal, which calls for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, abandoning a Cold War mentality, ending hostilities, ending sanctions against Russia, and proposes concrete steps on how to overcome the crisis diplomatically. President Zelensky has also stated that he wants to discuss this with President Xi. The near-hysterical reactions of the mainstream media and the Atlanticists to the Chinese proposal prove once again that ideological glasses cause blindness.

The majority of the world’s population supports a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Brazilian President Lula, who has called for a peace club composed of the nations of the Global South, will travel to China later this month to discuss peace initiatives with Xi Jinping. Italian General Fabio Mini, former commander of the KFOR mission in Kosovo, has proposed further useful steps for a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. Pope Francis’ offer to use the Vatican as a venue for diplomatic negotiations is gaining support from key individuals and institutions around the world, as well as religious leaders of various denominations.

Therefore, it is high time for China’s proposal to become the center of the discussion. The situation today is comparable to that in which the negotiations leading to the Peace of Westphalia ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. At that time, the warring parties came to the conclusion that the war had to come to an end, otherwise there would be no one left to enjoy a victory because everyone would be dead. That is precisely our situation today, with the difference that the existence of nuclear weapons today would guarantee such an outcome.

One of the most important results of the Peace of Westphalia, which laid the foundation for international law, was the realization that peace requires taking into account the interest of the other. From that standpoint, not only is NATO’s repeated eastward expansion a catalyst for war, NATO itself is obsolete and urgently needs to be replaced by a new international security and development architecture that takes into account the interests of all states on the planet.

It is urgently necessary that the newly emerging peace movement, that came onto the scene at the “Rage Against the War Machine” demonstration on Feb. 19 in Washington, on Feb. 25 in Berlin, and in many other rallies in Italy, France, Germany and numerous other countries, take a clear position in favor of ending NATO and supporting the Chinese proposal for a peaceful settlement to the conflict which otherwise threatens to lead to the end of civilization. 

Page 3 of 54First...234...Last