Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian
  • Italian
  • Greek

tobi

Author Archives

Become the Good Samaritan – International Peace Coalition Meeting #50

by Daniel Platt

May 17, 2024 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, opened this week’s 50th consecutive meeting of the International Peace Coalition by discussing the implications of the attempted assassination of Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico yesterday. She referenced the assessment of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, that the crime must be seen in the context of the Western preparation for a war with Russia. Zepp-LaRouche reviewed the press attacks on Fico by various international functionaries of the Anglosphere, who had charged him with “polarization” because Fico questioned the utility of the sanctions against Russia; suggested that the Ukraine war began because of Nazi elements terrorizing the Donbass; and pointed out that NATO broke its 1990 promise to the Russian Federation not to move Eastward.

She reported that Fico’s would-be assassin belonged to an organization called “Progressive Slovakia,” which needs to be investigated further. Was he really a “lone assassin”? There is now a rapid degeneration of democracy in many European states, where free speech is increasingly denounced. U.S. Secretary of State Blinken has just said, in response to Russian statements, that Ukraine can do “whatever they decide” with U.S. weapons, but “all the weapons in the world cannot compensate for the fact that they are running out of soldiers,” insisted Zepp-LaRouche.

She went on to underscore the significance of the Putin/Xi strategic partnership, which is causing conniptions among neoliberals and neocons. It is also extremely important that South Africa went back to the International Court of Justice to demand that Israel implement ICJ’s rulings.

Next, Fr. Harry Bury, Coordinator of the Nonviolent Cities Project of St. Paul, Minnesota, and a leading member of Pax Christi and the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests, reported that Catholic bishops and nuns in Washington, Oregon and Montana have put forward a peace plan for Gaza, which calls for a ceasefire, the mutual return of hostages, and a two-state solution. Significantly, the plan also calls for the re-development of Israel and Gaza. The latter converges on the Oasis Plan originally proposed in 1975 by economist Lyndon LaRouche. Father Bury emphasized that the Oasis Plan means not only development for Southwest Asia, but for the entire world. Reflecting on the economic experience of post-World War II history, he observed that the 1948-1952 Marshall Plan in Europe, and the 1945-1952 occupation and reconstruction of Japan, had worked: there is no mass emigration today from Germany and Japan. He concluded by saying, “Peace is a good investment.”

While he was not able to attend, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and public policy analyst, provided a video, conducted by IPC member Mike Billington, which was shown. “The political solution is that there should be a State of Palestine, and it should live alongside the State of Israel,” he said. But the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council is the obstacle to this. The nations of the region are ready for peace with Israel, but they don’t want Palestine to live under an apartheid regime, or worse, a genocidal one. The American people and the world want Palestine to have rights. The U.S. government is hurting both itself, and Israel, which is seen as “a war crime state protected by the United States.” “There is a water crisis and desalination is the way forward,” Sachs said, in reference to the proposed Oasis Plan.

Sachs warned that “Israel is absolutely radicalized, extremist, compared to 25 years ago.” He said that we need a return to the 1967 borders, and an economic framework that will go along with that. He explained the importance of Pope Francis’ October 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti! (“On Fraternity and Social Friendship”). Pope Francis insists that the only way the world can be saved is for everyone to be like the Good Samaritan, opening the encyclical, that St. Francis “declares blessed all those who love their brother ‘as much when he is far away from him as when he is with him.’”

In conclusion, Sachs marveled at the fact that Biden has not tried to speak to Putin even once since 2021: “That’s the telltale sign of the recklessness and stupidity of U.S. policy.” The U.S. does not have the idea of diplomacy: “We have a Secretary of State, but we don’t have a diplomat.”

Dr. Mubarak Awad, founder of Nonviolence International, provided an update on Gaza and the Israel-Palestine conflict. He described himself as a Christian Palestinian, deported in 1988 by Israel, and fully committed to the policy and practice of nonviolent direct action. He offered seven steps to end the present cycle of violence: First, to the Palestinians, he uncompromisingly says, stop killing the Israelis. Welcome them as neighbors. Choose your leaders by elections. To the Israelis, stop killing Palestinians. End the siege of Gaza. Reverse the land grabs. End apartheid. Don’t do the dirty work of America.

To the international media, Awad asks that they stop using the word “terrorist” to describe actors on either side. To the Americans and Europeans, he says: there is no military solution. Stop supplying weapons for killing.

He emphasized that we need a humanitarian solution for Gaza. Why build a port, instead of getting Israel to open access by land? To the soldiers, he says: don’t cut anyone’s life short. Don’t seek revenge. He applauds those Israelis who refuse to fight, and he expressed concern for those who return, traumatized, from Gaza. “Every country that attacks another has a problem with their returning soldiers.”

In response to Dr. Awad, Helga Zepp-LaRouche admonished, why does the international community stand by and watch this? If we cannot intervene when there is a genocide in front of the eyes of the world, what does that say about us? She reported that, in contrast, responses to Oasis Plan have been extremely positive, wherever it becomes known.

Jason Ross provided a brief report on the IPC Energy Committee Meeting for the Oasis Plan held this past week. This committee is addressing the question of the Plan’s technical requirements. A million cubic meters of water per day would be a good objective for desalination, and it is the job of the Committee to identify not only the nations, but the sectors of engineering, water management, construction, etc. that are required to bring this dream to fruition.

During the ensuing discussion period, a representative of the JFK Peace Speech Committee invited attendees to participate in their June 10 upcoming meeting on Zoom. The Committee takes its name from the June 10, 1963, American University commencement speech of President Kennedy, which he called “possibly the most important speech ever made by an American President.” It signaled a bold attempt to reverse direction and move away from the Cold War.

Danish Schiller Institute leader Michelle Rasmussen gave a report on the Institute’s May 8 conference in Denmark for diplomats, which followed the Schiller Institute’s April 13 Oasis Plan conference. Videos and transcripts are available here.

A university professor in the West Bank reminded the participants that the attacks of October 2023 are not the actual reason for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He graphically conveyed the surreal character of life in Gaza for those who have tried to avoid all political involvement, and have had no contact with Hamas at all. He was an eyewitness to an occurrence in a village of 2,000 people near Nablus: Days ago, three IDF jeeps entered the village, began shooting for no reason, and then left, just as suddenly as they had arrived, with no explanation. Others discussed their frustrations in attempting to persuade others, as well as fear that what is being done by individual citizens is useless in the face of the madness of institutions and so-called elites.

Zepp-LaRouche, in her concluding remarks, mentioned the ongoing attempts to foment “color revolutions” in the dissident states of Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, and especially Georgia (see EIR, May 10, 2024, “Unrest in Georgia: Maidan Redux?”). During the discussion, a military veteran had raised the issue of St. Augustine’s conception of a “just war,” suggesting that the Palestinians in Gaza and the Russians in Ukraine might be seen as conducting just wars. In response, she proposed that the whole matter of nonviolence, as well as the specific topic of just war, should be discussed by an IPC committee more intensively, with the results then brought to the body. She observed that in St. Augustine’s time (354-430 AD), nuclear weapons did not exist. The world today requires a shift in human identity. “Violence is a form of lack of development of the character of people,” she said. Returning to the idea of the Good Samaritan, she said that that idea is echoed in the “Kallias Letters” of Friedrich Schiller: the Good Samaritan embodies Schiller’s concept of the “beautiful soul,” whose emotions naturally lead him to do what is morally necessary. “We are in what may be the worst situation humanity has ever faced,” she said, but it does no good to simply be upset: “We have to use that energy to transform the situation. We must become good Samaritans, beautiful souls.”


Webast: The Dignity of Man Is in Our Hands -A Cognitive Leap into the Future!

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 15, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.org or ask them in the live stream.

Faced with an unprecedented evil—the ongoing, electronically-transmitted genocide, transpiring at this moment in Gaza, with no trans-Atlantic government acting to stop it—we, the people, are required to evoke from ourselves, and then deploy, an unprecedented good. Neither the world in general, nor we as individuals, can, or will, avoid the truth of this moment. We are being tested in the balance. Our self-conception as human beings is placed on one side of the scale. On the other side of the scale are weighed the lives of what was once 2 million people in Gaza. Over 350,000 people have been forced to flee, now from Rafah, where they were told they would be safe. The “red line” has been crossed, and nothing has been done. The Palestinians are forced to flee again some for the eighth or more time in eight months, now out of Rafah, and to where … and to what?

So far, we, and the world, have been tested in the balance, and found wanting.

This week, the LaRouche Organization, the Schiller Institute, and the International Peace Coalition, as well as all people of good will, must go beyond resources, beyond apparent influence, and beyond words, to catalyze an immediate change in the axioms of thinking, and therefore of behavior, of our fellow citizens now sleepwalking into World War Three. The doorway to that war may be through Palestine, and some are inviting it.

This is the moment to try. “The basic assumption for the new paradigm is, that man is fundamentally good and capable to infinitely perfect the creativity of his mind and the beauty of his soul, and being the most advanced geological force in the universe, which proves that the lawfulness of the mind and that of the physical universe are in correspondence and cohesion, and that all evil is the result of a lack of development, and therefore can be overcome.” Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Tenth Principle, of her Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture, properly studied, understood and deployed as the basis for taking the next step beyond the student protests, is the moral springboard that can connect the universities and high schools with the population at large.

Excerpts are from the EIR Daily Alert. Read more and sign up here.

Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 15, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.org or ask them in the live stream.


Conductor of Israel-Palestine Symphony Hits the Right Notes for 200th Birthday of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony

The incomparable Ode to Joy symphony of Ludwig van Beethoven was born on this day, 200 years ago, May 7, 1824. He had worked for a proper musical treatment of Friedrich Schiller’s An die Freude for his whole adult life, over 30 years. Beethoven composed three incredible movements, each a complete and monumental work on its own—and then challenged the audience as to what possibly could be missing.

Little recognized is that the Lilliputians of the 1815 Congress of Vienna had thought they had finally defeated Beethoven, with a systematic dumbing down of Europe’s populations; and Beethoven wrote no major works, meant to be performed by large audiences, from 1815 to 1824. Had he disappeared from the scene? His Ninth Symphony, along with his Missa Solemnis, premiered only one month earlier, represented a stupendous “breakout”—in which Beethoven’s capacity for “universal love” conquered the cultural dark age descending upon his world. The power of his love and genius was able to speak not only to his present, problematic generation, but for generations to come.

An important intervention, on behalf of Beethoven’s Ninth, was made today by Daniel Barenboim, the co-founder and conductor of the joint Israeli-Palestine orchestra, the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. His New York Times article for the occasion argued, in part, that Beethoven was not addicted to political fads: “Instead, he was a deeply political man in the broadest sense of the word. He was concerned with moral behavior and the larger questions of right and wrong affecting all of society.”

Further, and beyond political exegesis upon his Ninth Symphony, Barenboim posed:

“I also see the Ninth in another way. Music on its own does not stand for anything except itself. The greatness of music, and the Ninth Symphony, lies in the richness of its contrasts. Music never just laughs or cries; it always laughs and cries at the same time. Creating unity out of contradictions—that is Beethoven for me.

“Music, if you study it properly, is a lesson for life. There is much we can learn from Beethoven, who was, of course, one of the strongest personalities in the history of music. He is the master of bringing emotion and intellect together. With Beethoven, you must be able to structure your feelings and feel the structure emotionally—a fantastic lesson for life! When we are in love, we lose all sense of discipline. Music doesn’t allow for that.

“But music means different things to different people and sometimes even different things to the same person at different moments. It might be poetic, philosophical, sensual or mathematical, but it must have something to do with the soul. Therefore, it is metaphysical—but the means of expression is purely and exclusively physical: sound. It is precisely this permanent coexistence of metaphysical message through physical means that is the strength of music.

“… By all accounts, Beethoven was courageous, and I find courage an essential quality for the understanding, let alone the performance, of the Ninth. One could paraphrase much of the work of Beethoven in the spirit of Gramsci by saying that suffering is inevitable, but the courage to overcome it renders life worth living.”


International Peace Coalition #49: ‘There Is Goodness in the Universe, and That Will Prevail’

Transcript of the remarks of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Col. Sen. Dick Black, Scott Ritter, Prof. Steven Starr, Chandra Mouzzafar, Vincenzo Romanello, and moderators Dennis Speed and Dennis Small

Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Others Address the International Peace Coalition Meeting No. 49

May 11, 2024 (EIRNS)—Here are the remarks of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Col. Sen. Dick Black, Scott Ritter, Prof. Steven Starr, Chandra Mouzzafar, Vincenzo Romanello, and moderators Dennis Speed and Dennis Small to the Friday, May 10, 2024 meeting of the International Peace Coalition:

DENNIS SPEED: We want to welcome everybody for meeting No. 49 of the International Peace Coalition. We have many speakers today, so we just want to make a general announcement for everyone to try to keep your remarks both focused and short. But when we get to the Q&A period, there we want people to be focused on responding to the content of what you will hear. You can say anything you wish, but we make that as a request so we can run the meeting as efficiently as possible.
There are obviously a lot of things going on, particularly this past week. Today in fact, if I’m not mistaken, the UN General Assembly is expected to vote on a resolution on whether or not Palestine will be granted new rights and privileges, etc. So, there’s a lot even as we are speaking at this moment that is evolving.
What we’re going to do is to go to our first speaker, who is the intellectual generator of the International Peace Coalition, and also the founder and leader of the international Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hello to all of you. Well, the situation in the world is extremely advanced, and advancing by the day. Let me start—it’s difficult to choose which crisis is more acute, Ukraine or Southwest Asia—but let me start with Ukraine. There we had a very dramatic development in the last week, where the statements by Macron were reiterated on May 2 to send troops into Ukraine. Then, Cameron said it’s OK if Ukraine is using its cruise missiles to launch attacks deep into the territory of Russia. Then, you had Hakeem Jeffries from the U.S. Congress saying that if Ukraine loses, then the U.S. would send troops. This was, however, countered by a former member of the U.S. Army, Stanislav Krapivnik, who said if U.S. troops would be sent to Ukraine, they would be wiped out by Russia without any doubt. Then, Russia also said that if F-16s are deployed in Ukraine, they will regard that as a deployment of nuclear weapons, because of their dual-use capability. In other words, the F-16s can carry either conventional or nuclear weapons. And to all of that, for the first time in history, Putin announced maneuvers of the tactical nuclear weapons in response to these Western provocations. There have been normally tactical nuclear weapons rehearsals and maneuvers, but this is the first time that it was explicitly in reaction to these statements by Macron, Cameron, Jeffries, and the F-16 question.
That has sent shockwaves in the West, and Macron in the meantime pulled back a little bit and assured that France would not send troops. That was also probably due to his discussions with Xi Jinping, who was on a state visit in France. In the meantime, there has been relative silence so far from the British side. The British and French ambassadors had been called into the Russian Foreign Ministry and were read the Riot Act, and told what would happen, namely, that if these troops or the British systems would be deployed by Ukraine against Russia, this would cause a Russian reaction against all British and American bases and beyond. And that “beyond” was naturally left open, which Scott Ritter said he thought that this could cause an attack on U.S. bases in Romania, in Poland, in France, in Germany. So, we are really in an extremely escalated situation.
This does not prevent Defense Minister Boris Pistorius from Germany from travelling to the United States, where he bought new weapons systems of various kinds for $23 billion. NATO is pushing hard for the 2% of the national budgets being increased to 2.5%. This whole discussion is that if Russia wins in Ukraine, that Putin will march on and attack the Baltics, Poland, and other NATO countries. That is completely unproven; there are several journalists who have demanded that those who are insisting on this argument should bring the quotes from Putin. There are no quotes. As a matter of fact, the only available quote comes from Putin in his discussion with Tucker Carlson, when he explicitly said that Russia has no interest whatsoever to attack NATO countries. Anybody who studies the matter carefully can only come to the one conclusion: The one thing which Russia wants to get out of this whole affair is to have Western security guarantees like those Putin had demanded on Dec. 17, 2021. That Ukraine will not become a member of NATO, that there are no offensive American weapons systems along the Russian border. So, there is the farce one has to say of the planned so-called peace conference in mid-June in Switzerland, where the basis will be the Zelenskyy so-called “peace formula,” but Russia is not invited. It is an effort to pull as many countries from the Global South on the side of Ukraine, to be able to say that the majority of the world is going in this direction. But this has zero chance to actually lead to peace, because if you don’t invite Russia, how can you have a peace agreement if you don’t invite one of the two sides? This is a very dramatic picture.
If you look at the other hotspot, it is almost unbelievable to follow the news every day. In Rafah, since a couple of days, leaflets have been dropped saying that the 100,000 people of the probably 1.3 million people who are in an absolutely desperate situation in Rafah, have been motivated to relocate to another area because of the pending attack of the IDF on Rafah, which is beyond the imagination. Some of these people—I listened to a radio report this morning—some of these people have been relocated eight times; from the north to Khan Younis, to back to Rafah. Now they are told again to move away from there. Always starving, no medical supplies—it is an absolutely intolerable situation. Hamas in the meantime accepted a deal which was brokered by Qatar and Egypt. [Former CIA Director] Burns visited these countries, and then went to meet with Netanyahu. Now, it turns out that this incredibly cynical game, whereby Hamas is promised that part of the deal will be a permanent ceasefire. But when Burns talked with the Israelis, with Netanyahu, he said it will not be a permanent ceasefire. It will be a ceasefire not with a dot at the end, but a comma. Meaning that once the hostages are freed, then the war can continue.
So, this is a situation which is becoming more and more unbearable for the international community to watch; and we should not watch it.
So, on the positive side, I can only say that we had, following our very important Oasis Plan conference on April 13th, this past weekend a diplomatic event in Copenhagen with the presence of 13 embassies, half of dozen ambassadors in person. It was an extremely important follow-up meeting on the level of diplomats and ambassadors, and out of this meeting came a complete commitment to continue the organizing, kick it up to a higher level by trying to get a big international conference with the participation of states on the need to put the Oasis Plan, the development plan for the entire region of Southwest Asia in earnest on the agenda. I think this shows very clearly that if the Oasis Plan is becoming realized, that can be the first stepping stone in the direction of a New Paradigm for the whole strategic situation. That becomes more urgent by the day.
First of all, the London Economist has an article written by its chief editor containing an observation that indeed the old order is decaying, is finished, is no longer existent. This coming from The Economist is quite noteworthy, given the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the City of London. And there is a new poll conducted by an NGO headed by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General. They made a poll and came to the conclusion that especially since the Gaza war started, the reputation of the United States in the world is rapidly plunging. It’s plunging in the Global South, among the Muslim world, but it’s also plunging among Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland, and some other countries of Europe. At the same time, the images of Russia and China are rising; naturally especially in the Global South.
If the establishments are not capable of learning, and it seems they still are very reluctant to do so, which you can see by the very harsh police reactions to the growing student protests in over 100 cities in the United States and now increasingly in Europe; in France, but also now in about 10 German cities, where in the case of Berlin and Leipzig, they went in relatively brutally and then several hundred professors supported the right of the students to defend their free speech. This is being blasted by the mainstream media as a complete break of the dam, the whole order is breaking apart. How can these professors dare to support the students? So, I think we are experiencing right now a real divide between those people who still have something human inside them, and those who are absolutely sticking to a collapsing order which cannot be maintained in any case. That puts the need on the agenda to really go in earnest for our new international security and development architecture, for a New Paradigm in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia. If you do not include the interests of everybody, peace is absolutely impossible.
These are, in a few words, the updates about the situation, and now I’m very interested to hear what other people have to say.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga, and thank you to everybody who is just beginning to join us. I want to announce the next two speakers, because both of them have some schedule constraints. There’s Col. Richard Black, and Scott Ritter is on the line. What I’d like to do is go first to Colonel Black. Colonel Black, for people who don’t know, is the former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon; he’s a former Virginia State Senator. Welcome, Colonel Black, go right ahead.

COL. RICHARD H. BLACK (ret.): Thank you very much. I’m pleased to be with you. These are very tense times that we’re living in. Just recently, President Putin announced that there will be tests conducted, actual battlefield drills of tactical nuclear weapons carried out by Russia and by Belarus. The reaction from the media has to some extent been sort of blowing this thing off, saying it’s nuclear saber-rattling and so forth.
From the beginning of Russia’s special operation, Russia has pointedly reminded the West that it is a powerful nuclear state. This isn’t a bluff, and it’s not just meant to intimidate or to threaten. It’s actually a reminder of a very cold reality that NATO seems to have forgotten. The West is game of chicken on the world’s most deadly nuclear playground. From the outset, NATO—led by the United States—has carried out a series of just extremely reckless actions. NATO helped the Ukrainians assassinate 13 Russian generals. We worked to sink the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the Moskva cruiser; 300 young sailors went to the bottom with it. The United States, apparently with White House approval, directly orchestrated the sabotage and destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, which has permanently damaged the entire European economy; but especially the economy of Germany, which has suffered enormously from the cut-off of cheap Russian gas. We helped Ukraine to carry out very deep drone attacks that targetted Russia’s nuclear triad. That appears to have been a NATO-orchestrated development designed to see just how elements of the nuclear triad were. Ukraine apparently orchestrated this terror attack on the Moscow concert hall that killed 137 concert-goers. We don’t know the extent of NATO involvement in that. It was directed by Ukraine from what we can tell.
But now, we have sort of a ratcheting up, even from those things. We’ve got President Macron of France, and he is just constantly putting out information over and over suggesting that it is time for NATO troops to become directly involved in fighting Russian troops on the border. More recently than that, we have David Cameron expressing the British approval for the use of cruise missiles and drones and jets to strike deep inside of Russia.
Now, it’s important to recognize that this is a dramatic shift, because it directly contradicts British assurances earlier on that Kyiv would not be allowed to use these weapons inside the Russian heartland under any circumstances. Now, he’s sending the message, “It’s OK; it’s up to them.”
The most recent development in this whole scheme is the comment by House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, indicating that if Ukraine is defeated—which is sort of common knowledge that it’s coming—then the United States will have to fight. He said, “We can’t let Ukraine fall, because if it does then there’s a significant likelihood that America will have to get into the conflict. Not simply with our money, but with our servicewomen and our servicemen.”
Here’s why this is so relevant: We’re talking about sending American troops into battle against the Russian troops. Today, Ukraine’s lines are trembling. Ukraine has certainly fought very valiantly, but their manpower is drained. They lack the reserves to seal any Russian penetrations that occur to their defense lines. At the same time, Russia has massed several large armies for a late spring or summer offensive. And they’re likely to burst through at some point and Ukraine will not have the reserves to shore up the defenses. At that point, there will be a collapse of Ukraine’s lines. The White House knows that this is happening, but they will not permit this war to end, certainly not before the November elections. So, they’re preparing wildly reckless options for preserving power, and those options are the use of tactical nuclear weapons, battlefield weapons, or perhaps the use of poisonous gas, as we did during the Iran-Iraq War during the Reagan era. Those things have not been ruled out.
Russia, in response, is deeply concerned that the U.S. and NATO are beginning to deliver F-16s to Ukraine. These jets are capable of carrying the 100 tactical nuclear bombs, the B-61s, which are air-dropped gravity bombs. So, Russia considers the use of those bombs, or the potential for it, to be an enormous threat. For this reason, the Russian Foreign Ministry has warned NATO that the F-16 is considered a nuclear weapons carrier, and that when they launch, the jets and their airfields will be considered as legitimate targets. Keep in mind that there’s a very high likelihood that NATO would have been sending these from major U.S. airbases within the NATO countries.
On Monday, Putin announced this tactical nuclear weapons exercise in response to what they consider existential threats to Russia. All of this is happening. The Russian Foreign Ministry has summoned the French and British envoys and told them in no uncertain terms that NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, or the use of long-range missiles inside of Russia will be considered as legitimate targets not only in Ukraine, but wherever these things are launched from. This means actual Russian attacks back into NATO. President Putin was newly inaugurated on May 7th; Russians are solidly behind him and behind the war effort. He’s in a position of great strength. He’s ready to fight the U.S. and NATO.
So, what we are seeing today is this fiery exchange of diplomatic salvos going back and forth. It is reminiscent of the lead-up to World War II; and it may unfortunately presage the outbreak of World War III. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Colonel Black. Again, we want to always thank you for being with us. We’re going to go now to Scott Ritter. Scott Ritter a lot of people know from his appearances on things like Judge Napolitano and so on. Let’s remember he’s former United States Marine Corps, an intelligence officer. He was the chief United Nations Special Commission Weapons Inspector to Iraq from 1991-98. We’re always happy to have Scott with us. Scott, you now have the floor.

SCOTT RITTER: Thank you very much. I think Colonel Black pretty much summed it up. I’ll just reiterate some of the points, and maybe expand on some of them a little bit. We have a situation where classic deterrence is failing. It’s failing because in order for deterrence to work, both sides have to take the threat of their imminent destruction seriously. Russia does take the threat to its existential survival seriously. Russia understands that the United States and NATO have articulated a grand strategy that seeks the strategic defeat of Russia. If you’re a Russian, that means that Russia as you know it no longer exists. The United States and Europe are seeking to have Russia return to the decade of the 1990s, when Russia was completely subordinated economically, politically, and even from a security standpoint, to the collective West. This is a vision the West seeks to embrace and to have re-emerge, and it’s one that Russia has rejected wholeheartedly.
One only has to listen to the speeches of Vladimir Putin recently at his inauguration address and his address on Victory Day, to understand that Russia today will never go backwards; will never allow that to happen. Russia views a retrograde in that direction as an existential threat. Russia now defines itself as a nation that depends only on Russia; it is a self-sufficient nation that classifies itself as one of the great civilizations of the world. And Russia says, and its leader says that a world without Russia not a world worth living in. That’s sort of his way of saying that if you seek our strategic defeat, you seek your parallel demise. That’s Russia’s deterrence doctrine: If you seek to destroy Russia, you shall be destroyed in return.
Russia has warned the collective West, NATO, the United States that this issue in Ukraine, this special military operation is something that it will not tolerate a direct Western intervention into. They’ve said that from the very beginning; Russia alluded to the fact that if NATO were to intervene, this would become a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. And Russia would use all the means at its disposal in response. This means Russia’s nuclear weapons. And Russia doesn’t believe in limited nuclear war; that’s the other point that needs to be pointed out here. For Russia, once a nuclear war starts, it logically goes to general nuclear exchange. So, Russia doesn’t believe you can have a one-and-done; you could do a nuclear demonstration. Russia doesn’t believe in “usable nukes” in terms of “We can use these weapons, and then contain the problem so it doesn’t expand.” From a Russian perspective, once nuclear weapons are used, it will logically proceed to a general nuclear conflict.
One of the reasons why Russia does this is for deterrence value. So that people understand that there are clearly-defined red lines that cannot be crossed. These are reasonable red lines; it’s not as though Russia is seeking unreasonable conditions on the world. Russia simply says, “Do not seek our strategic defeat. Do not attack us with nuclear weapons. Do not try to acquire conventional military power capable of overwhelming us, because that would be a strategic defeat. We are not going backwards. We will use all the means at our disposal.”
Somehow the West doesn’t understand this. First of all, the majority of people who are so-called Russian experts or who are in a position to advise policymakers, or the policymakers themselves cut their teeth on so-called Russian-area studies during the 1990s—late 1980s, during the 1990s. These are the people who are committed to the exploitation of Russia. For them, Russia-area studies wasn’t about understanding Russia, but rather understanding how best to exploit Russia. It’s this mindset; their desire to have the West in a dominant position across the board. And an intolerance for Russia daring to stand up and be treated as an equal that has put us in this situation. Their policies always seek to return Russia to the 1990s. There is no policy out there today in the collective West that respects Russia as an equal, and will not tolerate Russia as a superior. But the fact remains today that Russia is in many ways the equal of the West, and in some ways the superior of the West. This is intolerable.
These nations have deluded themselves into believing that Russia is bluffing; that Russia is paper tiger. That what passes for a solid foundation of national security is a house of cards; that if you blow on it, it shall collapse. They believe that Vladimir Putin’s hold on power is tenuous. They believe that there are deep fractures within Russian society. They believe that the economy is being artificially hyped and that it’s very vulnerable to outside pressure and subject to collapse. The bottom line is, they don’t respect Russian deterrence. As a result, they are inclined to embark on policies to achieve an unattainable objective—strategic defeat of Russia; policies which will cross Russia’s red lines.
Colonel Black mentioned the French and British ambassadors being brought into the Foreign Ministry to be read the riot act. The French for daring to say that they will deploy French troops into Ukraine, and the British for saying that they will greenlight the use of British weaponry, the Storm Shadow, to be used to launch strategic strikes into the depths of Russia. I wasn’t there, the Russians haven’t put out a read-out of the meeting, and neither France nor the United Kingdom have talked about it. But I’d bet a dime to a dollar that the conversation went something like this: “What you have articulated represents policies that are seen by the Russian government as presenting an existential threat to our survival. We have told you not to intervene. You now are articulating policies of intervention. Let us remind you that we will respond decisively. And by decisively, we mean not just against terminating the threat as it exists in Ukraine, which we will do, but we will now strike decision-making centers outside of Ukraine to include the high probability of striking targets on your territory. And if you choose to respond to that, understand that we will respond with all the weapons available to us, and this does mean nuclear weapons. And we will use nuclear weapons against you.” I believe Russia did not sugarcoat this whatsoever.
This coincided with Russia launching these training exercises. These are not a bluff; this is not a game. This is the real Russian posture as it speaks. Vladimir Putin has articulated publicly that all decisions have been made. All decisions have been made; there will be no phone calls. There will be no discussions. At the appropriate time, if indeed, France, the United Kingdom, or any other Western nation chooses to conduct policies, conduct operations inside Ukraine squarely off against Russian soldiers, launching strategic strikes inside Russia, all decisions have been made. Russia will automatically respond.
Normally, that would be enough to trigger the deterrence factor, where people would say, “Well, we’re not willing to go there, so we shall modify our posture.” But what we have right now is a feeling in the West that this is pure bluff, and that it’s time to double-down on what we’re doing. Chatham House, a major British think tank, just published a report that said that Great Britain should embrace the strategic ambiguity that the French have done. Well, there’s nothing ambiguous about what the French have said; they said “We’ll go into Ukraine.” Russia has said, “If you do that, we will attack you.” Now the British are saying, “We need to adopt a similar posture.” This is very dangerous. We live in a very dangerous age. And this is a period of time when the United States needs to step up and provide leadership and make sure the British and French know in no uncertain terms that the United States will not back postures such as this. But the United States is silent. Indeed, in our own Congress, we have people making noises. I would say thank goodness that Hakeem Jeffries is not in the chain of command; so frankly speaking, his words mean nothing. He can order no troops; he can’t pick up the phone and call the Secretary of Defense with a meaningful conversation. If he were the Speaker of the House, he still would have those limitations, but the Speaker of the House is a player, who can make phone calls, not to direct, but to advise. But Hakeem Jeffries is a nobody, so fortunately, his words can’t be brought into action; but it should be noted that his mindset is reflective of the mindset of many members of Congress, who view the Russian posture as a bluff. This is the danger. If you’re going to have deterrence, both sides have to be cognizant of the fact that there are red lines which, if they are crossed, things will happen which they don’t want to happen. Therefore, don’t cross the red lines.
But right now, the Russian deterrence, although it’s soundly articulated and ably backed up with the evidence of the ability to carry it out, it’s not being treated in a respectful manner by the West. If the West doesn’t view it as not being a bluff, then they will cross those red lines. And because the Russians have made it clear that their response is on full automatic, we may very well find ourselves up one morning, and that will be our last morning on this Earth. Because once a nuclear war starts, once nuclear weapons are used, this will rapidly escalate to a strategic nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. And then it’s too late.
So, what I believe we need to do, is focus on educating people about the reality of Russian deterrence; that it is real, it is not a figment of anybody’s imagination. And we need to work on getting Western policies to align. One of the more difficult aspects of this is to get the West to let go of Ukraine. We have lost this. We poured hundreds of billions of dollars into this gambit; it has failed. Russia is winning, and will win; and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this. No amount of Storm Shadows flying into Russia’s strategic depth, no amount of French troops on Ukrainian soil will turn the tide. The Russian is pre-ordained; it’s going to happen. The West needs to learn to deal with that. The best way to deal with that is to figure out how we can peacefully coexist with Russia in a post-conflict environment. Nobody’s having this discussion.
I’ll just throw out in conclusion, again sometimes my ambition is greater than ability to carry it out, but I have engaged with the Russians to begin a process in February of 2025 on the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference, to have a New Yalta Conference bringing together experts on international law to talk about post-conflict resolution between Russia and Ukraine. And then to follow up with a New Potsdam Conference in Berlin on the 80th anniversary of that, where Europe and Russia can begin talking about reconciliation in a post-Ukraine environment. There seems to be some interest; maybe we can get more interest, and maybe we can turn it into something that not only happens, but the product of which can be useful to guide a policy both in Europe, Russia, and the United States. Thank you very much for having me.

SPEED: Thank you, Scott, for being here. Before we go to our next two speakers, who will be Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, and Prof. Steven Starr, let me just ask Helga, because I know you have limited time, Scott, and may have to be going. Helga, is there anything you’d like to say to Scott or respond either to him or Colonel Black at this point?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just think this idea of having a new international conference to discuss how to live together on the planet, is the most important. I’m promoting this idea of a new international security and development architecture based on the model of the Peace of Westphalia. I think that that idea, because that’s the situation—the Peace of Westphalia came into being because people realized that if they would continue the war, there would be nobody left alive. Now, with nuclear weapons involved, that is more true than then. So, I think we really should join all efforts to get the idea that we need a New Paradigm, and that the conclusion of the Peace of Westphalia is that you have to respect the interests of the other. That was also what Putin said in his speech in the context of his inauguration. He used that formulation about the interests of the other, which I thought was very appropriate. I referred to it in a short interview with TASS. So, I would urge all participants in this IPC conference that we should brainstorm on how we can activate as many intellectuals, academics, influential people, people who are concerned about peace, to support such an idea.

SPEED: Scott, any response before you get going?

RITTER: I think it’s great, Helga. Find one or two international lawyers who are going to be empowered to present your concept, and maybe we can bring them to Yalta to participate so that they can educate people on what you’re thinking. You could get the feedback and we can make sure that your ideas are part of an international dialogue.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We will work on it, thank you.

SPEED: Thank you, Scott. Stay as long as you can, but we understand that you have some restrictions. I’d like to go now to Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, founder and president of Just International, the international movement for a just world. He’s also one of the original founders of the International Peace Coalition. Glad to see you back, sir.

DR. CHANDRA MUZAFFAR: [can’t seem to unmute himself]

SPEED: OK, we’ll come back to you. I’ll go to Prof. Steven Starr, a nuclear weapons expert and director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program. Steve?

PROF. STEVEN STARR: Hi, thanks for having me here today. I actually retired from that director position, but I’m still teaching a class on nuclear weapons at the university every summer.
I get the impression that the political elite and the leadership in the West are like the students I have coming in who know little or nothing about the effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. Because as Scott said, the West doesn’t seem to be deterred from risking nuclear war. I supposed it’s a combination of arrogance and hubris, but there’s also got to be an enormous amount of ignorance to take a position like that. It is astounding to anyone who’s knowledgeable about what nuclear weapons do. I think we also have a really huge problem, because the western media has just become an echo chamber for official narratives. So, throughout the course of the war in Ukraine, the only news that’s been reported here has been direct from the Ukrainian military sources. So, much of it has been completely factually incorrect. Last August, we had President Biden announcing that Ukraine had won the war; Putin has lost. We’ve heard throughout the war that Russia was running out of missiles and ammunition; that they were using chips from washing machines, that they were desperate, that they’d lost half of their army.
So, how does that match up with the realities of the battlefield today that Russian forces are advancing all across the entire line of conflict? Which is what’s triggering the panic in the West; all these Western leaders are facing elections, and that’s their main concern is not to lose the next election. But if you think about what happens if Biden wins the election? You can bet there will be NATO troops on the ground if he does, if not before. But I think the rate of the Russian advances now are such that we won’t have to wait until November to see something like that happen, because Russia is clearly winning the war now.
And I wanted to say just a few things for people, because the news has been so blacked out in the West. For the first time since World War II, throughout the entire Cold War neither the United States nor Russia has ever suffered attacks on its homeland. We have used proxy wars in Vietnam and Korea, but never were the attacks directed at homelands. Russia has had Russian oil refineries hit, their military bases have been hit, the cities of Tula, Kaluga, Bryansk, Moscow. Belgorod has been hit to the point where they’ve had to evacuate half of the city; that’s a city of 340,000 people. There was recently an attempted invasion of supposed Russian nationalist forces, but they’re just Western mercenaries who use tanks, troops, armored vehicles. How would that be received in the United States if Moscow was fighting a proxy war, and Mexico was being used to fight a proxy war against the U.S.?
There was a recent attack at the concert that massacred 140 people. The head of the Russian FSB, which is the equivalent of the U.S. FBI, said that the Ukrainians and probably Westerners were involved. That’s inflamed Russian opinion. And of course, Helga provided great detail initially talking about the French and Macron and the constant talk about French troops. There’s been definite reports about the French Foreign Legion being there, although they’ve been contradicted.
A few other things that people might now know about: NATO has been pushing what they call a “military Schengen,” which means that all the paperwork has been done to streamline transfers of military equipment across the borders in Europe, without any slowdowns from regulations, that make logistical preparations such as the storage of munitions on NATO’s Eastern flank. NATO is building the largest military base in Europe in Romania, which is going to be 50% larger than the Ramstein air base in Germany. It will cover 6,900 acres; it has a perimeter of 18 miles. The base will accommodate 10,000 NATO and Romanian troops, as well as their families. This doesn’t sound like they’re getting ready to stand down to me.
The U.S. has been facilitating construction of a new highway system on an emergency basis that connects Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine. That’s for logistical support. The U.S. has just delivered a large shipment of M1-A1 Abrams tanks, M2 Bradley armored vehicles and light support vehicles to Greek ports. They’re flooding the military equipment in there. Romania is building up portions of Moldova. French forces are in Moldova. The U.S. has had the 1st Airborne Division in Romania, training for some time now. And throughout the course of the war, the NATO satellites and reconnaissance planes, the AWACS, have constantly been providing targetting information. This targetting information includes, their drones were sent to help hit, say, the Engels Air Force base in Russia, which houses the Russian strategic nuclear bomber, they have to evade air defense systems. So, in way, when they send theses drones in, they’re also mapping out Russian air defense systems. The Russians are very acutely aware of this.
If you add this picture up, it’s more than disquieting. It just seems that we have a leadership, at least definitely in the United States, that’s bent on starting a war with Russia. If they really believe they can make Russia back down, it’s hard to comprehend. I’ve made a career of talking about the effects of nuclear weapons, and I decided I wouldn’t do that today. I can answer questions today, but a nuclear weapon is like a piece of the Sun when it detonates. The surface of the fireball is hotter than the surface of the Sun. It ignites fires in all directions. The strategic weapons of the United States and Russia will start nuclear firestorms that will have diameters between 80-150 square miles. That’s up to 290 square kilometers, I think; I’m not sure, I’m not so good on the metric system as I should be. But these are enormous fires. One detonation like that will destroy an entire city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Russia and the United States each have 1,000 strategic nuclear warheads that they can launch within 15 minutes or less. Then the so-called strategic weapons, the B-61 weapons that NATO has, five member states and six bases in Europe, these are called variable yield weapons. They can be dialed down to have a yield of 300 tons of TNT, which is 0.3 kilotons. Some military commanders will see that as usable, because it’s only about 27 times larger than the largest U.S. conventional weapon, the mother of all bombs, which is 11 tons of conventional high explosive. But they can also be dialed up to a yield of 170,000 tons of TNT explosive equivalent, or 170 kilotons, which is a strategic nuclear weapon. So Russia knows these F-16s can carry a B-61 weapon, they don’t know if it’s in there and what yield it would be set at.
That’s enough, but I just want to underline my concern that the leadership in the West is oblivious. They seem to have forgotten the Mutual and Assured Destruction. We need to remind them of that. I’m not sure of the best way. A conference would be good—anything that would draw attention to that I think would be useful. The people in Europe need to wake up to this.
Thank you for your attention. I’d be glad to answer any questions you might have.

SPEED: Thank you very much Professor Starr. We’re trying to get two things done here. There are some scheduling questions. Professor Muzaffar, are you OK now? …

DR. CHANDRA MUZAFFAR: Yes. Thank you, Dennis. Thank you very much everyone. Thanks in particular to Helga and Mike [Billington]. I’ll be brief. There are a few points I would like to make related to what has been discussed so far.
I think Scott Ritter has highlighted what I feel is the most critical dimension of this crisis. That both sides are not listening to one another, there is no communication. Both have taken positions which appear to be intransigent, at least in appearance. And if you look at the reality, it is very clear—and this leads me to one of the three points I want to make—if you look at the reality, I think Russia has made its position very clear, that they will react, they will respond. They know what the red lines are, and they will act. There is no hedging around, there is no attempt to mask the intention.
As far as the West is concerned, I think this, too, is playing the game. Why? Because the most vital aspect of this crisis the West has not shared with its own people, which is that the real purpose behind what has happened since February 2022, that the real purpose is the annihilation of Russia. They want to defeat Russia, and this has been a strategic ambition of the West for a very long while, even before the Cold War ended. So, one is not surprised that this has come to the fore again. That is the intention of the West, and my fear is that the West is quite capable of moving in this dangerous direction. Why? Because for a civilization which sees itself as dominant and wants to perpetuate its dominance at all costs, whatever the consequences, I do not think they will tolerate a situation where that dominance is challenged, whether it’s by Russia or China, and this, I think, is the reality. They would see a Russia that emerges victorious from the Ukraine crisis, they would see a Russia that is victorious as a direct and immediate challenge to their dominance. And they would want that to be brought to an end, which means that they will be preparing to do whatever it takes to perpetuate their position.
This is the challenge facing us. I think the West will move in this direction.
I also feel the Russians, they will not adopt a different course. They have made their position very clear. And for Russia, whatever some analysts in the West may say, it is an existential threat, because that is the underlying motive, and this is the reason why they have taken this position.
So, what do we do? May I suggest a couple of things here apart from the conferences that has been proposed by Scott Ritter and supported by Helga. It’s a good idea, we should work towards that. But I would see as a more immediate challenge before us, how to persuade the decision-makers in the West and the people who influence the decision-makers, the inner circles in the West—the United States and Britain, in France, and Germany—how to persuade them that this is the course that lies before us: This is the danger. They should accept, as I think Scott said quite correctly, they should accept defeat in Ukraine, without saying that it is a defeat. That is something that one should leave to the negotiators, to be the people who have to work this out. Through negotiations, I think one should take a position where the West will accept the reality—we don’t want to use the word defeat—the reality. And reality has been there right from the beginning, but now it is staring at us dark-face, and that reality is linked to this real threat to the whole of human civilization. The West just has to say that the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine—apart from Crimea, Donetsk, and other areas—they should be returned to Russia. And added to that, yet another dimension, where one should get a solid commitment from Russia that they would enter into bilateral and multilateral treaties with various countries, including Russia’s own neighbors and others which are part of the Western alliance, they would get into these treaties: That they would forge these treaties that would say that the sovereignty of states would be respected. And this would be a very important principle going forward, that sovereignty must be respected at all costs.
For us in the Global South, this is very, very critical, which is why I see people in the Global South—leaders and opinion-makers who can be persuaded—playing this role. They have to reach out and say: Look, the underlying principles are principles are very important to the Global South: respect for sovereignty. That one would respect the sovereignty of all states. One would, at the same time, ensure that the different states can live together, and they would respect one another. This principle of respect which Helga also emphasized is very critical. And this, again, is something that is very important to the Global South. If the Global South had reacted in a certain way in the past, during the years of the Cold War, it is partly because they felt that there was so little respect coming from certain quarters, even from Russia at a certain point in the past. And what they want is respect.
So, respect, sovereignty, these are two important principles. That these would be things to be worked out, but in the short-run, a solution that is directed to Ukraine: which is, respect for the Russian-speaking states and their history, because the history is not a simplistic history, where Ukraine was a totally different state and all the rest of it—we know what the past was. So, respect that, respect the need to recognize the rules of the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine, eastern part, southern part: do that. And at the same time, Russia itself gets into treaties, establishes these treaties with 12 guarantees, maybe through the UN or other international bodies, and I think this is something that is workable. We should work towards that.
I see the IPC, this International Peace Coalition of ours, as something that could play a role. That we’ve sustained this dialogue for so long, that is a great achievement. It is a great, great achievement. And I think we can reach out to various groups on the Russian side, on the side of the West, and say, “this is what is needed.” Both sides will have to realize the danger that faces us, and more than just realize the danger that faces us, they should work in such a way that they will be able to ameliorate the situation. We will have to ensure that this doesn’t happen, because I cannot think of a moment in our history where we have come as close to Armageddon: A total destruction. I think we are at that point, and we don’t have much time. I think this Coalition, I’m seriously convinced, has got a role to play. We’ll play our individual roles within our own governments, leaders that we know, opinion workers, opinion-makers that we are aware of, we will work together with all of them. Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. It’s a very welcome addition and very thoughtful….

DENNIS SMALL: We do have two more speakers here and then much discussion, here. The next person up is have Dr. Vincenzo Romanello: He’s Italian, he’s in the Czech Republic. He is a nuclear engineer and founder of the organization Atoms for Peace [Atomi per la pace].

DR. VINCENZO ROMANELLO: Good afternoon. I would like to say a couple of very short things. The first is, we were speaking about nuclear war. Of course, it would be a disaster because of fires, because of shockwaves. According to simulations, hundreds of millions would die immediately or maybe even 1 billion people. But it’s not the worst part of the story. The worst part of the story would be the fallout and the nuclear winter which would follow. This would be a disaster any maybe the collapse of every infrastructure—so, food, water, energy, health systems. I believe only disturbed people can think to survive in a scenario like this, and is willing to survive in a scenario like this. They can do that, only because people are not informed, because if they would know what is the scenario which they are planning, they would all react. So, this is really a battle of information of all the people.
When we speak about nuclear war, we always forget that, probably the superpowers would use also biological warfare and chemical warfare. So, no way to survive, very probably.
But my message today I wanted it to be something, where I wanted to give a hopeful message today. I wanted to speak about desalination in the Oasis Plan. So, Helga mentioned some time ago that with maybe 1% to 3% of the military expenses, it would be enough to implement desalination in the Middle East area. According to my calculations, only 0.001 of the expenses would be enough to manufacture three or four small modular reactors and starting to implement desalination, providing hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of water every day, at a cost which would of the order $1 or even half a dollar per cubic meter.
This could be possible if we manufacture desalination plants, and we have the technologies. There are many desalination plants worldwide. There are also high-temperature reactors, small modular reactors. We have the technologies, and it’s something that is possible to do.
What I would like to remember, however, is that if you think to a nuclear policy in those places, it is not simply that easy how somebody can think that, “OK, we decide, we have the money, we manufacture the reactors.” You need to train people there, to have a regulatory authority, and this takes time. From the moment when you have the money and you take the decision, it takes ten years, probably. Because I work in a regulatory authority, I know how difficult it is and how many qualified people you need, how much time you need to qualify them, etc. But it is not a reason not to do it. Every second lost is something going more in the direction of Hell, in my opinion.
So, we should really be informing the people and going in this direction as soon as possible. Thank you.

SMALL: Thank you very much, Dr. Romanello. … Dennis Speed?

SPEED: Yes, I just want to respond in part to some of the last things by reminding people of something. Daniel Barenboim, the conductor, wrote something earlier this week, I believe it was published on the 6th of May, on this being the 200th anniversary of the premiere of the Ninth Symphony. I thought this was a useful thing both to say, and also because I know that Helga will have something to say about it. He said:
“Ludwig van Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was first performed exactly 200 years ago Tuesday, and since become probably the work most likely to be embraced for political purposes….”
But then he says: “Beethoven might have been surprised at the political allure of his masterpiece.
“He was interested in politics, but only because he was deeply interested in humanity….
“I don’t believe, however, that Beethoven was interested in everyday politics….
“Instead, he was a deeply political man in the broadest sense of the word. He was concerned with moral behavior and the larger questions of right and wrong affecting all of society. Especially significant for him was freedom of thought and of personal expression, which he associated with the rights and responsibilities of the individual….
“The closest he comes to a political statement in the Ninth is a sentence at the heart of the last movement, in which voices were heard for the first time in a symphony: ‘All men become brothers.’…
“The greatness of music, and the Ninth Symphony, lies in the richness of its contrasts. Music never just laughs or cries; it always laughs and cries at the same time. Creating unity out of contradictions—that is Beethoven for me.
“Music if you study it properly, is a lesson for life. There is much we can learn from Beethoven. … He is the master of bringing emotion and intellect together. With Beethoven, you must be able to structure your feelings and feel the structure emotionally—a fantastic lesson for life!”
So, I will leave it at that. I just wanted to put that in, because you don’t want to get caught in, somebody called you anti-Semitic, or called you some other name. I come from a certain background in which that was often done, and you have to learn to rise above it, but how do you do it? How do you educate your own emotions so you can do that? So, I just wanted to include that here. And Helga, of course you may have some things about that. But people might want to go listen to the symphony.

SMALL: Helga, please go right ahead.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I want to touch upon several points which were made. I think one of the important outcomes of this session of the IPC meeting—and I want to thank all participants for a really very, very round and excellent discussion of the strategic picture in which we find ourselves. As a matter of fact, I was thinking, maybe we should make an exception to the rule, and publish this entire IPC call. I don’t know if you agree with that, but I think it was so rich in terms of both highlighting the danger of nuclear war, the genocide in Gaza and what the mobilization is against it internationally. So, maybe if you could make a vote, or signal your agreement or disagreement in the chat or email, we can see then.
I think we should really try to get across what especially Colonel Black and Scott Ritter and Steve Starr were elaborating, because the danger of nuclear war, it is so close, and every word that was said I can only agree with, because if the elites would know what they are playing with, they wouldn’t do it. But obviously they are completely arrogant and full of themselves, and they are not aware of the danger into which they are bringing all of humanity. I just would like to add one element, and that is that the Russians have a Doomsday machine: They have a doctrine whereby if the entire Russian leadership would be knocked out in the context of a war, they have installed where a second strike would nevertheless deliver a totally devastating blow, nevertheless. So, that would mean the absolute secure end of civilization, and I think people really should consider this.
On the Oasis Plan, what was interesting in the Copenhagen diplomatic meeting about the Oasis Plan, was that several participants had expressed agreement that, because many of the people who are suffering what is happening in Gaza, who are immediately concerned to get humanitarian aid to save the lives, may not have the time to think about the Oasis Plan, because they tend to think, “Let’s first save these lives, get a political solution, and then think about an Oasis Plan.” And we all agreed that that is understandable, even if it’s not the correct approach. But it puts all the more responsibility to the intellectuals to really forcefully try to get this alternative in the minds of everybody, and that is what my appeal to you, again, is: Help us to get the Oasis Plan into all pores of society— governments, think tanks, universities, military people, other organizations as well.
Thirdly, I want to say that one of the most important weapons right now in the metaphorical sense is to be exactly informed of what is going on strategically. I know that many people around the world are worried about the media telling you a narrative, and not the reality. I would like to use this occasion to tell you that we have a strategic alert newsletter, a Daily Alert, which is extremely inexpensive. It is a daily briefing about how the world strategically changes from yesterday to today. It is based on the experience of 50 years of analysis, based on the scientific method of Lyndon LaRouche, who initiated this process 50 years ago. Those people who have been reading it are absolutely convinced that it’s a very unique tool to be informed. So my suggestion to all of you is, if you are interested, you can subscribe to it for free for a couple of weeks, and then if you like it, you can subscribe to it and be really much, much better informed than any other way. We will put this in the chat, and I would urge you to try to subscribe to it.
Lastly, I can only wholeheartedly support what Dennis Speed said about Beethoven. The Ninth Symphony is probably the greatest work ever written. That’s very difficult, because Beethoven has written many absolutely outstanding compositions, but in the Ninth Symphony, especially when you take the totality of the three movements, then culminating in the fourth movement, where you have the entire richness of agapē, of elevating humanity on a completely different level. It’s not just the “all men become brethren,” which is obviously a very beautiful idea and which will happen, I’m sure of it: If man matures and becomes adult, we will be all each other’s brothers and sisters, naturally. And I’m not gendering, I have been saying that way back before the genders even came up with the idea. But it is also, if you listen to the text, which was written by Schiller, the Ode to Joy, there is a part in the composition where it says “above the stars, there must be a good Father.” You should listen to that part of the music. I’m absolutely sure that shudders will run down your back, because it is so elevated. It brings up man in the image of God, and that there is justice in the universe, in the Creation itself, and that there is goodness in the universe and that that will prevail. So, I would suggest that you indeed listen to it, and listen to the translation of that text, while you are listening, because I think there is a unity of Schiller and Beethoven which is really the highest expression of humanity I can think of. That is exactly what we need to be uplifted and strong enough to get through this battle. 

by Daniel Platt

Report on the 49th consecutive weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition, May 10, 2024

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, opened the proceedings with a discussion of the acute danger of the escalating war in Ukraine, highlighting the insane provocations of French President Emmanuel Macron, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron, and U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced maneuvers of tactical nuclear weapons. Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that the claim that Putin will launch a general invasion of Eastern Europe, should Russia win in Ukraine, is entirely without foundation; on December 17, 2021, Putin had demanded security guarantees, and that continues to be what he wants.

Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche continued with an update on the situation in Gaza: 100,000 out of 1.3 million refugees have been relocated from Rafah. Some have been relocated as many as eight times, are starving and have no medical supplies. Zepp-LaRouche described the negotiations process as an “incredibly cynical game,” where Hamas was promised a permanent ceasefire, but that has now been redefined with “not a dot at the end, but a comma.” In other words, once the hostages are freed, the war can continue.

In contrast, she reported on a recent successful Schiller Institute seminar in Copenhagen, where the Oasis Plan was discussed with diplomats and ambassadors. “If the Oasis Plan were realized, it can be the first stepping stone for the new paradigm,” she said. Even the “City of London mouthpiece,” The Economist, now admits, in the words of its editor-in-chief, that “the old order is dying. Its sudden collapse could be sudden and irreversible.”

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.), former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon and a former Virginia State Senator, insisted that the Russian nuclear maneuvers are not saber-rattling, not a bluff. “It’s actually a reminder of a very cold reality … the West is playing a game of chicken on the world’s most dangerous nuclear playground,” he said. The U.S. sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022, which has damaged the entire European economy. Ukraine apparently orchestrated the terror attack on the Crocus City Hall concert in Moscow, this year. But these actions come from desperation. “Today, Ukraine’s lines are trembling. The White House knows that this is happening, but they will not permit this war to end before the November elections.” Black warned that “NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine will be considered legitimate targets” by Russia and could mean retaliation against NATO targets on Russian territory. That “may presage the outbreak of World War III.”

Former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer and United Nations Special Commission weapons inspector Scott Ritter opened his remarks by saying, “We have a situation where classic deterrence is failing. NATO and the United States have articulated a strategy for the strategic defeat of Russia.” Russia will never allow that to happen, Ritter warned. Russia has warned the collective West that Russia will not tolerate an intervention in Ukraine. Russia doesn’t believe in a limited nuclear exchange. Today’s Western “strategists” cut their teeth in the 1990s, in Russian studies programs designed for exploiting the post-Soviet nation. As a result, they are committed only to erroneous “policies which will cross Russia’s red lines.”

Following Ritter’s presentation, there was a short colloquy with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Ritter in his conclusion had proposed that a “New Yalta” and a “New Potsdam” conference be convened on the respective February and July 80th anniversaries of each in 2025. These conferences would involve experts from the United States, Russia, and many other nations, “to talk about post-conflict resolution between Russia and Ukraine, where Europe and Russia can begin talking about reconciliation in a post-Ukraine environment.” Zepp-LaRouche responded that “I just think that this idea of having a new international conference to discuss how to live together on the planet is the most important.” She spoke about her proposal to develop a new security and development architecture “on the model of the (1644-1648) Peace of Westphalia.

Prof. Steve Starr, director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program and a senior scientist at the Physicians for Social Responsibility, followed. “I get the impression that the political elite in the West are like my students coming in, who know virtually nothing about nuclear war.” Adding that “the Western media have become an echo chamber for official narratives,” he reviewed some of the laughable claims about the Ukraine war which have been relayed to the public with a straight face. Since World War II, Russia and the U.S. have fought only proxy wars; but that changed with Ukraine’s attacks on targets within Russia. Starr presented an extensive list of provocative NATO actions, including the fact that “NATO is building the largest military base in Europe in Romania.” The Russians are acutely aware of all of it. “We have a leadership, at least in the United States, that is bent on starting a war with Russia,” Starr said, and concluded by reviewing the grim reality of thermonuclear warfare which he has presented in previous meetings.

Dr. Chandra Muzzaffar of Malaysia, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) argued that the West has not shared with its own people that the real intention of the Ukraine war is the annihilation of Russia. Russia views the Ukraine war as an existential threat. He stressed that the efforts of the IPC, which has been meeting consistently for the past year, have now become a major factor in the world strategic situation. “That we have sustained this dialogue for so long, that is a great achievement. And I think we can reach out to various groups, on the Russian side, one the side of the West—both sides will have to realize the danger that faces us. I cannot think of a moment in our history when we have come as close to Armageddon, a total destruction. I think we are at that point. And we don’t have much time.”

Sian Bloor, an organizer for the Workers Party U.K., reported on George Galloway’s February 29 victory in a by-election for Parliament. Galloway, running as an independent for the small party, won more votes than the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Party candidates combined, shocking Britain’s entire political establishment. (Even more shocking, the runner up was a car repair shop owner “without any political views” who also defeated all the main parties.) The fact that Galloway represents a small party, and the runner-up was an independent, shows the disaffection in the U.K. electorate with Ms. Bloor described as the “uniparty” or “duopoly,” the Labour and Conservative parties: “You can’t get a cigarette paper between them. As George [Galloway] regularly says, they are two cheeks of the same backside.” Her presentation concluded with a brief exchange between Bloor and New York independent Congressional candidate Jose Vega, who is campaigning for the Bronx seat held by Ritchie Torres, author of a bill to suppress college students and faculty who seek to stop the destruction of Gaza.

Italian nuclear engineer Vincenzo Romanello, founder of Atomi per la Pace (Atoms for Peace), warned that, in addition to the horrors of nuclear war described by Dr. Starr, the worst part of the story would be the resultant radioactive fallout, followed by nuclear winter, that no one would survive. On the other hand, we have the technologies for desalination that will make the Oasis Plan a success.

Father Harry Bury of Pax Christi spoke passionately about the need to “spread the word” about the Oasis Plan everywhere. He lamented how few people are advocating it, and demanded that the IPC find a way to immediately remedy this. We learned from the First World War that by punishing Germany, we brought Hitler to power, but by helping the vanquished nations after World War II, we laid the foundation for peace. He compared the Oasis Plan to the Marshall Plan, and concluded by saying, “We need to work hard to help every nation to develop.”

This was followed by a live report from Diego Machuca López and Fernando Garzón, who were participating in a demonstration for Gaza in Guayaquil, Ecuador.

In her concluding remarks, Zepp-LaRouche said, “If the elites would know what they are playing with, they wouldn’t do it. One of the most important weapons, in the metaphorical sense, is to be exactly informed about what is going on strategically,” she said, and encouraged participants to try a free introductory subscription to the EIR Daily Alert. Both Zepp-LaRouche and moderator Dennis Speed called attention to the great conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim’s essay on Beethoven and the Ninth Symphony, which he first conducted on May 7, 1824. “There is goodness in the universe, and that will prevail,” Zepp-LaRouche said.


Webcast: Xi Meets Macron — New Peace Offensive Possible?

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 8, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.org or ask them in the live stream.

Amid the horrifying news that Israel is beginning its operations in Rafah, the last region of the Gaza Strip not already pulverized by Israel, a different paradigm is manifesting itself in Europe, with the arrival of Chinese President Xi Jinping to France, Serbia, and Hungary.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is now in Paris for a two-day trip including a summit with President Emmanuel Macron and other meetings and events. As is often the case, the visiting president wrote an opinion piece published in France’s oldest national newspaper, in which he presented three proposals: first, that the outlook that brought about the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two nations 60 years ago radiate again in a spirit of peace and development; second, to expand bilateral economic cooperation, such as through new processes of higher productivity; and third, to work together to preserve peace and stability in the world.

Xi told reporters that he would only support an international Ukraine peace conference if it includes the participation of both Russia and Ukraine. Currently, there are plans to hold a “peace” conference without Russia in Switzerland in mid-June. The president warned against smearing China’s efforts to achieve a peaceful solution to the Ukraine situation.

The West would do well to learn from the shifting world dynamic, as recently expressed by President of the Democratic Republic of Congo Félix Tshisekedi in a polemical interview with French television during his visit to Paris last week.

The Prime Minister of Georgia pointed to one particularly glaring hypocrisy of the West: governments supporting attacks on pro-Palestinian protests while denouncing police actions in other nations.

Pointing to hypocrisy does not itself provide a solution. For that, the World Land-Bridge of the LaRouche Movement, including its particular expression in the Oasis Plan, is the path forward. Two candidates in New York, U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare and congressional candidate Jose Vega, are taking the lead on campaigning actively for this outlook in the U.S.

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 8, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.org or ask them in the live stream.


Webcast: Will Campus Protests End the Military Industrial Complex?

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 1, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.

We are in a time of dramatic change, when humanity faces decisions in the near future whose consequences will be felt for generations.

Will Anglo-American NATO propel its showdown with Russia to the brink, sending us teetering on the edge of the thermonuclear abyss? Will Israeli misleader Benjamin Netanyahu propel his ongoing military barbarisms, engulfing the region in conflict, with Iran as a potential justification? Will the United States cease to content itself with stern lectures and trade sanctions against China, the world’s leading economy—turning instead to forcing the military confrontation over Taiwan they claim China is planning?

Conflict is not inevitable, and colonialism is not eternal. The future is made by the actions taken every day, by leaders and citizens alike. Mental inertia need not overpower reason; it is not yet too late to shift!

There are signs of a transformation of official policy, and of nations’ and people’s self-perceived roles in deliberating upon it. Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to demand that the U.S. support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The nation’s youth overwhelmingly oppose the Biden policy towards Israel. College protests continue and expand, perhaps most notably in Columbia University in New York City, where an administration-imposed deadline to disperse came and went Monday afternoon. Reports from Israel indicate that Netanyahu is trying to figure out how to stop what seem to be upcoming arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.

Indeed, nothing would be more reasonable, from the standpoint of the true self-interest of the United States and of its people, than to return to the revolutionary concepts that led to its founding.

A revival of the American System, taking on new forms appropriate to the present, would set the U.S. on course to having a beautiful future. It will free the nations of NATO to rid themselves of the myopic and puerile attitude of maintaining relevance, by preventing others from growing.

Abundance is ours, if we choose it.

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue May 1, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.

Truth Over Treason: Toppling the ‘Not-So-Deep State’

“Today, on the campuses, this is something being done to 18 year-olds and 19 year-olds who simply are seeing the mass slaughter of women, children and people in Palestine, and are opposing it. They’re saying there has to be a better way than this; we’ve already acknowledged, and it’s been acknowledged by the UN, that there is supposed to be a state called Palestine. What is the problem with us ending the war and looking to do some form of economic development that brings peace to this area. They’re being called anti-Semitic.”

The same epithets used against Lyndon LaRouche beginning in the 1970s, and ever since, for the same purpose of stopping the establishment of a new, just world economic order, including the Oasis Plan—the only basis for durable peace—are used now against huge numbers of American students.

Watch The LaRouche Organization‘s video “Truth Over Treason: Toppling the ‘Not-So-Deep State’” featuring Harley Schlanger, Ray McGovern, Congressional pre-candidate Jose Vega, joining host Dennis Speed.


April 25, 11 am Webcast: Peace Requires a New Strategic Architecture: If We Unite We Can Move Mountains

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue April 25, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.

Just recently, the Schiller Institute conducted a very successful online conference presenting the Oasis Plan for a comprehensive economic development perspective for all of Southwest Asia, however, the strategic situation is moving closer to the point of no return.

Two recent votes underline the urgency to expand our efforts dramatically. The veto by the US denying Palestine the requested status as a full member of the UN clearly has thrown back the possibility to end the horrible, unprecedented catastrophe in Gaza. This veto is an historic travesty, which is isolating the US and its allies further from the countries of the Global Majority, who will not forget what is happening now in front of the eyes of the world. Secondly, the vote by the US House of Representatives to provide another $95 billion for weapons and other military operations in Ukraine, Israel and the Pacific region represents a gigantic step further in bringing the world to the abyss of a global nuclear war.

Why is the spectacular failure of U.S. representative government and leadership, seen in Saturday’s “bipartisan,” “democratic” $100 billion vote to continue to finance the no-win depopulation wars in Gaza and Ukraine, a de facto active provocation for World War Three? And what can be done to reverse that failure?

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue April 25, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche – Keynote Address

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Keynote Address to the April 13 international Schiller Institute Conference: The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development Between Israel and Palestine and for All of Southwest Asia

Hello. Greetings to all of you from many different countries, from wherever you may be listening now. We are organizing this Oasis Conference to inject a perspective of hope and show a way out of an otherwise desperate, extremely dangerous, and indeed, catastrophic situation in Southwest Asia.

If we don’t replace this present escalation, which could rapidly turn into a full-fledged regional war, turning into a global nuclear war, it could mean the end of the human species on this planet. In order to avoid that short-term danger, what is needed is a cognitive jump, to conceptualize an entirely different approach, namely to define the economic and security self-interest of the Palestinians, the Arabs in general, as well as the Israelis, and then the neighboring countries in the larger region.

Why am I saying this?

What has happened in the last six months is unprecedented in all of history. A genocide, which is happening in real time, is transmitted live from the battlefield in Gaza to the TV sets in the living rooms of the world audience. So while in the first instance after the Hamas attack October 7th on Israeli villages causing 1200 deaths, the sympathy of much of the world was with Israel. That changed day by day, week by week, month by month, as billions of people could watch with their own eyes, unfiltered by commentators and narrative-authors. And what they saw was not a measured counter reaction by a country under attack, but a relentless ethnic cleansing in a sealed tiny territory by one of the most highly technologically equipped military forces in the world, using artificial intelligence for targeting of Hamas fighters and at the same time denying water, food, medical care, electricity, housing, clothing, sanitation, etc., to an entirely unarmed population. So far, the casualties on the Palestinian side are around 33,400, of which 17,000 are children. That is, 44% of all killed are children! And more than 1 million are starving to death acutely. That is why there have been hundreds of thousands in the streets in Islamic countries, in American and European cities, and in the universities!

In the aftermath of the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, U.S. CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Kurilla, is presently visiting Israel where he met with IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, and Defense Minister Gallant, and visited the Air Force Command Centers, as well as the air bases. Western media are buzzing about a possible Iranian strike on a variety of targets in Israel, as early as today or two days from now. This morning, the Netherlands closed its embassy in Tehran, Lufthansa cancelled flights to Iran until next Thursday [April 18] and the Foreign Office of Germany has called for all German citizens to leave the country. It’s clearly a hair-trigger situation, which in the worst case could turn into regional and even global war.

Despite this escalation, and all the more because of it, it is therefore of the utmost urgency that a completely different approach is being introduced, namely the so-called Oasis Plan, which was proposed in 1975 by my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche. It is based on the idea to create an incentive for both the Palestinians and the Israelis, to replace the present feelings of deep injury, pain and despair for some and hatred for others, with a perspective of a common economic development for the creation of a better future for all generations to come. For the Palestinians it is of vital importance for their very existence, and for the Israelis they should listen to those who are warning them about the change in the perception of the world, such as Ami Ayalon, the former director of the Shin Bet during the time of the Oslo Accords. In an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, he warns Israel, that following the IDF attack on food trucks on Feb. 29, killing 112 people, and wounding 760—who were desperately trying to obtain the food that could save them from starvation—and the attack on the 7 World Central Kitchen workers, eradicated the legitimacy of the war in the eyes of the world; that it is seen no longer as a war in self-defense, but as an act of expansionist aggression. Furthermore, Ayalon writes that Israel can not win by eliminating the Hamas leadership, since that would not make the Hamas ideology disappear.

That is an understatement of the year. Even if this present crisis would not lead to a global annihilation of the entire human species, in which obviously also Israel would vanish, if the cycle of violence is not interrupted once and for all, the future for all will be a hell, in which one war will follow the next, as we have seen during the last 75 years, always naturally feeding the various arms producers of the growing military industrial complexes.

What we propose therefore is the updated version of the Oasis Plan first introduced by Lyndon LaRouche in 1975, which he proposed after attending a celebration of the Ba’ath Party in Iraq, attended by many leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement. For anyone visiting Southwest Asia, the most striking experience is the overwhelming presence of the desert and the obvious shortage of water, especially fresh water. It is also clear that the requirements for the water consumption for any population, Israeli or Arab, for a modern living standard, cannot be satisfied from the existing “natural” water resources. Furthermore, in all the military conflicts so far, the lack of water and the efforts to control the access to water have played a decisive role.

The existing aquifers in the region do not provide even approximately sufficient water, therefore even a fair sharing agreement would not solve the problem. In order to create large amounts of new fresh water a variety of methods must be deployed. The most obvious to begin with are several canals connecting the Mediterranean with the Dead Sea, and the Dead Sea with the Red Sea. Because of the difference in altitude, the Dead Sea is about 400 meters below the Mediterranean, so this allows for hydropower generation. But if one creates an additional canal from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Dead Sea, and then links the two canals by a cross canal, something else is possible. The basic idea is to increase the size of the canals sufficiently to allow for large-scale desalination projects along the banks of the canals with the aid of a number of nuclear power plants. Because of the breakthroughs in technology in the recent decades, the availability of the fourth generation pebble-bed reactor, the high-temperature reactor, that was originally developed by Professor Schulten in Jülich, Germany, and which is produced now by China, the safety concerns have been solved. There is also the option of using thorium-cycle reactors, which are uniquely usable for civilian consumption of nuclear energy. One could build a significant number of 300-megawatt electricity plants, what used to be called “nuplexes” or “duplexes” along the canals, providing fresh water for large-scale irrigation for reforestation, agriculture, the building of transport infrastructure and new cities.

Even if the cost of producing fresh water from desalination of saltwater with nuclear energy is relatively high, the economic benefit from the enormous economic activity generated this way in areas, where there was absolutely none before, is orders of magnitude larger than the amount originally spent. It is the unique power of human labor, that with the help of science and technology, it adds value to the process, so that the outcome of work is always higher in terms of value than all the elements which went into it. The energy-flux density used in this, determines the ratio of added value. So it really pays for itself.

One should therefore not only look at the projects mentioned here so far, but have the vision of how this region can look in one, two, three, four generations from now. Take as an example China, which has in the last 30 years greened several desert areas successfully. The Chinese economist Dr. Ding Yifan describes in his new book, The New Dynamics of Development: The Crisis of Globalization and China’s Solutions, how nearly one-third of the Hobq Desert in Inner Mongolia has been effectively treated, and has become an economic cluster of desert tourism, food, and photovoltaics, and how in the Sekhangba not far from Beijing, thousands of hectares of forest have been restored, and how on the border between Shaanxi and Inner Mongolia in the Mawusu Desert, 30% of the desert is now covered with vegetation, soil erosion has ceased, and the newly reclaimed farmland has reached 1.6 million acres, generating tremendous economic benefit for local farmers. Dr. Ding Yifan reports that Eric Solheim, UN Undersecretary and UNEP Executive Director, praised the Hobq Desert model which provides excellent experience for other countries and regions that face desertification problems, and that China’s experience in sand control can also spread to Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

In order to conceptualize a vision of development for the entire region: from India to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, and how that area can develop as a future hub between Asia, Africa, and Europe, one should imagine the infrastructure density, for example, of Germany; where you have an integrated system of highways, railways, water systems, which represent the precondition for advanced industrial development and agriculture. There is no objective reason why Southwest Asia cannot achieve a comparable level in the future.

If the looming war can be avoided, the tectonic change which is taking place in the world today where the countries of the Global South are already working to create a new economic system, can create the conditions for the full development of Southwest Asia. Russia, China, India, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt are already members of the BRICS; Saudi Arabia is a candidate, and others like Türkiye have indicated an intent to join. If all these countries would agree to the development perspective of the Oasis Plan and convene a comprehensive Southwest Asia conference on an emergency basis in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, the present looming catastrophe can be avoided, and the crisis turned into the beginning of a new era of peace and development.

Henry Kissinger, who pretended to be an expert on the Westphalian Order, actually grossly misunderstood it by insisting, that it required a “balancing power”—namely an unipolar policeman. He claimed that “the Westphalian system never applied fully to the Middle East,” since only Türkiye, Egypt, and Iran had an historical basis, while the borders of the other states would reflect the arbitrariness of the victors of World War I. He obviously was referring to the intent for future manipulation of the Sykes-Picot Treaty.

That is why the world must return to the actual Peace of Westphalia and establish a new international security and development architecture, which takes into account the interest of every single country on the planet. That new architecture must emphatically include Russia, China, the U.S., as well as a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

According to the Cost of War Project of the Watson Institute at Brown University in Rhode Island, in the 20 years from 9/11 in 2001 until 2021, the U.S. military expenditures including collateral costs were $8 trillion, which was spent for military and counter-terrorism measures in 85 countries, not including U.S. special operations forces, CIA operations, “military information support operations,” “psychological operations,” etc. In this same period, more than 940,000 people have been killed by direct war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan; and the number of civilians who have died as a result of indirect causes, is significantly higher. If that amount of money—$8 trillion—would have been invested in programs to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, the world would be today a prosperous garden, and the United States would be celebrated as a friend of humanity.

I can already hear the critics who say that this perspective of an Oasis plan as the starting point for a new international security and development architecture in the spirit of the encyclical Populorum Progessio of Pope Paul VI is not realistic, or even worse, completely utopian.

When Friedrich Schiller wrote his trilogy Wallenstein about the powerful warlord of the 30 Years’ War, he portrayed Wallenstein, not in the way the handed down historic interpretation characterized him, but as a man who really wanted to end the war and reach peace. In the play, Schiller puts the vision of the Peace of Westphalia, which was reached 16 years later, in the mouth of Max Piccolomini, the fiancé of Wallenstein’s daughter Thekla. In a conversation with his father and a representative of the Vienna Court, Questenberg, Max says:

“You make him [Wallenstein] an indignant man and, God knows!

To what even more, because he spares the Saxons,

Seeks to inspire confidence in the enemy

Which is the only way to peace;

For if war does not end in war,

Where then shall peace come from?”

That is the whole idea: “For if war does not end in war, where then shall peace come from?” To inspire confidence in the enemy, that is the only way to peace! At the abyss of what could become the end of all life on the planet, are we, mankind, the creative species; and can we define a solution out of this danger? So let us put the Oasis Plan on the table of all governments of the world!

Thank you.


Webcast: Dialogue, Not Retribution

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue April 17, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.

April 15, 2024 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in two discussions with colleagues on Monday, stressed that, in this potentially catastrophic world situation, it is essential that the proceedings of the Saturday Schiller Institute conference, The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development Between Israel and Palestine and for All of Southwest Asia,” be made available in a condensed format within 48 hours. The United Nations will see discussions in the next days which could prove to be momentous. The Schiller Institute comprehensively presented the Lyndon LaRouche insight, still controversial to many, that a comprehensive physical-economic solution must either accompany, or precede, any efficient proposal for the resolution of the population wars in Ukraine and in the Gaza/West Bank.


This new approach, based on the idea that peace is only possible if all sides recognize their economic interest in common development, must be brought into the upcoming debate on war or peace that is currently taking place both in the United Nations and on the streets and in the homes of the transatlantic world. We must bring about a rapid change of heart in the United States and Europe, to which the global majority can respond positively. The joint international reconstruction of Gaza as part of a newly recognized Palestinian state is the only chance to overcome this terrible tragedy.

This is the method which the Independent campaigns of Diane Sare and Jose Vega have espoused. It is the method which the Schiller institute Oasis conference advocates. And it is the method that can restore self-government, based on the principle of the General Welfare, to the failed states of the trans-Atlantic world.

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue April 17, 11am Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.


Global Times Quotes Helga Zepp-LaRouche on German China Policy

April 15, 2024 (EIRNS)—Giving an overall positive perspective on German-Chinese economic cooperation upon Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s arrival in Chongqing, Global Times however, also addressed the worrisome loyalty of Germany to Western geopolitics, which undermines cooperation potentials:

“In July [2023], the German government released a toughly-worded China strategy that shifted the focus to de-risking, diversification, and a reduction of dependencies on China. Despite internal pressure, the current German government remains pragmatic and is putting its own economic interests at the top of its priorities.

“Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Germany-based political and economic think tank the Schiller Institute, told the Global Times over the weekend that for an export economy like Germany, it would be ‘suicidal’ to follow these calls for ‘de-risking.’

“‘Germany is presently experiencing a dramatic economic downfall. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been luring German enterprises to invest in the U.S. instead of Germany with incentives provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. In this adverse environment, the expansion of economic cooperation with China represents an anchor of stability for Germany,’ she said.” If Germany does not effectively resist geopolitics, its relations with China will suffer.


Page 1 of 10123...Last