Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in 1984 at a time of intense geopolitical tension, particularly in Europe during the medium-range missile crisis. In her discussion with Diplomacy Talk, Zepp-LaRouche shared her inspiration for creating the institute, emphasizing the need for a new approach to foreign policy based on justice and a new economic order. “If every nation and every civilization goes back to their own best tradition, and has a classical renaissance, then you have a dialogue among these best traditions, and communication and friendship is very easy,” she explained. Her vision was not only to establish a just economic order but also to counter what she viewed as the excessive Americanization or homogenization of global culture by fostering deeper cultural exchanges, in a dialogue among the most profound cultural movements in the countries of the world.
Reflecting on her multiple visits to China, Zepp-LaRouche described the nation’s transformation as astonishing. Recalling her first trip in 1971, she noted how China had been largely agrarian and impoverished at the time. However, in the decades that followed, she witnessed rapid modernization. “Every time you come, you find new buildings, new technologies, new science,” she remarked. She particularly praised China’s advancements in infrastructure and space exploration, saying, “I keep telling people in Germany that if you go into a fast train, and you put a glass of water on the table, not one drop will ever jump out.” She believes that China serves as an inspiring model for other nations and urged the country to be more assertive in sharing its developmental strategies with the world.
Zepp-LaRouche strongly criticized the Western portrayal of China as a “threat,” arguing that such narratives stem from outdated geopolitical thinking. The would-be Euro-Atlantic hegemons “project what they are doing onto China,” she asserted, adding that the real issue is the unwillingness of some to accept the end of a unipolar world. “To be slandered like that is just an injustice. It reveals more about the mindset of those people who say China is a threat than about China,” she stated. She said that China has not engaged in war and has instead contributed significantly to global development, particularly in Africa. In her view, the Belt and Road Initiative exemplifies China’s commitment to global cooperation, improving the potential for long-overdue infrastructure development in regions that had long suffered from neocolonial economic policies.
On the question of civilization and global governance, Zepp-LaRouche dismissed Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory as mere propaganda, contrasting it with President Xi Jinping’s Global Civilization Initiative. She sees Xi’s approach as a necessary step toward resolving global tensions and fostering genuine cultural dialogue. “The idea that you have a group of nations who have the right to impose their will on another group of nations … this geopolitical outlook has caused two world wars,” she warned. Instead, she called for a new paradigm rooted in mutual respect and cooperation, arguing that embracing diverse cultural traditions can lead to a more harmonious global order.
“The most important task … is that we have to convince the countries of the West that it is in their interest and the interest of the whole world to cooperate with China,” she said.
The interview, conducted in English and subtitled in Chinese, is available on X, and as web postings with transcripts in English and Chinese.
March 1, 2025 (EIRNS)—The 91st weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) on Friday, Feb. 28 turned into a profound philosophical discussion on the true meaning of politics and diplomacy which must be established in order to prevent the descent into global war, and on the current extremely dynamic transformation taking place in the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s election and his forceful intervention to stop the surrogate war on Russia in Ukraine.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute and convener of the IPC, opened the forum by pointing to the tectonic shift taking place, with the collapse of the collective West. The unipolar world, ruled by the West since the end of the Soviet Union, is disintegrating, and “is never to be fixed again.”
The war in Ukraine is lost, but the Europeans refuse to stop, preparing for a war they cannot win, and cannot afford. In a state of denial about reality, they sent French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to Washington to coerce Trump to continue the war, but totally failed. It is an “arrogance of power,” Zepp-LaRouche said, which is expressed by the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. That treaty was used by the EU leadership to effectively create a European constitution, including a provision to wage collective war, without the consent of the European people—after 2005 referendums in the Netherlands and France on the creation of such a constitution were soundly defeated.
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the importance of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Feb. 27 declaration that the talks with the Trump administration are going well, and that the intention is to create global security for all countries—very much like the intention of the IPC and the Schiller Institute to create a new architecture for security and development for all nations. She warned that the situation in the Middle East is still treacherous, and that we must not finish our fight for peace until all the threats are resolved.
Peace Is Bad for the Military-Industrial Complex
Ray McGovern, a co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), posed the question: Will the Europeans be able to stop Trump’s peace effort? He warned that the media is a major weapon against peace, and “peace is bad for business.” He reported that former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich and his wife had authored an article showing that with the breakout of peace talks in the U.S., the stock values of the military-industrial companies had begun a sharp decline, whereas in Europe, where the leaders are militarizing their countries, the military-industrial stocks are booming. He ridiculed the continuing anti-Russia hysteria, asking if Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky were merely pumping gas at a Russian “gas station.” Trump is not only saying “no more war in Ukraine,” he is also saying “no more NATO.” Europe can no longer depend on the U.S., he said. Nonetheless, the danger in the Middle East is still great, and we should recall what his friend, the late peace-activist Daniel Berrigan said: “The difference between doing something and doing nothing is everything.”
Dr. Jérôme Ravenet, a professor of philosophy in France, the author of a thesis on Chinese President Xi Jinping, and a Chinese scholar, pointed first to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s repulsive speech in Chicago in 1999 openly promoting Anglo-American imperial intervention in third countries, which became the basis and justification for the many regime-change wars by the U.K. and the U.S. in the following years. Sanctions and military interventions only escalate conflicts, not solve them, Ravenet said. Are they insane, he asked, or are they convinced that military intervention is necessary to counter a perceived evil?
The West has now worn out its power, with color revolutions and hubris. He then discussed the great philosophic minds of Western civilization, drawing from each a sense of justice. He pointed to Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, who distinguished between power and inclusivity, showing that power proves to be impotent (as the failure of sanctions demonstrates, as well as the fact that regime-change wars only create chaos), whereas the Chinese policy of the Belt and Road Initiative shows the benefit of inclusivity. He said that the West has demonized China, denying that the concept of socialist democracy can even exist. Contrary to the Wolfowitz Doctrine of Western superiority and hegemony, the great philosophers pointed to common sense, and a multipolar world; that contradictions do not mean declaring others to be enemies—pointing to Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of the “coincidence of opposites.” China’s idea of a “win-win” policy, and Charles de Gaulle’s notion of a “third way” between communism and capitalism, are better approaches.
Zepp-LaRouche praised Dr. Ravenet’s “enlightened” presentation, and agreed fully that the Chinese concept of “socialist democracy” was a better approach. After all, she noted, “democracy is dead in Europe,” as evidenced by the Romanian cancellation of the election because the winner was against the war in Ukraine, then arresting him to prevent him from running again. Europe is tied to the “Deep State” in the U.S. She brought up the notion of synarchy—the idea that the oligarchy and the banking interests must have power over the will of the masses, pointing to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s denunciation of the “deplorables” as an example.
Ray McGovern thanked Dr. Ravenet, saying that he felt like he was “back in grad school, taking notes.” He said that we must also consider the role of racism in the thinking of the oligarchy. He noted that he studied the Classics, and learned Greek, learning that there were two words for power—one meaning hegemony, the other relational, in which the interests of the other were important. He added that Jesus used the term for relational.
Dr. Ravenet added that in regard to anti-China racism, it was French Philosopher Montesquieu who introduced the notion of “Oriental despotism,” although he knew nothing about China. His concern was to oppose Gottfried Leibniz, who was working with the Jesuits who were in China. He concurred with McGovern that Jesus rejected the concept of power as hegemonism.
Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian-American who heads Non-Violence International, provided a video discussion with the Schiller Institute’s Gerald Belsky, in which he strongly endorsed the LaRouche Oasis Plan. He said Palestinians are “less interested in one state or two states, but that people cannot live without water.” He denounced the politicization of water, pointing to Israel’s cutting off the water supply as part of their war on Gaza. He said that Palestinians do not trust the West, since its leaders repeatedly say “peace” and “two-state solution,” but not a single U.S. President has enforced that policy, all saying that “it is up to Israel.” Other countries must be brought into the planning, such as Türkiye, India and African countries; not just Europeans, who had colonized the region.
A Shared Community of Mankind
In response to a question about what type of leadership was needed in Europe, Zepp-LaRouche said, “Not those who reject the common good.” She pointed to China’s notion of the “shared community of mankind.” Leaders must “inspire,” she said, which requires a love of poetry and of music. Such leaders existed in the past, such as Charles de Gaulle, the Prussian reformers who followed Friedrich Schiller and the Humboldts, the leaders of the 1955 Bandung Conference, Confucius, and Joan of Arc. “We need discussions of these ideas,” rather than the common use of “slogans and text messages.”
Dr. Ravenet expressed his delight that the Schiller Institute exists to discuss these issues. He said that he had taught the Chinese language for years, but that in France, there was an effort to marginalize the teaching of Chinese and other languages. Zepp-LaRouche responded that knowing other languages and cultures is crucial if we are to create a world worthy of all nations and all peoples.
Jacques Cheminade, the head of the French Solidarité et Progrès party, said that leaders must be willing to break from the “set rules of discourse” to seek the truth.
A question was raised as to whether Trump had the fortitude to counter the Deep State. IPC co-moderator Dennis Speed responded that the new U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi demanded that certain files be released, only to find that thousands of pages had been withheld. She has now demanded that they all be released immediately, and to reveal who had withheld them. Tulsi Gabbard, now the Director of National Intelligence, has countered the British demand that Apple create a “backdoor” on all their phones so that British intelligence can spy on everyone. These are the cases which will determine if the Deep State can win or not.
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her weekly live dialogue to discuss the mobilization to end the ‘Special Relationship’ in celebration of the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Republic. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Feb. 24, 2025 (EIRNS)—Why is it in Americans’ national security interest, that President Donald Trump act to curtail the “special relationship” that presently exists between the British Imperial and Commonwealth intelligence services, and the United States military and military-intelligence? This week’s visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to Washington, D.C., undertaken in the vain hope of re-enlisting America as the financial and logistical “backstop” for further fruitless European posturing in an already-lost war in Ukraine, is the proper time to pose to the American people this question: What exact benefit does the United States gain from its so-called “special relationship” with Great Britain? Should a swift and solemn end be brought to the British-U.S. “special relationship,” in preparation for the upcoming celebration of the 250th anniversary of the United States’ Declaration of Independence?
It is time—past time—to re-commit the United States to the original purpose of the 1776-1783 American Revolution. That was, as was clearly re-stated by President Franklin Roosevelt during World War Two to an apoplectic Winston Churchill, to remove the foot of Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, French and British imperialism from the throat of people all over the world. Instead, the United States, founded to be the opposite of the British Empire, has, especially in the “unipolar era” from 1990 until now, been acting against the interests of the American people, and the American Revolution itself, engaging in no-win wars and overthrowing governments always in the name of democracy, but waged in reality on behalf of an international financial elite, a trans-Atlantic “War Party,” operating under the codename “NATO.” Britain’s Keir Starmer visits Washington this week on behalf of that mission, and nothing else. …
This text is adapted from the draft of an upcoming report to be circulated by The LaRouche Organization.
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her weekly live dialogue to discuss the mobilization to end the ‘Special Relationship’ in celebration of the upcoming 250th anniversary of the Republic. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Feb. 19, 2025 (EIRNS)—Russia’s leading news agency TASS interviewed Helga Zepp- LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, today on her evaluation of the significance of the just-concluded discussions in Riyadh between high-level diplomats from the U.S. and Russia. TASS published their report under the headline “U.S.-Russia Negotiations To Help Create Inclusive Security Architecture—Expert,” with the subhead: “The pathway laid out how to approach all problems on the table by taking into account the interest of all sides is very hopeful,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche said. The TASS article included the following quotes:
WASHINGTON, February 19. /TASS/. The Russian-U.S. discussions in Riyadh are a historic turning point that will help create an inclusive security framework in the world, said Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the International Schiller Institute.
“The outcome of this long awaited meeting between the high ranking delegations from Russia and the U.S. represents a relief for the entire world. The pathway laid out how to approach all problems on the table by taking into account the interest of all sides is very hopeful,” she told TASS.
“This was a game changer moment in history and hopefully a first step towards an all inclusive security and development architecture, which overcomes the disease of geopolitics forever.”
“There was no reason to invite the participation of the Europeans at this stage of the discussion, given the fact that they had at no point since the beginning of the war, which according to Jens Stoltenberg started in 2014, tried to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict,” she said.
“Even after it was clear that their aim to ‘ruin Russia’ had failed, there was no moment of reflection or change of mind. Even at the recent Munich Security Conference, the unrelenting Russophobia prevailed, led as usual by the British.”
“If this Russophobia is kept up, it will lead to a split-up of the EU, where the countries who want peaceful relations with Russia, will possibly disassociate themselves,” the expert said. “Given the fact that the Ukraine conflict is the result of a proxy war between NATO and Russia, it makes total sense, that it would be the U.S. as the dominant force in NATO and Russia would sit down at the negotiating table, and that the proxy forces come in at a later point.”
Join Garland Nixon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche in their Live Dialogue, Feb 19, 11.00 am EDT / 5pm CET. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Garland Nixon is a journalist and talk show host/podcaster, and a dedicated anti-war activist and will discuss with Helga Zepp-LaRouche the emergence of the New Paradigm, replacing the collapsing imperial/geopolitical order with a new strategic and development architecture; the fast-breaking developments, including the effort by Presidents Trump and Putin to end the NATO war in Ukraine; what can be done to end the genocide campaign against Palestinians; and more!
Join Garland Nixon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche in their Live Dialogue, Feb 19, 11.00 am EDT / 5pm CET. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Feb. 15, 2025 (EIRNS)—The following international press release was issued by the Schiller Institute for immediate distribution. For further information: questions@schillerinstitute.org
Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa’s former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (2019-2024) stated on Feb. 14: “I believe we should have the spirit of Mandela, that freedom is possible; that the Palestinian people will enjoy sovereignty, justice, and freedom. And that the Oasis Plan offers an opportunity for us to think of the world in a different way. So, let us marshal our resources; let’s not seize at this point. Let us be ambitious; let us be optimistic. Because [Nelson] Mandela has shown that things that we imagine impossible are indeed possible.”
These were the closing words delivered by Dr. Pandor—internationally renowned for successfully bringing the case of Israeli genocide before the International Court of Justice—to the 89th weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC), established in May 2023 at the initiative of Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Sharing the platform as panelists with Dr. Pandor were Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana (2011-2015); Dennis Fritz, director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN) and retired Command Chief Master Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force; and Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
In her opening remarks to the IPC gathering, “Ending the Cycle of Violence in Southwest Asia Requires Creating a Future for All Its Inhabitants,” Zepp-LaRouche stressed the urgency of discussion and activation, because “the old order is breaking apart, however the new order has not yet taken shape…. We are in the most dramatic change of an epoch, which is on the one side fraught with incredible dangers—and the danger of a global nuclear war is still not completely off the table—but on the other side, I think there absolutely is hope that if we join our efforts, we can move humanity into a better era of a New Paradigm…. [We must] agree on a new global security and development architecture which takes into account the interests of every single country on the planet, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia.”
Zepp-LaRouche added that “the Middle East is right now the most urgent question, and we should fight to get the combination of an Arab peace plan as it is promoted by Egypt and other Arab countries, but with the addition that the two-state solution must include an Oasis Plan, with its wide development perspective for the entire Middle East—not just Israel and Palestine, but for the entire Middle East.”
Dr. Pandor heartily concurred: “I think the Oasis Plan presents a set of very useful proposals that could be looked at by groupings that are in contention, as the basis for further discussion…. We need leadership. We need to find a way, through the Schiller Institute, of identifying who are the adults in the room…. Who is ready to engage in a serious fashion to actually settle matters of the world?… I believe that the Schiller Institute, along with other organizations of similar strength, could begin to assume that leadership role, primarily for purposes of convening, of initiating conversation, and developing an agenda.”
Dr. Pandor also struck a warning note: “If we miss this moment, I think we can’t imagine the chaos that will confront us. So, this is a time in which we need to use all the institutional capacity available to us to ensure that we return to rationality, and that we have discussions and processes that address our deep-seated problems of inequality, of lack of livelihood, of insecurity caused by conflict…. I think we now need to build a truly practical and effective global coalition that will address these development challenges…. I support the former President of Guyana when he says that there’s a very important link between peace and development.”
Earlier in the dialogue, former Guyanese President Donald Ramotar had emphasized the necessary linkage between peace and development, calling for a “bold plan, like [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s win-win approach, with no losers.” The LaRouche Oasis Plan, he said, is based on combined peace and development, and it presents a viable plan to reconstruct Gaza and the region, and it can be a central part of a global plan, he said.
Dennis Fritz also endorsed the Oasis Plan as a useful contribution to finding a peaceful solution to the entrenched Middle East crisis.
In the lively discussion period, Dr. Pandor was asked about how to address the underdevelopment of Africa. She noted that “the Oasis Plan speaks to many issues of importance to the African continent. If you take the 17 priorities of Agenda 2063, the plan that we call ‘The Africa We Want,’ you will see that those priorities link in very clear terms to the goals that are set out, the various initiatives on energy, sustainability, water quality, water infrastructure that are set out in the Oasis Plan.”
Asked to discuss how South Africa had managed to defeat apartheid, Dr. Pandor recalled: “The ANC (African National Congress) began as an organization drawing Africans together; but over time, as it confronted the oppressive forces, it realized that actually oppression is about values and principles. It’s not simply about identity…. Confronting the apartheid state was to confront the evil of apartheid, and not to confront white persons.” She added: “South Africa was in that way I think quite unusual.”
Dr. Pandor was also asked about the Trump administration’s recent decision to cut economic aid to South Africa, and she addressed the participants in the IPC gathering: “I’m saddened at the cuts for funding to South Africa, but I believe through your friendship, through persuasion and diplomatic engagement with the government of the United States of America, we will be able to persuade that in fact South Africa is a very good partner for the United States of America. And that the values that are espoused by South Africa through its Constitution and its Bill of Rights, are values that are very attuned to values that have traditionally been associated with the United States of America…. So, who are the people who can speak to President Trump, who can speak to President von der Leyen, who can speak to Chancellor Scholz?”
The International Peace Coalition gathering was broadcast live on Zoom, YouTube and other platforms to more than 1,000 participants from close to 50 countries, with simultaneous interpretation into Spanish, German and French. The full video can be viewed here.
Report on the 89th meeting of the International Peace Coalition
Feb. 14, 2025 (EIRNS)—The 89th consecutive meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) today was an historic discussion centered on a dialogue between Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute and the initiator of the IPC, with Her Excellency Dr. Naledi Pandor, the former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation for South Africa, 2019-2024, known for her leadership of South Africa and the Global South in general, including her personal role in South Africa’s bringing the issue of Israel’s genocide against in Gaza before the UN International Court of Justice.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the 2.5-hour dialogue by noting that, while the danger of global nuclear war is still a great threat, dramatic changes are taking place which give hope for the future. She referenced the phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump’s call for reviving arms control talks between the U.S., Russia and China, and the U.S. declaring that Ukraine will not be allowed to become a member of NATO, as indicative of those changes. However, the Trump proposal for the U.S. to take over Gaza and remove all the Palestinians is both a horrible concept and totally unacceptable to Palestinians and to all the countries in the region—other than Israel. She said that this is further evidence that the LaRouche Oasis Plan is urgently needed, together with a two-state solution. The plan conceived by Egypt for reconstructing Gaza is a decent start, but we should combine it with the Oasis Plan, she said, to address the massive development needs of all the nations in the region.
Referring to the Feb. 14-16 Munich Security Conference, Zepp-LaRouche said that it had been originally a forum for all nations to seriously discuss security issues, but it has now become a public-relations event for NATO. She did note however, that U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance had “lectured the audience on democracy,” saying that Europeans have become afraid of their voters! She said that creating a new global security and development architecture is a necessary step to resolve the many problems facing mankind.
Dr. Naledi Pandor then spoke, beginning by expressing her support for the Oasis Plan: It is an important idea, a very useful proposal to be studied by the groups in contention. She noted that 30 years ago, when South Africans began their fight for freedom from colonial control, they agreed that they had to have dialogue with their oppressors, while making sure they did not ignore the needs of the oppressed. Development is necessary, she said, but we must engage the Palestinian people, while also talking to Israelis, as well as those in the West who backed them in the genocide. We must ask the Palestinians what they want for their future, she stressed. Any plan which does not include sovereignty is unacceptable. Nearly everyone supports the two-state solution, but things have changed drastically over the years, as Israeli settlers have occupied large portions of the Palestinian land, including killings and land expropriation, making statehood impossible without the removal of those illegal settlements. The level of rage between the two sides must also be overcome.
Free the Oppressed and the Oppressors
In response to a question later on, she said that the freedom movement in South Africa early on recognized that they had to unify the African people, while the colonial policy was to divide them. They learned that oppression was not based only on racial identity, but on moral principles, and that therefore they had to oppose Apartheid, not white people. They needed to free both the oppressed and the oppressors.
She called on the Schiller Institute and the IPC to find a means to test the engagement process—to see if Palestinians are willing to sit down with Israelis, and vice versa. We need “adults” in the room, she emphasized, and was not sure if she had identified many as of yet. She called on the IPC to make an effort to find the necessary “adults” in all nations, who will organize for “peace through development.” The Schiller Institute and the IPC can play a crucial role in convening and initiating this process, and perhaps hold a series of meetings to take up these issues.
On Trump’s attack on South Africa, she noted that the Afrikaners (white South Africans descended predominantly from Dutch settlers) whom Trump offered refuge in the U.S., had already rejected his idea. She added that Trump’s Executive Order had been signed “without research” and had misrepresented the policies of her nation. She looked forward to the IPC “finding the adults,” and convincing Trump that South Africa is a viable partner for the United States.
Donald Ramotar, the former President of Guyana, thanked Dr. Pandor, and said that in our mutual struggle for peace we must address the unjust economic conditions in many parts of the world. We must have a “bold plan, like [Chinese President] Xi Jinping’s win-win approach, with no losers.” The LaRouche Oasis Plan, he said, is based on combined peace and development. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) gives hope for that kind of global solution. He complained about Trump’s ordering Panama to cut ties with China’s BRI. The Oasis Plan presents a viable plan to reconstruct Gaza and the region, and it can be a central part of a global plan, he said, but Russia and China must be part of the process. He concurred with Dr. Pandor’s view on the need for a two-state solution, and that the United Nations needs to play a central role, as the only existing institution which represents all nations.
Dennis Fritz, director of the Eisenhower Media Network (EMN), a retired Command Chief Master Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, said he was optimistic about Trump’s ending the war in Europe, but pessimistic about the situation in the Middle East. He said that U.S. President Joe Biden’s Administration was “the most evil in my time, by allowing and owning the genocide in Gaza.” He said that U.S. President George W. Bush “and the neocons,” got us into the wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, while “Biden and the Zionists” gave us the disaster in the Middle East. On the other hand, he said the EMN is issuing a report praising Trump for “trying to be an adult,” with his Feb. 13 call to President Putin and his call for the revival of arms negotiations with Russia and China. He warned that the enemies of peace and diplomacy will “try to take him down.” He expressed special thanks and appreciation to Dr. Pandor for the role South Africa has played in stopping the genocide in Gaza, and also stated his support for the Oasis Plan.
We Are All in One Boat
Helga Zepp-LaRouche said we must not be deterred by problems of the past, but see this as a moment of great change. She said we are presenting the Oasis Plan to the Trump Cabinet as the only plan that can work. She noted that Egypt has proposed a useful plan, and that we should try to combine their plan with the Oasis Plan. “We are all in one boat,” she said, and we should think of greening the entire desert from North Africa into Central Asia.
Dr. Pandor agreed with President Ramotar on the link between peace and development. Large portions of the world still live in poverty, hopelessness, and growing hostility to the nations of the North. If we miss this moment, I can’t imagine the chaos that could ensue, she said. We must ensure a return to rationality. We need a global coalition to become positive advisers with a voice that will be heard in all nations. The Oasis Plan includes many issues of importance for greater Africa, where access to water and electricity are in very short supply. African leaders should join in the effort to adopt the plan: The African Union’s Agenda 2063 plan “dovetails in quite a comfortable manner” with the Oasis Plan.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche added that in addition to the Oasis Plan, the Schiller Institute has promoted the Transaqua plan to move water from the Congo River to develop the Lake Chad Basin countries, and the Grand Inga Dam project for power. She also noted that Chinese economist Zhang Weiwei had said in a recent Schiller Institute conference that China could build the Oasis Plan, as they had greened the deserts in China.
Asked what to do about the ongoing collapse of the European economies, Zepp-LaRouche called on Americans to intervene. The European establishment media was totally hysterical by Trump’s cooperation with Russia. She noted that the media in Europe, especially in Germany, are totally corrupted, and that if there is to be “any freedom of speech,” people from the U.S. must speak up.
Bill Jones from the Schiller Institute reminded Dr. Pandor that he and his late wife Marsha Freeman had visited South Africa for an astronomical conference years ago and had interviewed her during their visit. She had emphasized the importance of science and technology in that interview. Dr. Pandor responded that she recalled the interview well, and that South Africa has continued an emphasis on science and technology, including the construction of the world’s largest radio telescope. South Africa has good relations with NASA and other American science institutions, she added, calling on the IPC to help build friendly relations between the two countries.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded the event by renewing her call for a Council of Reason, of individuals from every country who have shown through their lives a commitment to the common good.
Feb. 14, 2025 (EIRNS)—The following statement by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute, will be circulated at the Munich Security Council. EIR’s translation is by Daniel Platt
Leading military experts—especially from the U.S.A.—agree that the world has never been as close to the brink of global nuclear war as it is today. Even if the immediate danger of escalation to nuclear war over the Ukraine crisis is hopefully averted after the telephone conversation between President Trump and President Putin, this danger could erupt in Southwest Asia in the short term if President Trump does not abandon his proposal, which violates international law, to relocate all Palestinians from Gaza and even from the West Bank—or in the medium term if a “Global NATO” participates in a confrontation with China in the Pacific.
The reason for the danger of war is that after the end of the Cold War, the transatlantic establishment felt called upon to form a unipolar world government and has since then tried to eliminate governments they dislike, those that challenge the dominance of the collective West. The scandal surrounding the manipulations by USAID in over 100 countries is currently causing a stir. It turns out that the “rules-based order” works with color revolutions, regime changes, coups, corruption, etc. The cuts in the U.S.A.’s so-called “soft power” now offer the opportunity to strengthen the independence of the states previously affected and, for example, to strengthen cooperation between the states of the Global South for mutual benefit.
When the Munich Security Conference was still called the Wehrkundetagung [Defense Science Conference] and was led by real security experts such as Ewald von Kleist and Horst Teltschik, this conference was still a place for dialogue between representatives of different worldviews, as should actually be a matter of course for representatives of around 200 nations on this planet. At that time, the participants bore their own costs, apart from those for the conference venue. Since then, the Munich Security Conference has become a PR event for the military-industrial complex, where the lobby of the arms manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic and their favorite politicians reinforce each other’s shared narratives about how the world should be interpreted and which nations are the “good guys,” the democracies, or the “bad guys,” the autocracies. Also welcome are the artificially built-up stars of color revolutions, or particularly prominent “war-ready people,” who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of a special media glamor, so that they can better prepare the population for the coming great war.
It would actually be more appropriate for those gathered here under the banner of NATO to finally subject themselves to critical self-reflection and recognize that their entire policy has failed, because it is based on false axiomatics.
• The “end of history” claimed by Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the Soviet Union did not happen, because the rest of the world refused to adopt the model of Western liberal democracy, and instead preferred to revive its own cultures, some of which are thousands of years old.
• NATO fought a war in Afghanistan for 20 (!) years, in which the U.S.A. alone spent $2 trillion. When NATO drew the conclusion of having lost the war against 65,000 Taliban fighters, and shamefully withdrew from Kabul airport in August 2021, they left behind a country in what was then the worst humanitarian crisis. The image of “local forces” desperately clinging to the planes remains a synonym for NATO’s “success.”
• As then-NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg admitted, the war in Ukraine began in 2014 and not in February 2022. The goal was to “weaken Russia” (Lloyd Austin), “ruin Russia” (Annalena Baerbock), and: “Russia must not win the war” (Olaf Scholz). Since then, NATO states have spent immense sums on armaments and training and have “put together” ever new packages of sanctions against Russia. And the result? Russia has a growth rate of around 4%—and the German economy is in free fall.
• The true character of the trans-Atlantic “elite” is nowhere more evident than in their reaction to President Trump’s initiative to start a direct dialogue with President Putin in order to finally end the lost war in Ukraine. Trump says what every reasonable person understands, namely that Russia’s security interests must be taken into account and that the war in Ukraine was the result of NATO’s Eastward expansion. The loud indignation of the war hawks on both sides of the Atlantic exposes their geopolitical intentions, which are so obviously failing miserably. This list of failed policies could go on and on.
After the “turning point” announced by Chancellor Scholz, and the associated increased military spending led to rising inflation and budget cuts in the social system, infrastructure, education, etc., Friedrich Merz’s demands for 3% and President Trump’s demands for 5% of gross domestic product for military spending now threaten that this will come entirely at the expense of pensions, health care, daycare centers, the renovation of the dilapidated infrastructure, etc. Hjalmar Schacht sends his regards: The costs of war are simply being passed on to the population through austerity measures!
We are currently experiencing total deindustrialization in Germany in favor of the profit maximation of the trans-Atlantic financial oligarchy, while over 20% of the population is threatened by poverty. If the massive militarization and rearmament now demanded is added to this, the middle class will also collapse, the welfare state will be dismantled, and Germany will become a formerly industrialized country. Germany, which was once respected and admired throughout the world, is now pitied or laughed at because it obviously does not have a government that knows how to represent its interests.
The old neoliberal order, in which Germany and the whole of Europe only had vassal status in the unipolar world order dominated by the Anglo-Americans, has failed. This represents an excellent opportunity for a new orientation that corresponds to the true interests of Germany and the other European nations. The rapid growth of the BRICS states—which already represent 22 nations and thus 46% of the world’s population, with numerous new applications for membership—shows the determination of the nations of the Global South to leave the era of 500 years of colonialism behind them, and to take their economic development into their own hands. Instead of expanding the geopolitical confrontation to the Indo-Pacific with “Global NATO,” Germany and the other European nations must seize the opportunity for our own future that lies in constructive cooperation with the BRICS states and the Global South, which makes up 85% of the world’s population.
NATO lost its raison d’être in 1991 when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. The premise that there must always be an enemy, and that relations between nations must always be a zero-sum game, in which one wins and the other loses, is a barbaric concept that does not correspond to human nature, but only serves the profit interests of the military-industrial complex. The losers are always the poor suckers who have to lose their lives on the battlefield.
The tectonic changes in the strategic situation offer a fantastic opportunity for the European nations to work together on a new international security and development architecture that takes into account the interests of every single nation on this planet. For Germany, cooperation with the global majority offers the opportunity to get the economy back on track for growth, to help secure world peace, and to open up a positive future perspective for citizens.
What we can contribute to the further development of the human species is neither Taurus missiles nor Leopard 2 tanks, but a renaissance of classical German culture, philosophy and science by Leibniz, Bach, Beethoven, Schiller, Einstein, and Krafft Ehricke, to name just a few. The failure of the neoliberal unipolar world order presents a great opportunity to shed the imposed corset of the associated counterculture that has been imposed on Germany since the days of the CIA-funded “Congress for Cultural Freedom.”
If Germany has anything to contribute to the new emerging world order, then it is the optimistic view of humanity that is expressed in the poetry and compositions of German classical music.
No, there is a limit to the power of a tyrant. When the oppressed cannot find justice anywhere, When the burden becomes unbearable —he reaches up to heaven with courage, And brings down his eternal rights, Which hang up there, inalienable And unbreakable like the stars themselves—
Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell, Rütli Oath scene.
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Live Dialogue, Feb 12, 11.00 am EDT / 5pm CET. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
In her concluding remarks after a discussion with international collaborators Monday Feb. 10th Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, emphasized that her late husband Lyndon LaRouche had the capacity to bring in a new idea which brought order to a seemingly very messy unfolding situation. This relates to a very specific way of thinking, where a situation is approached from the top, not bottom up. This scientific way of thinking gives one the ability to look at the principles at play, not particular events that interact in so-called empty space.
In a speech at the Central Connecticut State University in May 2009, Lyndon LaRouche elaborated this point in regard to the Israel-Palestine crisis, the crisis can only be solved by looking at Israel and Palestine as part of world-historic dynamics over centuries. The implantation of the LaRouche Oasis Plan would and will change the whole geometry of Southwest Asia by uniting all involved for a common mission. The idea of mutual economic development can be applied to all crises spots that are victims of British geopolitics and those places that have been deindustrialized in the name of British Free Trade and saving the speculative bubble economy.
She concluded, “So I think we should proceed from the assumption we know how the world should look like, we need a new international security and development architecture, because nothing less will do, in order to avoid World War III. I think we should really go with great optimism into this next period, because a lot of people realize that things are no more going to be as they were, but they are absent of any positive conception of how the future should look, so I think we have a tremendous vacuum.”
Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Live Dialogue, Feb 12, 11.00 am EDT / 5pm CET. Send your questions to questions@schillerinstitute.org
Feb. 7, 2025 (EIRNS)—The 88th consecutive weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) convened in the aftermath of the Feb. 4 meeting at the White House of U.S. President Donald Trump with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At a press conference following that meeting, with a smirking Netanyahu at his side, Trump declared a “plan” to remove all Palestinians from Gaza, have the U.S. take it over, and build a new “Riviera” over the rubble. This shocking development provided the basis for an intense debate during the IPC proceedings, involving Palestinians, Israelis, former U.S. CIA officials, and others, who discussed its implications.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, opened the discussion, noting that Trump had answered a question about who would live in the “Riviera,” saying “the people of the world,” not the Palestinians. She noted that Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz had already ordered the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare for moving the population out. She also noted the irony of Trump officials saying “if you have a better plan, let us know,” since the Schiller Institute and the IPC have been presenting such a “better plan” that would actually work to prevent war and create peace and development, the LaRouche Oasis Plan. The Oasis Plan was first proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in 1975—a massive water and power development policy, not only for Palestine, but for the entire region. She called for a mobilization worldwide to have the body of the Oasis Plan presented at the Conference on Palestine now planned for June at the UN.
Jonathan Kuttab, executive director of the Friends of Sabeel North America and co-founder of Nonviolence International, said Trump’s “plan” was not sincere, but a gift to Bibi Netanyahu. This is what radical Zionists have always wanted—no Palestinians, and a “Greater Israel.” The only truthful thing Trump said, he suggested, was that Gaza is unlivable, but without mentioning that the person grinning next to him is the reason that it is uninhabitable. The one thing proven, however, is that Netanyahu has failed. For a solution, he said there are criteria which must be met for any plan to succeed: justice; self-determinism; democracy and human rights; cooperation and co-existence.
Without Development, There Will Be No Justice
Zepp-LaRouche added that these criteria are correct and necessary, but there must be economic development to make those criteria possible to achieve. Kuttab added that there is a problem: that “most people say they want economic development, but it is a substitute for freedom and sovereignty.” Helga responded: “We are not most people.” She added that the notion of “human rights” in the West is not real human rights—China, which has lifted 800 million people out of poverty, demonstrates real human rights; that ending poverty is the biggest contributor to human rights.
Prof. Fernando Garzón, leader of the Ecuadorian-Palestinian Union, consultant for various international development agencies, and an advisor on strategic regional development plans for Ecuador, said that there must be an emergency plan for Gaza based on the Oasis Plan and sovereignty for the Palestinian people. He said the BRICS should be called upon to provide a solution, not only from China but from all the Global South countries.
The former President of Guyana Donald Ramotar said the role of the U.S. and the West being the primary negotiators regarding the Middle East does not function, as their policy fully supports Israel. He proposed that all the members of the UN Security Council must be equal partners in the discussions, so that Russia and China have an equal role. He contended that the other countries were appeasing the United States, just as Panama and Canada have recently caved to Trump’s demands. He said the situation is very dangerous, like that of the pre—World War II era when the West appeased Hitler until it was too late.
Zepp-LaRouche responded that the UN Security Council does not function because the U.S. uses its veto power to prevent any possible solutions. She said perhaps the BRICS could fill that role. President Ramotar replied that the problem is the U.S. will not accept the BRICS either, and there must be a means to get Russia and China engaged.
Dr. Gershon Baskin, an Israeli who has played a leading role in facilitating Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, including a role in the Oslo Accords of 1993 in cooperation with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, said that there was “no chance” that the Palestinian people will be removed from their homeland, noting that even if some people wanted to migrate, they were “not welcome.” He ironically suggested that perhaps the U.S. could invite them to settle along the Gulf Coast. He said that the Trump “Riviera” plan, like the similar, earlier plan of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, was “delusional.” The potential result of this process could be the collapse of the ceasefire, and even of the existing Israeli peace agreements with the Arab states. He said that he was participating in a conference in Cyprus next week with representatives of Israel and the Palestinians.
A Successful Peace Requires No Exclusion
Jonathan Kuttab agreed, but added that he saw one problem with Dr. Baskin’s proposals—he had proposed that Hamas should be kept out of any new government for Gaza. Kuttab said that he does not support Hamas, but they can not be excluded, since they represent a significant layer of the Palestinian people. There are factions in the Israeli government whose ideas and policies are abhorrent, but they also cannot be excluded. Asked by LaRouche movement leader Jose Vega if there were interim steps toward peace that could be implemented right away, Kuttab said “yes—lift the siege, let the construction goods come in, let the Palestinians begin rebuilding their homes.”
Dennis Speed noted that President Dwight Eisenhower had proposed in 1968 building nuclear powered desalination plants in the Mideast, to start providing fresh water to green the desert. It was needed then and still today.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who conducted an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Feb. 5, offered an alternative view of Trump’s proposals in the meeting with Netanyahu. He said it was not a “plan,” since there was no money offered, no time frame, and no troops involved. He said he was surprised when the extreme Zionists in the Netanyahu circle praised it, since Trump had asserted that when the war ended, Israel would turn Gaza over to the U.S.—but this contradicted the Zionist plan for a greater Israel under Israeli control. He reminded participants that the ceasefire was widely recognized as coming from Trump, and that Trump had posted a video of economist Jeffrey Sachs on his Truth Social site, denouncing Netanyahu as a genocidal monster. “I think he is trying to create a narrative which will lull the extreme Zionists,” he said. He added that the IDF, with 15 months of massive bombing, with total control of the borders and air space over a trapped population, had nonetheless failed to defeat Hamas, as shown by the armed Hamas fighters turning over the hostages. “The IDF can kill more Palestinians, but they cannot defeat Hamas.” The thousands of Palestinians marching north along the coast to return to their destroyed homes demonstrates the stamina and dedication of the Palestinian people.
Johnson added that Trump has made a serious opening to Iran, showing (as he had done with Kim Jong Un in North Korea) that he prefers a deal over war.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche said she would consider Johnson’s remarks. She agreed with Helmut Käss and called on participants to listen to a speech by German Gen. Harald Kujat (ret.), whom she called a “voice of reason” regarding the Ukraine war and relations with Russia, coming just weeks before the German elections. In that speech, Kujat warned against the geopolitical methods of Henry Kissinger; that Ukraine should act as a bridge between East and West; and that leaders of the West must not allow themselves to sleepwalk into world war, as was the case with World War I. [eir]
