Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Activity of the Schiller Institute

Category Archives

Zepp-LaRouche on CGTN TV–CPC Youth League Centenary: ‘Youth Development in an Uncertain World’

May 17, 2022 (EIRNS)–CGTN on March 17 ran an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whose write-up on CGTN is titled, “Communist Youth League of China Centenary: Youth Development in an Uncertain World,” and the video link is prominently included.

Author He Yuhan, opens his coverage of Zepp-LaRouche with a quotation from President Xi Jinping, from his May 10 remarks at the 100th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Communist Youth League of China. He then reports, “Schiller Institute founder echoed Zi’s words, and fully endorsed the essential value of youth in a modern country’s development and tackling global challenges.”

Yuhan stated about Zepp-LaRouche’s key points, “She identified two elements as crucial to the vigor of Chinese youth today: a thriving and developing economy and a favorable environment in which the younger generation grew up.”

Yuhan reports, “The vector of development is important in people’s personality building, Zepp-LaRouche told the audience.” She said, “If the vector of development is upward, people become optimistic.”

The Schiller Institute founder also made a comparison for the audience of a difference between German and Chinese attitudes towards children. “Germany’s Green Ideology regards children as a burden to the Earth, but the Chinese see children as full of potential and possibilities,” she said.

Zepp-LaRouche asserted that youth faced with an escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict, the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, and rising global inflation, have the potential to put aside ideological differences and meet the challenges to make a better world. She told the audience, “If young people unite together, I think it’s a peaceful force we absolutely cannot ignore.” {The full article and interview are found here.}


Greek Open Letter Against Government’s Ukraine Policy

May 9, 2022 (EIRNS)—There is an open letter circulating in Greece addressed to the Greek government protesting its shamelessly pro-NATO policy on Ukraine. It has 159 signatures, including many university professors, retired diplomats, two former government ministers and a very high-ranking, recently retired General.

Entitled, “Protest the Attitude of the Political System and the Media on Ukraine,” they slam the unprecedented propaganda campaign the public has been subjected to.

“Although the situation in the war zone for the past eight years was a prelude to what we are experiencing today, although we have witnessed attacks by our allied countries on various fronts (Cyprus, Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria…), this is the first time that the attacker has been convicted, while the campaign has reached the limits of official racism. Ideological terrorism in the media is reminiscent of McCarthyism at its worst….”

It characterizes the “unbelievable” media campaign as “rampant barbarism that, among other things, demonizes the Russian leadership” and leads to a “self-manipulation of Europe, to its complete submission to U.S.-NATO plans, while the unthinkable possibility of a global nuclear catastrophe comes closer.”

Significantly, it contrasts “the Turkish counter-example of a balanced attitude” with the fact that the Greek government has “decided to destroy longstanding Greek-Russian relations, to be indifferent to the unknown fate of the Black Sea Hellenism, to endanger the energy and defense security of our homeland, to undermine even the peace in our country—not for Cyprus or but for a province of Ukraine, Donbass, defending at all costs a country that has never helped us!”

It concludes: “Those who understand the national interest of Greece and not in Euro-Atlantic terms, those who learned about war from Thucydides … and those who know who the real enemies of Greece are, feel that this government, by its attitude to the issue, offends them, poses a huge risk, and certainly does not represent them.” Among the noted signers are former Associate Minister of Finance Nadia Valavani, former Deputy Minister of National Defense Kostas Isychos, both of whom served in the previous government led by Syriza; Lt. Gen. Athanasios Tsouganatos, who retired in 2019, and Ambassador Ad Honorem Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, who has also signed the Schiller Institute petition.


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

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

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

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

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Listen to the podcast here.


Beijing Review Covers April 9 Schiller Conference, Zepp-LaRouche Initiative

April 24 (EIRNS)–The national, English-language news weekly in China, the Beijing Review, gave prominent coverage to the Schiller Institute conference of April 9, titled, International call for a new security architecture to cope with global issues. The article was datelined April 18, and has appeared in print as well as online.

The article covered several pertinent comments by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Sam Pitroda, Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, Justin Yifu Lin, and Jay Naidoo, clearly identifying all of the speakers.

It noted that, “Despite differences on particular issues, all speakers concurred that only an international security and development architecture totally different from the existing one can make the necessary process tangible.”

It included Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s observation that, “The proposal of China for an alignment of the Belt and Road Initiative, the American Build Back Better World program and the EU’s Global Gateway program can become the actual development underpinning global security architecture. Ukraine, rather than being the cannon fodder in a geopolitical confrontation, can be the bridge between Europe and Eurasian nations.

“Even a multipolar world still implies the danger of geopolitical confrontation. We need a dramatic, sudden change in the way we organize our affairs. It has to start with an honest, explicit insight that a continuation of the present policies risks conflict, in which there would be no winner,” she concluded. The full article can be read here.


EIR Preprint of “The LaRouche Plan for a New International Economic Architecture” Now Available

Apr. 5, 2022 (EIRNS)–“The LaRouche Plan for a New International Economic Architecture,” which was prepared for the up-coming April 9 Schiller Institute conference, is now prominently featured at the top of larouchepub.com for easy download. This preprint is fully illustrated with charts, maps, and pictures. Read it and circulate it to your networks and your elected officials to demand action now for development.

It is directly accessible at via this link.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Discusses China-EU Meeting on CGTN ‘Dialogue’

April 1 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche was interviewed on CGTN’s broadcast “The Dialogue” this morning with host Xu Qinduo and a second guest Prof. John Gong, who frequently appears on CGTN’s shows. The discussion was on the EU-China meeting by videoconference today, which included President Xi Jinping (in what Xinhua dubbed “Xiplomacy”) and EU Council President Charles Michel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

XU: That’s a good point, John. Helga, what do you think about this Ukraine issue somehow playing a part in the relationship between China and the European Union? Is there a way they can deal with the issue that will enhance or bring the two sides together? Is that affecting their relationship?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously. The EU had on their website beforehand that they wanted to have the Ukraine issue practically the only issue. They want China to mediate and influence Russia. But I think it is very clear that China did not want to take a side. However, given the fact that EU economy is in free fall; as a matter of fact, the accumulation of COVID, the sanctions, Europe is not in a strong position at all. And I think China has a conception which I think lends itself to a mediation role, and that is President Xi Jinping’s idea of a shared future for a joint humanity. I think that is the most important conception right now, given the fact that we are in a situation strategically which is more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Therefore, what we really need, and I think China would be uniquely in a position to do that, is to propose a new international security architecture which would take into account the interests of every single country on the planet. Because the reason why we have the Ukraine crisis is because NATO expansion to the East for 30 years, which the West does not want to even discuss anymore. But the question is, how do we get out of it? We need a new security architecture, and I have proposed it to be in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 150 years of religious wars in Europe. The situation today in face of the danger of nuclear war is much more dangerous than even then.

I think the Europeans, they totally are ignoring the fact that a new system is emerging, based on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, the Russia-India-China combination. India refused to be drawn into the camp of the United States, but wants to stay neutral, also. I think the only way how we will get out of this is if the Europeans—and finally also the United States—would understand that it is in their best interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, in addressing the real issues which concern all of humanity: Which is, the pandemic is not over, we have a hunger crisis. I think one Chinese economist recently said that as a result of the sanctions against Russia, 1 billion people are in danger of dying of hunger this year. So, I think if China would play a mediating role, and say that all of these issues have to be addressed simultaneously. And then, Ukraine could become a bridge rather than being a geopolitical tool between the EU and Russia, it could become a bridge in the cooperation on the Eurasian continent.

XU: That’s a good point, Helga. China stressed very much cooperation, win-win cooperation. China also takes pride in being the source of peace and stability. When it comes to China-EU cooperation, we know the two sides are great civilizations, they are two of the largest economies. They represent the two largest markets. So, if you look at their cooperation against this background with emerging ascendity, even an emerging Cold War. How important it is, Helga, for the EU and China to further cooperate in multiple fields?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think for the EU it is much more existential than they admit, because there are two possibilities. Either the EU finds a way of cooperating with China, and that way the conflict can be solved; or, there are some people in the West—especially in Great Britain and in the United States—who want a complete decoupling of the West and the so-called authoritarian regimes. In this case, I think the West would suffer, because their values are much more based on monetarist values, as let’s say China and the countries cooperating with the BRI, because they are putting much more focus on physical economy. So, if they would go for a complete decoupling, the West would suffer. Hopefully, the European Union understands that it is not in their own interest to go this way, even if Victoria Nuland was just there and told Europe to side with the U.S. completely.

So, I think that a lot depends on the initiatives proposed by China, because China right now has the only policy which is a way out: And that is the shared community of the one future of humanity. And I think more and more people realize that.

……

XU: Helga, to further cooperation, we know there is a very important trade agreement, a comprehensive investment agreement between China and the EU. So, are we going to see any headway during the summit, or after the summit? Should we probably re-energize that kind of cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think obviously it is an agreement which would benefit both sides, so it should be pushed. But I’m not so hopeful that, given the geopolitical tension right now that that will be accomplished at this summit. However, I think the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is collapsing—look at the hyperinflation; this was there long before the Ukraine crisis erupted. So, the question of a new financial system, a new credit system maybe in the tradition of the New Bretton Woods system, should be put on the agenda; because there is the danger of a repetition of the 2008 crisis, but much larger. The Federal Reserve does not dare to increase the interest rate much to fight the inflation, because of the indebtedness of the whole system. So, a new credit policy should be put on the agenda, and in that context, then you can increase the EU-China trade agreement, and that will all be beneficial. But I think the problem is much more fundamental than it even can be addressed through that agreement.

XU: Well, many thanks to you, Helga.


Schiller Institute Petition Quoted on DataBase Italia TV

MILAN, March 22, 2022 (EIRNS)—Three VIP signers, from Italy, of the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture, Alessia Ruggeri and journalists Luca La Bella and Gianmarco Landi, were on a program of DataBase Italia TV last night, entitled “The End of Globalization.” After describing the present situation in Ukraine as very different from how the mainstream media portray it, including the use of hypersonic missiles by Russia, which can put a quick end to the war and destroy the military potential of the neo-Nazi militias, host Landi quoted Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture as the only alternative to the danger of a general war, and asked Alessia Ruggeri to talk about it, as she had already in a recent interview on the Schiller Institute petition published by DataBase Italia.

Alessia Ruggeri explained that it is a very important petition, which was signed by thousands of citizens and many VIP signers from all over the world, and which calls for the principle of the Peace of Westphalia to put an end to the geopolitical confrontation policy and the failed economic policies which led to this war. She emphasized that what is being shown on TV is not the real situation, and that people are not aware of the severe consequences of the boomerang sanctions which are hitting Italy, and other countries, much worse than the Russian economy. For example, she quoted the shutting down of all McDonalds restaurants in Russia, which was quickly converted into a Russian brand to save jobs.

She also reported many mail messages she receives about hoarding of pasta and oil in Italian supermarkets, noting that people believe that wheat is produced in Italy but is not—it comes from Russia and Ukraine. She reminded viewers (around 3,000 last night) that as a result of the failed economic policies of the West, many businesses are shutting down, but as a mother of two children and a trade unionist she called on small entrepreneurs, like the ones in Southern Italy, “not to give up hope, there is a possibility for a change.” The full program is available here.


Pakistan’s PTV Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on OIC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Islamabad

March 23 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche was part of a panel interviewed yesterday by Pakistan’s PTV host Faisal Rehman about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) foreign ministers’ meeting in Islamabad on March 22. Here are the exchanges in the interview with Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, who is the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. The entire program is posted to YouTube.

FAISAL REHMAN: Let’s see what the lady has to share regarding this. Helga, let me put a straight question to you: Tell us, being a woman living in Europe what exactly do you think about the religion Islam, your perception? How do you perceive it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s one of three great monotheistic religions. It’s building on Judaism and Christianity, and I think that the ecumenical dialogue among these three religions is very important as a potential peace factor in the world. I think Prime Minister Imran Khan said something very important: He said that the OIC should unite, and together with China and put maximum influence and pressure on both Ukraine and Russia in order to have a ceasefire and come to an agreement. I think that’s a perfect example how Islam can play a very positive role as an instrument peace.

On the negative side, I think one problem, and this was also mentioned that the Islamic world did not correct the narrative which started to build after 9/11. I think that is still a task, because 9/11 was not as it was presented in the official narrative and the war against Afghanistan—if you think about the people in Afghanistan who were involved in this war, it’s very little if any at all. In any case, I think the origin of 9/11 is a big question which would really need to be analyzed much more in depth.

Then naturally, one cannot forget that Samuel Huntington in his book Clash of Civilizations, he said when the East-West conflict was finished after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that basically one needed to replace the East-West conflict with a North-South conflict, and then he started to talk about the so-called “unsurmountable” conflict between Christianity, Islamic, Hinduism, Confucianism. I read this terrible book and I came to the conclusion that Huntington knows very little about all of these religions and cultures. But nevertheless, this was instigated as a tool of the British Empire and in the case of Afghanistan, you can see very clearly … actual terrorist organizations in Afghanistan is all part of the Great Game.

I think it’s important to look behind what is being said. I think Islam as a religion is a very positive thing, and as you may know, and I mentioned this on an earlier show, the reason why I called for Operation Ibn Sina, reviving the image of this great physician who is one of the absolutely great minds of universal history, that would not only help to solve the medical problem in Afghanistan and reconstruct Afghanistan, but I think if Islamic countries would start to discuss the great contributions which were part of the history of Islam, like Ibn Sina, I think you should not just be defensive about saying that the Islamophobia is wrong and unjust, but I think it would be important to reconnect to the proudest periods of Islamic tradition, like the Abbasid dynasty which was in Baghdad at that time, which was the most developed city in the world! There were more libraries, more books, all the great inventions from the previous time were revived; the caliphs would pay everybody in gold who would bring an invention from Egypt or from Spain or from other places, and without the contact between Haroun al Rashid, for example, and Charlemagne—Carl der Grosse—the Europeans would not have rediscovered their own great heritage.

So, I think, rather than being just defense and saying, this is an unjust vilification of one of the great religions, I think it would make a lot of sense to take a more positive, and in one sense, more offensive attitude by reviving the great Islamic contributions to world history. And given the fact that you had the Abbasid dynasty, you had Ibn Sina who was a great metaphysical philosopher, if I would be a Muslim woman, that’s what I would propose.

REHMAN: Helga, if I might put an interesting question—it was just popping in my mind—I can see you wearing a scarf around your neck, right? So if you put that scarf over your head, do you think your government, or your neighbors or anybody else is going to have an issue? Because, I’m not going to do India-bashing, but they’re not allowing the females Muslim to wear a scarf—but the problem is what happened in France, when the girls were not allowed to cover their head. I’m not saying cover your face, but even during the pandemic, everybody was covering their face, except wearing your glasses—I mean nothing was visible, and that is acceptable. But when you use that scarf to cover your head, that becomes a problem for the Western world, and especially for the non-Muslims. Do you think that’s an issue, or a non-issue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s definitely something which should be left to the respective religions to figure out. I’m a strong believer in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the UN Charter; I believe in sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of other countries; I believe in acceptance of a different social system. I think the Afghanistan disaster has shown, among many, many others, that you cannot impose your values on another culture without causing havoc and terrible conditions.

On the other side, I’m a modern woman, obviously, and I think that the reason why the Europeans, or some Europeans make an issue out of it, is because they see this as a sign of the suppression of the women. And there is something to be done for the liberation of women—there is no question about it—but I think in all of these questions once you understand the reasons why the representative of the other culture is doing something and you explain your own position, I’m sure that you always can come to an understanding and a solution. But for me, this issue is really not one of the pressing issues. It’s important for some people, but….

REHMAN: Do you think that right direction has been followed now as far as the OIC is concerned, or the Muslim countries are related to it? And maybe in another couple of decades things would really change for the betterment of the Muslims? We’re not terrorists, we’re not extremists, I mean in general—yes, there are radicals in every society, in every religion. Let’s keep them apart. But in general, do you think that if we focus, for example, this year they’re talking about unity, justice and development—I mean, there are so many themes every year, but focus, dedication, hard work and commitment, that is what is required: Helga, your take?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to answer that question in the context of the time change which is occurring. You know, in Europe right now, you have a militarization of the EU going on, which I think is very scary, because, with the war in Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia, the effort to try to imply that China is helping Russia, what we are heading towards is the danger of a real bloc building, you know where you have a NATO bloc with the United States and Europe, and maybe Australia and Japan; but then you have a Russia-China bloc. And given the fact that we have right now these sanctions, they’re forcing practically a different financial system. You can already see that trade is occurring in renminbi and rubles; other countries are starting to not trade in dollars anymore.

If this thing goes wrong, you will have two complete blocs which will be hostile to each other. There will be a summit of NATO in June in Spain, where on the agenda is a globalized NATO. If that would go through, and right now, unfortunately it looks like it, the danger that you would have a war between these two blocs is, in my view, a question of time. And that would be a catastrophe for all of humanity. So I was very encouraged when Imran Khan said that the OIC should work with China to try to mediate.

Because we need a new paradigm in international relations: I think that if we go into a geopolitical confrontation in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we could look at the annihilation of civilization. And on the other side, one of the speakers, I think it was [Pakistan’s] Foreign Minister Qureshi also mentioned the need for a new security architecture in the region of the Islamic world; but I’m proposing to have an international security architecture for everybody: Every single country must be taken care of, because security pacts, or security alliances, only function if the interest of everyone is taken into account.

The Schiller Institute will have a very important conference on April 9—and I want to invite all of your viewers to come and look at that: We will try to revive something like the Non-Aligned Movement. We will have an effort to put new principles, overcoming geopolitics on the international agenda. And I think the OIC, if they would really form a bloc and be unified, they are really strong, they could be one of the major forces in the world trying to not have this bloc-building but to move toward a higher principle of coincidence of opposites, of peaceful coexistence, reviving the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. Many of the OIC members used to be very strong members in the Non-Aligned Movement, and I think you need that kind of an intervention. Because right now, what is happening in Europe is really scary: The EU wants to become a military force; Germany turned into a war cabinet. I think this is a very dangerous development.

And I know it’s very difficult for somebody living in one culture to completely understand the importance of what is going on in other parts of the world, but right now, I think this dangerous moving toward a clash has to be avoided by all means.

REHMAN: Thank you very much, Helga, for your comments and your participation in our program. … That’s all we have for this hour.


Schiller Institute Petition Presented at Symposium in Algiers

Mar. 12 (EIRNS)–The Schiller Institute participated in a symposium at the University of Algiers this morning on the crisis in Ukraine. Harley Schlanger, a spokesman for the Schiller Institute, was one of three speakers. His address was titled “Economic Warfare Against Russia Deployed to Prevent Economic Integration of Eurasia with Western Europe.”. He concluded his presentation with the call for convening an emergency conference to establish a new strategic and financial architecture, and asking the participants to join us. The host said he would make sure that the participants receive the petition

There was a twenty-minute Q&A, which followed the presentations. Other speakers were a Russian professor from Ukraine, Leonid Savin (whose website is subtitled “Carthago delenda est”), who presented a very thorough review of the background to the decision to take military actions in Ukraine, and a professor from the university. Savin joined with Schlanger in emphasizing the need to move from a unipolar world – which both agreed will not survive – to one of multipolar cooperation.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Discusses Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Initiative With PTV “Views on News”

Feb. 9 (EIRNS)—Pakistan TV “Views on News” program today was focussed on “U.S.-China Competition—Pakistan’s Exertions to Avoid Bloc Politics” with host Faisal Rehman, and three guests: Syed Hasan Javed, former Ambassador (phone); Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Skype); and in studio Dr. Tughral Yamin, senior analyst.

{This transcript includes only the exchanges between host Rehman and Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche. The whole program is available at this link.}

Rehman began his discussion describing a special interview PTV did with Prime Minister Imran Khan and the issue that Pakistan has to both have good relations with the United States and with China, but also avoid “bloc politics” with either one of what he described as the two competitors.

FAISAL REHMAN: Let me also bring in the lady in the conversation, Helga Zepp. Now, Helga, looking at the current situation, I’m not going to put this question from the Prime Minister’s perspective, but generally speaking, somebody who’s a scholar, somebody’s doing research, sitting in Europe, when they look at Pakistan, obviously, over a period of time it seems that Pakistan has been like a pendulum, but now the shift is very clear, and that is towards the Chinese, whether it’s about the dependency on the military hardware or it’s about the education, because normally most of these students used to go to United States of America, or to U.K., or perhaps Australia—the Western world in particular—for their education, but now a lot of them are going to China. So there is a shift. English was always a language in which we studied, but now Mandarin has become the mandatory course in so many schools, and in private education institutions as well.

So things are changing. Now we see the dominance of China, whether it’s about the culture or otherwise, it seems to be prevailing on Pakistan. Your take, Ma’am?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, I’m very happy about the initiative of Prime Minister Imran Khan, because Pakistan is a middle-sized country, and he completely understands that if Pakistan puts its weight to become sort of a mediator between United States and China, this can actually be world historic, because we are in an incredibly dangerous situation. You mentioned, or there was the article in the Pakistan press today, that the Prime Minister wants to not go into a new Cold War—I mean, we are in a Cold War, and we are actually in the danger that this may become a hot war! The Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists again stated for the third time that we are 100 seconds away from a nuclear catastrophe. And if you look the extreme tensions around Ukraine, where President Putin was talking with President Macron yesterday, six hours, warning that Europe should not be drawn into a war, which would become nuclear by necessity. The same thing with China and especially Taiwan, where the leading scholars have already said that the U.S. encouragement of the independence of Taiwan has crossed the red line of China already several times. So we are sitting, really, on a powder keg.

And that’s why I think the initiative of Imran Khan is so important. Because I think Pakistan can turn a supposed weakness into a strength: And what I mean by that, is that the situation in Afghanistan, which is an absolutely unprecedented humanitarian crisis, where 1 million children under the age of 5 are about to die as we are talking, here. This is the judgment of the German representative of UNICEF, who said if these 1 million children would be in Germany, they would be in the intensive care units, and there are no medical facilities in Afghanistan to take care of that.

Now, if this happens, and 24 million people in Afghanistan would not survive the winter, who would it fall back on? It would fall back on the United States and NATO, because, when they in a rush, went out in August, they all knew—and Imran Khan has said this to a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC, recently—everybody knew that with the cutting off of the donor money, the Afghan budget was cut by 80%; and naturally, the economy completely collapsed. And right now, there is no food, 98% of the people are hungry every day, about 95% are cut off from medical supplies: So, if this turns out to be the greatest genocide in history, recently for sure, it will fall on the United States. And I think that cannot be in the interest of the United States to let that go. So, if Pakistan, which I think has a strong position in that, because you are affected if there are refugees coming from Afghanistan; you already had to suffering incredibly huge economic hardship as a result of developments in Afghanistan; you know, it would destabilize the country.

So, I think if you, Pakistan, with the help of Prime Minister Imran Khan, would somehow draw the United States into helping in the humanitarian crisis, and work together with China, I think that that could become the stepping stone for overcoming the strategic conflict between the United States and China on a strategic picture, because if both countries would help in a very visible way, in the small by saving the Afghan people, it would solve two problems: It would solve the problem of the humanitarian crisis, because you need the two strongest economies in the world to solve this—together with the Europeans, I hope—but it would also be a stepping stone in bridging the strategic conflict. And therefore I think this move by Prime Minister Imran Khan is a stroke of genius, and this should really be brought to the highest level of the international community, that Pakistan is cementing this collaboration between the United States and China, in helping Afghanistan. That’s how I look at it. …

REHMAN: Very important question. Let me put this to Ma’am Helga. Now, Ma’am explain to us the situation, because I think the Europeans have always been used by the Americans, I would say, whether in the name of rescuing in the name of the Second World War or the First World War, but interestingly, when you talk about the NATO forces and the European Union, now, after the exit of Americans from Afghanistan there was a lot of hue and cry within the ranks of the European leaders, and they believed that they were not even informed, not even told, and it was a unilateral decision by the Americans to withdraw their forces and to leave Afghanistan. And again, when you look at the Ukrainian crisis, the problem is still there. Now, it’s the role of the Europeans, because as far as economy is concerned, they have a lot of dependence on Chinese, and on Russians, whether you talk about energy or otherwise. Now, where do you see the tilt of European countries, because we saw the French President Macron meeting with Vladimir Putin; we saw other leaders getting in touch with him. But that man means business. Now the role of the European Union is going to be very important. Do you believe that there is a difference of opinion within the ranks of the European leadership, or, perhaps, the tilt is towards the Americans; or is it because of the sheer pressure of the Americans that the European leaders can’t do much on their own? Your take, Ma’am.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The pressure of the United States on Europe is enormous, there is no question about it. But I think we should not underestimate the really incredibly historic meeting which took place between Xi Jinping and President Putin during the Olympics, where they concluded—I think the previous speaker already mentioned it—they agreed to a new strategic partnership without limits, the best ever, a new model for international relationships. Now, this is a 16-page document, which I think is incredibly rich in its implications. It basically means that the economic power of China which right now is, in one sense the dynamic is absolutely in the direction of China, because they have 8% GDP growth last year and the West was shrinking; it puts together the economic power of China and the military power of Russia, which is a little bit strategically ahead, because in the field of hypersonic missiles, in the field of hypersonic cruise missiles, in the field of nuclear powered submarine, they have a margin of superiority which the United States will only have in maybe two years or three years, but in the meantime, Russia and China are collaborating in many also military fields.

So this is a new factor. I think this strategic meeting between Xi Jinping and Putin has ended the unipolar world. And while it takes politicians and leaders of state and media a while before this reality sinks in, I think this is a new reality, and you can see by the fact the Europeans right now are completely scared about the possibility of the Ukraine crisis going out of control, and they’re trying to put a new model on the table, “Finlandization of Ukraine.” Now, Finlandization had a bad connotation in the end of the Cold War, but it is actually fitting with the Ukrainian history, because in 1991 when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, Ukraine was a sovereign country. And for Ukraine to become a new Finland, not belonging to either Russia nor belonging to the EU or NATO, makes a lot of sense, because it would put sort of a buffer between these two. This, I think, is in motion, and I think there is high-level, very active diplomacy going on right now to accomplish that.

But I would suggest that something else is needed. We are really right now at a branching point of all of history, and I think we need a new model of international relations, where the thinking in terms of geopolitics, in terms of blocs, in terms of one against the other, the zero-sum game, has to be overcome. And I think the conception which is proposed by Xi Jinping all the time about the “shared community of the one future of humanity,” that is reality.

Because as we saw now, in this recent military maneuver, “Global Lightning,” this is unbelievable! At the height of the Ukraine crisis, there was new U.S./NATO maneuver which is exercising a prolonged nuclear war! I mean, that’s an insane idea right at the beginning, because it is based on the idea that you have a nuclear strike by one or the other side; then this is absorbed, then there is retaliation, another nuclear strike; then you go to cyberwar, they throw a couple of neutron bombs, because supposedly this evaporates radioactive radiation quickly; then you use electromagnetic directed energy weapons, and space weapons—this is insane! I looked at this “Global Lightning” as far as you can look at it, because it’s very classified, but I read what some experts were writing about it. And I think we have to move away from being on the brink of the extinction of civilization, because this really where we are at. And that’s why I think the initiative of Prime Minister Imran Khan [overtalk] is so…

REHMAN: …this is what everybody is so afraid of. But unfortunately, I’m sorry, Helga, we’re totally running out of time. But it was a pleasure having you on the show, thank you so much for your time. And that’s all we have: I’ll see you Inshallah tomorrow….


Page 1 of 22123...Last