Top Left Link Buttons
  • English

Our economic development events

Category Archives

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Briefs EIR on Urgency To Implement New Paradigm in Face of World War and Economic Crash Threat

Pre-release of EIR interview:

PAUL GALLAGHER: Today is Saturday, October 22, 2022, and this is the 60th anniversary of the day that President John F. Kennedy of the United States made a speech which told the world that it was in a nuclear warfare crisis, a countdown to nuclear war which could conceivably destroy civilization. Kennedy announced that the United States had determined evidence of Soviet provision of nuclear missiles to Cuba, and said that the United States would not tolerate this, absolutely, under any circumstances, and a crisis was on, which gripped the attention of the world and held people in fear of it for more than two weeks. [JFK speech is here.]

So now, this is Paul Gallagher of EIR. I’m speaking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, and a frequent lead candidate of the BüSo political party in Germany, about the extraordinary situation which is developing there, and internationally.

So Helga, good afternoon to you.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hello.

GALLAGHER: Let me start by saying, just in terms of setting our situation here, the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline is a submarine pipeline project of Russia and Germany under the Baltic Sea, that they worked on jointly for more than 15 years. It was suspended in 2022 under U.S. pressure, and on Sept. 26, it was sabotaged, by powerful explosions which were aimed to destroy it completely. It appears that this has had an impact on German political life, despite the fact that it’s being covered up.

Helga, can you analyze for EIR what has happened here, and what does it mean for Germany and the threat of war between NATO and Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the first thing to say is that the official media and channels are obviously trying to say as little as possible about it, which is already extremely ominous, given the fact that this worsens the energy situation of Germany for some time to come. Military experts have stated that the sabotage was of such a kind that it could only have been done by a state; it could not have been done by private divers, and that naturally limits the number of states which had access. Now the questions to ask is the cui bono, who had the capacity, who had the opportunity, and who had the motive? And then, as some military experts are saying, well, if it would have been Russia, it would have meant that Russia would have to go with submarines and other devices for 300 km through the Baltic Sea under the total surveillance and control of NATO, and therefore, if it would have been Russia, it would prove that they had a huge superiority in undersea warfare, in order to do that, practically under the nose of total surveillance of NATO. If that would be the case, it would have completely other implications about military balances.

But there are also now many people saying, if there would be any proof that it was Russia, you would have seen a barrage of press conferences by NATO, by the EU, by the governments; all the tabloids would have been full of it. But since nothing of this sort has happened, it doesn’t look like it was Russia.

Instead, in an answer to a question from a parliamentarian, the German government put out an official answer, which is also extremely odd: They said that they know it was sabotage—now how did they know that if there was no official investigation? Sweden, by the way, pulled out, and so there was some strange investigation involving only Germany and Denmark, but the German divers didn’t have the diving equipment to go to the depth of 70 and 80 meters, so the whole thing is very ominous. And the statement by the German government says that, for the sake of the wellbeing of the state, they will not reveal any other information.

Now, that is extremely strange: For a sabotage of such enormous economic, and therefore social and political implications, to leave it at that, naturally raises the suspicion which is being said by many people, that this was done by another state which is not friendly to the German government. Now, given the fact that the only states which could have done it would have been the U.S., the British, Poland, maybe Lithuania, but everybody says—also and knows—that nothing in this highly surveilled area of the Baltic Sea could have been done without the control and OK of the United States.

So why is the German government not saying anything? People more and more have the feeling, this present German government is not defending the interests of the German people, and that despite the fact that the German economy is going to crash against the wall this fall and winter, in a dramatic way, to which the sabotage of these pipelines will have played a crucial part.

GALLAGHER: Is anyone in Germany, given the tremendous escalation of prices and the sabotage of the German economy as the result of the loss of natural gas supplies, and oil supplies—but particularly natural gas—is anyone arguing there that Russia and Germany should fix this pipeline? Or are there actions at all against this NATO policy of full warfare against Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would say so! Just today, there are many demonstrations, and there have been many demonstrations in the last days and weeks, not only in East Germany, but especially there, but also, today, in many West German cities. And what people were saying in these demonstrations is that it is exactly like it was in 1989: This was the demonstrations in which the Berlin Wall came down as a result. And the demands are, stop the sanctions against Russia, stop the weapons sales to Ukraine; this is not our war, we demand a diplomatic solution. And most interesting is, the action of the city of Stralsund, where the parliamentary groups of the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Free Democrats (FPD), and the Linke (the Left Party) and the Social Democrats (SPD), and a citizens alliance called “Citizens for Stralsund,” all signed up for an initiative, offering the city of Stralsund to be the site for Ukraine peace talks. And they say that there’s nothing more important than peace on our Earth, and they refer to the great history of creating the Peace of Stralsund, which is a reference to the conflict resolution from 1370, when a war between Denmark and the Hanseatic League (including Stralsund) ended in the so-called Peace of Stralsund. So, more than 650 years later, they want to have a new Stralsund Peace, and that is just a most spectacular intervention, and I think the spirit of 1989 is clearly revived in these demonstrations. And they’re also demanding the resignation of the present German government.

GALLAGHER: Ah, so there is the spirit of 1989 for sure! There’s one well-known blogger and strategic expert, Alexander Mercouris, who argued in a video that this coverup of the situation with the pipelines, despite some very clear indications of what happened, that it means that the German government is under the control of a foreign power, which is unfriendly to Germany—that was the way that he put it. What’s your view of this argument? Does it bear on these demonstrations that are coming up and the behavior of the government?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. There are many calls for this government to resign, which many people think is the worst government Germany has had in the entire post-war period. That applies for sure, for the Green Party—this is a so-called “streetlight coalition” involving the Greens, the Liberals [FDP], and the Social Democrats, of which the Greens are really the war party, the NATO party, with the most hawkish, belligerent policy, and you cannot differentiate what they say from Stoltenberg or Blinken. And the so-called Economic Minister Robert Habeck, who used to be very popular in the polls, has now plunged and has become an object of public contempt, because he is clearly pushing a policy which means the deindustrialization of Germany. And we are therefore facing a huge social explosion, not “facing,” we are in the middle of a huge social explosion in Germany.

GALLAGHER: Interesting. We’ve seen this recently in the United Kingdom, where Liz Truss, who was ready to push the nuclear button and a real warrior, she came in like hell on wheels into the prime ministership, and then very quickly her wheels fell off, and now she’s resigned, and they’re in a government crisis as well as a financial crisis. So, we see these things across Europe.

Let me ask you: You’re frequently featured and interviewed in the media in China, again yesterday, on CGTN’s “Dialogue” broadcast. In one interview, they focussed on your assessment of the situation in France and Germany, what can you convey to the Chinese people about the situation in Europe? What do you think is most important that they understand?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, they are looking at Germany, in particular, with complete disbelief: A once-proud people of poets and thinkers, and admired for its scientific and technological excellence in the whole world, is committing economic suicide in front of the world’s eyes. And it’s very difficult for people in Asia in general to understand why Europe is on such a self-destructive course.

What they are doing as a consequence is to speed up the construction of a new economic system, which consists of the countries of the BRICS, the SCO, the CICA [Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia], and other organizations of the Global South, where they building an economic system which is focussed on the alleviation of poverty in the entire developing sector; and cooperation in mutual benefit; and it has to be said, to the grace of China, or to (there’s a word I’m missing), that they continuously offer to the United States and the European countries that they should cooperate rather than try to fight. But right now, it doesn’t look like people in the West have the wisdom to respond to this offer.

GALLAGHER: Well, if German business and households’ access to natural gas coming from Russia has been destroyed, as a result of this economic warfare on Russia, are the Biden administration’s economic measures against China reaching that same scale of the all-out economic warfare on Russia? And what do you think China’s reaction will be?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: You know, if you look at the policy of the Biden administration and such people as German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, who have said many times that they want to (quote) “ruin Russia,” or (quote) “prevent Russia from diversifying from oil and gas”—this was said already on Jan. 25 by some unnamed White House official—it did not work out so well.

The effect of this was that Russia turned to Asia and did relatively better than Germany, where you now have a complete blowback, and the country is under the immediate danger of deindustrialization, and given the size of the German economy, this will have a devastating effect for all of Europe.

Now, therefore, the threat to now do the same with China, what was done with Russia, I think it would only occur at the complete price of deindustrialization of the West, at least the European part of it. And China is working with about 150 countries in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Global Development Initiative; and just at the present ongoing party conference of the 20th party congress of Communist Party of China (CPC), the report that was delivered there proudly states that Chinese economic policy is focussed on continuous innovation, scientific and technological progress, and furthering the creativity of their citizens. And the result has been a continuously prosperous economy. So, if the West wants to decouple from China, they will do so at their cost, leading to their own self-destruction: So, hopefully, they will wake up before it is too late.

GALLAGHER: Well, that was the last thing I wanted to ask you about: That the Schiller Institute is obviously mobilizing a large number of leading people around the world, and also young people around the world, to stop this nuclear war threat. And you’re the one that has launched these mobilizations: What do you think can make it possible to reach a situation of peace, and perhaps even development, before we are in an unsurvivable nuclear war?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, if you look around the world and ask normal people, like normal parliamentarians, elected officials, trade unionists, industrialists, farmers, fishermen, and so forth, nobody wants World War III! It’s a very small apparatus which is pushing this geopolitical confrontation which threatens the annihilation of the human species. So, this initiative you’re referring to comes out of meeting with Latin American parliamentarians and ex-parliamentarians, and we recognized that a similar desire for world peace and against this confrontation is prevalent all over the world. [Live event: Stope the War Before It is Too Late, Eliminate the Causes of the War Danger.] So the fact that what is at stake is the possible destruction of mankind, that makes, automatically, every citizen on the planet, to be a world citizen who has the right to speak out for the interest of humanity as a whole. And given the fact that the Schiller Institute is named after the poet Friedrich Schiller, who argued that there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen—or that there doesn’t have to be—basically, we are now appealing to world citizens from all over the world to stand up against this war, and make sure that people understand that we have to make a jump in the thinking, to think in terms of a new paradigm, where everybody learns to think as a world citizen; which doesn’t mean you’re not a patriot, it just means you have to make one more step, you have to take the interest of humanity as a whole into account, and make sure that your understanding of your national interest is not in contradiction to that larger interest of humanity as a whole.

Because only if we all start thinking about the fact that we are sitting in one boat, and that if there is a nuclear war, nobody will live, and that we have, and that we have to find a new model of international relations as the precondition to get out of this crisis, that we will actually make it. And the response so far has been tremendous, because I think everybody who is concerned about world peace and the danger of war, is responding very well about this initiative, once they know about it. So help to spread the knowledge about it. [Second Seminar of Current and Former Elected Officials of the World: For World Peace, Stop the Danger of Nuclear War.]

GALLAGHER: OK, so five days from now, on Oct. 27, there is a second conference of those present and former elected officials whose deliberations you’ve been describing, and of course, at the same time, there are other meetings and discussions of potentially a new money system, a new credit system internationally, which are going on within the BRICS and elsewhere. Do you think that this can lead to an actual formation of development, an actual economic architecture, which can make development possible in the developing sector?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the need to implement that could arrive very suddenly: Because if you look at the panicky reactions in Great Britain, the desperate action to go for quantitative easing, jump to quantitative tightening, go back to quantitative easing—there’s a rapidity like that of Liz Truss going into 10 Downing Street, out of 10 Downing Street, and now they’re talking about Boris Johnson—“BoJo”—to come back, which is the farce of the century: I think the system of the City of London, and by implication the entire trans-Atlantic financial system, is teetering on the verge of dissolution. So the need to put a New Bretton Woods system, a new credit system on the international agenda may erupt more quickly than people think.

GALLAGHER: Great! OK, for EIR, I’ve been talking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, head of the Schiller Institute, about those prospects and about this extremely complicated and dangerous situation around Europe, and Germany in particular. With that, I think we’ll wrap up our interview. Helga, thank you very much for your answers, and for taking the time with us for today.


Afghanistan Crisis: Humanity Comes First!

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”                                                                                                                  –Mark 8:36

The head of the United Nations World Food Program, American David Beasley, has fought to bring to the world’s attention the now-unfolding catastrophe in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a nation which has known nothing but war and internal conflict for more than 40 years. The rapidly worsening multiple crises in that nation–lack of food, lack of health care, lack of a sovereign national credit system, lack of production–demand immediate solutions in the next weeks, if the world wishes to avoid the unnecessary, unwarranted deaths of millions– many of them children, who have clearly offended no one. Over 20 million people are presently at risk. Geopolitical rationalizations for continuing inaction, from “taking cautious steps to not allow the Afghanistan government to exploit our good will” to “demanding that other countries step up,” will do almost as much to take the lives of the innocent, through depraved indifference, as the coming famine 

Several of us have been outraged by the callous indifference expressed in the worldwide, persistent inequality of efficient distribution of medical care, not merely in the selective availability and affordability of life-saving medicines, but in the widening disparity in available basic facilities and capabilities. Whole continents, such as Africa, are stigmatized as “disease farms” because of deplorable economic conditions that are conveniently perpetuated but then never actually improved. That happened in the 1980s with HIV/AIDS, and is happening today with COVID-19. The clearly man-made Afghanistan disaster is an opportunity to reverse that syndrome. . A crucial first step would be the release of the $9.5 billion of assets of Afghanistan’s central bank, which are currently being held in the United States.

Why? That nation, familiar to the United States, Russia, China and several NATO countries, as well as the five other states that border it, has a clearly urgent, largely war-induced set of problems that could be quickly resolved, and offers a test case for how to actually uproot war, through multinational cooperation involving even real and/or imagined enemies working together for a common good. This Afghanistan initiative has been called “Operation Ibn Sina” after the great Islamic physician known for centuries as “the father of modern medicine” and who comes from that general vicinity. In contrast, it is perhaps the lack of exactly such initiatives that begin with compassion for, and cooperation with others, that has allowed COVID-19 to grow from being a relatively controllable epidemic to a pandemic, and is causing that pandemic to worsen by the hour. That would not be the first time that the vice of selfishness had doomed mankind. Historian Barbara Tuchman, in “The March of Folly,” warns us: “A phenomenon noticeable throughout history, regardless of place or period, is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests.” 


We who have devoted our lives to acting upon the conviction, so eloquently enunciated by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” say that there is no injustice like famine, no crime worse than slowly snuffing out the life of a child through neglect, through depraved indifference. Though the need is equally important everywhere, the time to change “the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests,” and those of humanity, is now. The world can–must– choose one place, this Christmas season, to begin a march in the opposite direction, and prevent the slaughter of the innocent upon the altar of a geopolitical folly that would sacrifice both conscience and true self-interest for the aura of power.

Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General – On behalf on the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites 

December 23, 2021

Dr. Walter Faggett, pediatrician, Col. U.S. Army (ret.), former Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health of Washington D.C., professor of medicine Howard University

Dr. Bennett Greenspan, Founder Family Tree DNA

Ernest Johnson, President of the Louisiana NAACP, civil rights attorney

Barbara Kamara, former Associate Commissioner, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, responsible for the National Head Start Program (Carter Administration); former Director of Early Childhood Education, Washington DC, for 22 years

Dr. Khadijah Lang, pediatrician, Chairman of the Committee on International Affairs of the National Medical Association, President of the Golden State Medical Association, the California branch of the NMA 


Schiller Institute Brings Haiti Development Plan to Spanish-Speaking Audience

Schiller Institute Brings Haiti Development Plan to Spanish-Speaking Audience –

Nov. 7 (EIRNS) – Some 40 people from nine countries in the Americas participated in a Spanish-language international dialogue on “The Schiller Institute Plan for the Development of Haiti” held Nov. 6 via Zoom video conference. The opening presentations were made by EIR’s Dennis Small and Plan co-author Cynthia Rush, followed by remarks from three respondents: Domingo Reyes (Dominican Republic, economist); Billy Anders Estimé (Haiti, co-founder of Café Diplo Haiti); and Caonabo Suárez (Dominican Republic, water expert). All three respondents emphasized the importance of the Schiller Institute’s global approach to solving the Haiti problem, denounced attempts to pit Haitians and Dominicans against each other, and urged the widest possible circulation of the Schiller Institute Plan (now available in English, Spanish, and French versions).  The dialogue lasted almost three hours, and is now posted on the EIR Espanol YouTube channel https://youtu.be/q8S7W8TB2ZQ . The countries represented were Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and the U.S.


Linking Up Scandinavia and Europe to the Belt and Road via Pakistan

STOCKHOLM, April 29, 2021 (EIRNS)–The Zoom webinar meeting of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, together with the Embassy of Pakistan in Sweden, and the Embassy of China in Sweden, was an extraordinary success. More than 130 participants were present at the height of participation. The first part of the program was moderated by the Commercial Counsellor of Pakistan for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland. The focus was on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the tremendous potential for European and Scandinavian business interests to invest in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) that are connected to the current industrialization phase of CPEC.

There were welcoming remarks by the Ambassadors of Pakistan to Sweden and Denmark, and by the Ambassador of China to Sweden. The Chinese-language website of the Foreign Ministry the next day highlighted the BRIX event, printing the greetings of Chinese Ambassador Gui Congyou at the event.

There were several leading governmental agencies from Pakistan, like the Board of Investment, as well as regional officials, who outlined the great potential for investments and business in all areas when the basic infrastructure, especially electric power, is built. There were also important presentations from Business Sweden, Innovation Norway, and the Trade Council of Denmark to welcome and provide support and help for Scandinavian businesses that are ready to invest in Pakistan. The significance of Pakistan’s cooperation with China on the BRI was highlighted, and many business interests from China also participated.

The second part of the webinar was focused on the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and how the work of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden continues to present truthful and accurate information on BRI, despite deliberate distortions by Western media and other institutions.

This section was moderated by Stephen Brawer, the Vice Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden, and the responsible leader of BRIX for webinars and seminars. His preliminary remarks summarized three of the most important points on the BRI as a global development policy, open to all nations, and the necessity of eliminating extreme poverty worldwide as has been achieved in China in 2020. He also noted the importance of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, as a principle for cooperation, in which the interests of the other are primary, as opposed to only serving your own interests, i.e., geopolitics.

There were four speakers in the afternoon session. Professor Michele Geraci of Italy pointed to the primacy of commercial relations behind the much discussed and dramatic geopolitical controversies. Mr. Henry Tillman of the UK reported from his own investigations the meteoric rise of the Chinese pharma industry in just one year, showing how China and India are now the main suppliers of vaccine to the world, as the USA and Europe have limited their deliveries to their domestic markets. In the UK the entire vaccine production has been kept 100 percent for the British people.

Dr. Maria Sultan of Pakistan situated the CPEC in the global landscape of container trade and digital transmissions, showing the tremendous growth in the Asia-Europe and Asia Pacific corridors with the Pakistani ports of Karachi and Gwadar in the crossroads. Hussein Askary of the BRIX highlighted the Health Silk Road as the only possible approach to counter the current and future pandemics, providing the necessary infrastructure needed for a modern health system.


Dominican Friend of the Schiller Institute Proposes Emergency Measures for Haiti

Oct. 18 (EIRNS)–A Dominican friend of the Schiller Institute who has been discussing the plan for reconstruction and development of Haiti, made a number of specific proposals on emergency measures he feels should be taken right away, in the context of the broader strategic program to transform the nation. While he took issue with the Institute’s proposal to solve Haiti’s vast energy deficit with nuclear energy, and only addressed the security situation in a general way, his proposals overall are serious and excellent. He emphasizes the Dominican Republic’s crucial role in developing Haiti and the whole island of Hispaniola. He writes:

“I want to make a couple of comments regarding the program to develop and save Haiti as well as my own country, because we are inextricably linked to the same consequences as this is one island and neither of our nations can relocate ourselves. I think that the program should be divided into two main parts:

1) A comprehensive emergency program to mitigate hunger, disease, uncertainty and the dissolution of the country. This would include:

–massive and sustained distribution of cooked, canned or fresh foods—cooked on the spot on stoves on trucks (many of these are already used in my country in disaster zones).

— set up mobile clinics on trucks that can reach poor neighborhoods in the cities or countryside;

—set up mobile schools, transported by truck, for basic education that can be located in rented locales;

—provide facilities, funding, tractors, consulting, etc., to small farmers who produce food, as well as to cattle ranchers and poultry farmers who raise cattle, pigs, chickens and eggs either at home or on farms;

–provide specialized machinery and personnel to build basic access routes, indispensable neighborhood roads or trunk routes, and small bridges

–provide large quantities of construction material to build low-cost houses, preferably prefabricated, and furnish them with household goods;

–build mobile government offices that would be used primarily for dealing with civil matters;

— identify sources of water to be made potable through chemical processes and osmotic filtration (in which I am a specialist).

–provide large quantities of clothing, shoes, sheets, mattresses, folding beds, mosquito netting and insect repellent;

–massive distribution of vitamins, minerals, painkillers, medicines to treat parasites and diarrhea, mobile laboratories for basic analyses of fluids, and dental clinics;

2) A strategic program like [the Schiller Institute’s Haiti program,] with which I fundamentally agree. We have to see how a mechanism for directing the process can be created without interference—so that everything can be monitored and be above board, because the whole [Haitian] government is illegitimate, and no one knows for sure what its plans are nor to whom it really answers. As I mentioned, the Dominican Republic can play a crucial role in the carrying out of any plan, as we’ve already done this [before] without international aid.


EIR Publishes “The Schiller Institute Plan To Develop Haiti”

Sept. 30, 2021—Today, EIR News Service posted, “The Schiller Institute Plan to Develop Haiti,” a 16-page report, which presents a comprehensive program addressing “eight fundamental areas of infrastructure, industry, and agriculture, which are at the core of the Haitian economy … present[ing] what capabilities and what problems exist, along with recommended development plan solutions.” Those areas are 1. Power and Electricity, 2. A Universal Health Care System, 3. Hunger and Agriculture, 4. Railroads and Roads, 5. Airports and Seaports, 6. Sanitation and Water Purification, 7. Industry and Labor Force, and 8. Education. The full report is available here.

The Schiller Institute Plan is clear in the mandate, and the urgent necessity of acting now, saying:

“The task of rebuilding Haiti is a daunting one because of the level of destruction deliberately imposed on it by two centuries of Malthusian policies. Every sector of its physical economy must be rebuilt from the bottom up, to uplift its impoverished population. But it’s not an impossible task if China and the U.S. collaborate along with other nations of the Caribbean Basin and Central America, as part of an expanded Belt and Road Initiative and Maritime Silk Road throughout the region.

“Haiti will have to establish diplomatic relations with China: it is still one of the few countries in the world that maintains diplomatic relations instead with Taiwan. China rightly insists that it will only work with nations that recognize the principle of One China, and Haiti would be wise to follow the path taken by its neighbor, the Dominican Republic—which recently broke with Taiwan and established ties with China—if it is to have any hope of attaining Chinese participation in its reconstruction.

“Haiti has been repeatedly subjected to an intentional depopulation policy every time a ‘natural disaster’ strikes the country. For 125 years, the looting of Haiti by the City of London, Wall Street, and other Trans-Atlantic banks (France is key among them), joined in the 20th Century by the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral lending agencies, has denied it the right to develop into a modern nation, leaving it defenseless in the face of repeated disasters, the August 14, 2021, earthquake being only the most recent one.

“The Schiller Institute program for the rebuilding and reconstruction of Haiti, the initial outlines of which are presented below, includes a unified infrastructure plan, financed by a Hamiltonian system of ample directed credit, created as a central feature of a bankruptcy reorganization of the disintegrating international financial system. The Schiller Institute has estimated preliminarily that a viable Haiti reconstruction program will cost between $175 and $200 billion, or $17.5 to $20 billion per year over ten years.”

The report also reviews the scuttled 2017 Haitian-Chinese $4.7 billion project to rebuild Haiti’s capital, in which “two Chinese companies—the Southwest Municipal Engineering and Design Research Institute of China (SMEDRIC), and the Metallurgical Corporation of China (MCC)—outlined a series of detailed projects valued at $4.7 billion to carry out the rebuilding of the capital and its environs. SMEDRIC indicated that the projects for Haiti’s capital were part of a broader, $30 billion proposal for the whole country, discussed at the May 14-15, 2017, Belt and Road Initiative summit in Beijing. A short time after that, a Chinese delegation carried out an 8-day investigative visit to Haiti and met with local officials.”

   Video Preview—‘Need Creative Genius of the World To Bear on Haiti and Afghanistan’

The report was previewed on Sept. 25, on an international webinar by the Schiller Institute, with the intent of bringing together the forces to make it happen. The 2.5-hour event was titled, “Reconstructing Haiti—America’s Way Out of the ‘Global Britain’ Trap,” featuring the Schiller Institute Plan and the immediate emergency action required. The plan was summarized, and discussed by experts with ties to Haiti, in engineering, medicine, and development policy. This deliberation stands in stark contrast to the events of the past weeks, which included the U.S. forced deportation of thousands of displaced Haitians from the Texas-Mexico border, back to Haiti, to disaster conditions from the August earthquake and before. The full video of the webinar is available here.

The six panelists were Richard Freeman, co-author of “The Schiller Institute Plan To Develop Haiti”; Eric Walcott, Director of Strategic Partnerships, Institute of Caribbean Studies; Firmin Backer, head of the Haiti Renewal Alliance; Joel DeJean, engineer and Texas based LaRouche political organizer; and Walter Faggett, MD, based in Washington, D.C., where he is former Chief Medical Officer of the District of Columbia, and is currently Co-Chairman of the Health Council of D.C.’s Ward 8, and an international leader with the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites; and moderator, Dennis Speed.

Firmin Backer pointed out that the USAID has spent $5.1 billion in Haiti over the 11 years since the 2010 earthquake, but asked, what is there to show for it? Now, with the latest earthquake on Aug. 14, we can’t even get aid into the stricken zones, because there is no airport nor port in southern Haiti to serve the stricken people. We should reassess how wrongly the U.S. funding was spent. Firmin reported how Haiti was given some debt cancellation by the IMF years back, but then disallowed from seeking foreign credit!

Eric Walcott was adamant. “We need the creative genius of the world to bear on Haiti and Afghanistan.” He said, “leverage the diaspora” to develop Haiti. There are more Haitian medics in New York and Miami than all of Haiti. He stressed that Haiti is not poor; the conditions are what is poor. But the population has pride, talent, and resourcefulness. Walcott made a special point about elections in Haiti. He said, “Elections are a process,” not an event. He has experience. From 1998 to 2000, Walcott served as the lead observer for the OAS, for elections in Haiti.

Joel DeJean, an American of Haitian lineage, was forceful about the need to aim for the highest level in that nation, for example, to leapfrog from charcoal to nuclear power. He advised, “give China the opportunity” to deploy the very latest nuclear technology in Haiti—the pebble-bed gas-cooled modular reactor. We “don’t need more nuclear submarines, we need nuclear technology!” He called for the establishment of a development bank in Haiti, and other specifics.

Dr. Faggett summed up at many points, with the widest viewpoint and encouragement of action. He served in the U.S. military’s “Caribbean Peace-Keeping Force,” and was emphatic about taking action not only in Haiti, but worldwide. He referenced President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, saying that “you can tell a lot about people, by how they take care of the health of their people.” He reported that, at present, aid workers in Haiti are having to shelter in place, because of the terrible conditions.

But, he said, we should mobilize. Have “vaccine diplomacy,” and work to build a health platform in Haiti, and a health care delivery system the world over. He is “excited about realizing Helga’s mission,” referring to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, who issued a call in June 2020, for a world health security platform. At that time, she, and Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former U.S. Surgeon General, formed the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites.

For more information contact the Schiller Institute at contact@schillerinstitute.org


Schiller Institute Afghanistan Webinar: Circulate a Common Interest Development Program Right Away

July 31 (EIRNS)–Today the Schiller Institute brought together in a five-hour intense discussion at an international virtual conference, diplomats and experts from many nations, including Afghanistan, Russia, China, Pakistan, the United States, Italy and others, on the theme: “Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History After the Failed Regime-Change Era.”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany,) Chairwoman and founder of the Schiller Institute, who has been leading a process of institutional and informal dialogue for the past 18 months, said at the conclusion of today’s event, that we now “have a perspective of where to go.” The priority is “to put development on the table, which will be difficult to refuse” by anyone, and to give all the support possible to make it happen. The last speaker of the day, Hussein Askary (Sweden/Iraq,) Southwest Asia Coordinator for the Schiller Institute, put it forcefully, that we must “make development the first item” in any talks, not the last. He warned, “Keep the warlords and the British out!” Askary’s presentation, which covered concrete aspects of development, was titled, “Put Afghanistan on the Belt and Road to Peace.”

The event was opened by Moderator Dennis Speed (U.S.A.), who said that the deliberations would change the usual conception of war or peace, to partake of the diplomacy of formulating policies for mutual understanding and development. He introduced a short 1985 video by statesman-economist Lyndon LaRouche making the point, with reference to President Abraham Lincoln’s record, that the power of infrastructure transforms an economy. Zepp-LaRouche’s opening remarks stressed that we are at a special moment in history, where geopolitical confrontation must be ended, and a new paradigm begun—not only for Eurasian integration and prosperity, but for universal history. She showed the beautiful “Golden Mask” artifact, to make the point of the 5,000-year history of the Central Asian region.

Playing a lead role in the discussion from beginning to end was Professor Pino Arlacchi (Italy), who participated from Italy. Currently Sociology Professor at the Sassari University, he was Executive Director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (1997-2002,) and former European Parliament Rapporteur on Afghanistan. He spoke on, “Eradicate Opium in Afghanistan, Develop Modern Agriculture, Build the Nation, Now.” He described his original plan which by 2001 had nearly eliminated opium poppy growing in Afghanistan, which then was reversed under the ensuing years from 2001 of U.S. and NATO military operations. Arlacchi again proposed a plan in 2010, which was thwarted by the EU, Britain and the U.S. Today, Afghanistan is the source of over 80% of the world’s opium drugs. Arlacchi laid out what can and must be done today. The needed approach uses alternative agriculture—supporting farmers to switch to other crops, and similar realistic methods. Arlacchi stressed how relatively inexpensive this is, given the huge leverage by the drug cartels. Farmers in Afghanistan might get $300 to 350 million for their opium crop, which then is worth $20 billion to organized crime in Europe. There are many alternative crops of great use and value, for example saffron.

The diplomats presented a sweeping picture of the present situation. Ambassador Hassan Shoroosh (Afghanistan), the Afghanistan ambassador to Canada, spoke from Ottawa, saying that there is a “new chapter of partnership” ahead, which must be worked out. His talk was, “The Way Forward for Afghanistan.” He said that his country is “positioned to serve as a land-bridge” in Eurasia, and reviewed in detail various transportation corridors, from the Lapis Lazuli Corridor, to the Five Nations Railway route.

Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva (Russia,) from the New York City, where she is Deputy Permanent Representative at the Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN. Her presentation was titled, “Russia’s Outlook for Afghanistan and Eurasia.” She stressed that the goal is stability, and there is no military solution. There are important frameworks among the neighbors in the region, including the CSTO and SCO and bilateral relations. There is a special role for the “extended troika,” which has been in place for many years. There are meetings coming up in the near future. She noted that transport and infrastructure are of great significance.

Dr. Wang Jin (China,) Fellow at The Charhar Institute, spoke on the topic, “Afghanistan and the Belt and Road Initiative.” He presented four key aspects of China’s concerns: 1) that there are no “spillover” impacts of instability; 2) that there is a future of advancement for Afghanistan; 3) that extremism and terrorism do not gain ground; and 4) that China and Afghanistan have positive ties.

From Pakistan, Mr. Hassan Daud spoke. He is the CEO of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province Board of Investment. He pointed out that Afghanistan is one of “the least integrated” economically in the Central and South Asian region, after these decades of strife. He spoke of the great “economic spillover” that will ensure, with Pakistan leveraging its position and resources to become a logistical hub, and extending benefits to Afghanistan through CPEC and the BRI. We must have “the spirit of the ancient Silk Road” again. He called for more seminars on this, involving scholars, chambers of commerce and others.

From the United States, Ray McGovern spoke. He is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Addressing the topic, “The Real Interest of the United States in Asia,” he made many strong points, including that there must be “accountability” for the string of commanders who lied about what the U.S. was doing in Afghanistan, also in Iraq and elsewhere. He dramatically pointed out, that there weren’t even competent “situation estimates” that should have been done, about terrain, weather, LOC—lines of communication, and other standard assessments of what the U.S. is doing in places. In 2010, the U.S. Navy logistics was paying $400 a gallon to put gas in the tanks of military vehicles in Afghanistan! He hit hard at the racism involved in presuming you can do anything, anywhere; he quoted Kipling.

Many others were involved in the two question and answer periods, with important exchanges over key topics. For example, Earl Rasmussen, Vice President of the Eurasian Society, raised the point of the necessity to build trust. Dr. Stephen Fischer, an American physician, reported on a year he spent in public health in Afghanistan, working with a provincial reconstruction team. Zepp-LaRouche stressed many times, that in the context of the prolonged pandemic, it is imperative that we move in Afghanistan, and everywhere, for public health and modern medical care infrastructure.

Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva made a concluding point, that it is “important to rise above geopolitics.” She said that in Russia, “at all levels, including President Putin,” we are ready for cooperation.” Helga Zepp-LaRouche called on the panelists, and anyone in the viewing audience, to contribute to the development program perspective under discussion, and mobilize. Prof. Arlacchi, who has a new book out, Against Fear (in Italian,) gave parting words that, “peace is stronger than war. Let’s be more courageous. Not a victim of huge deceptions.” The full conference is archived for viewing. Now is the time to join the Schiller Institute.


Conference—Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History After the Failed Regime-Change Era

Schiller Institute International Conference – July 31, 2021

Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History
After the Failed Regime-Change Era

Moderator: Dennis Speed (U.S.), The Schiller Institute

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder and President of The Schiller Institute
Keynote Address: “Afghanistan: The Bright Future for the Coming Cooperation of the Great Powers”

Pino Arlacchi (Italy), Sociology Professor at the Sassari University, Former Executive Director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, and former European Parliament Rapporteur on Afghanistan
“Eradicate Opium in Afghanistan, Develop Modern Agriculture, Build the Nation, Now”

H.E. Ambassador Hassan Shoroosh (Afghanistan), Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Canada
“The Way Forward for Afghanistan”

H.E. Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva (Russian Federation), Deputy Permanent Representative at the Mission of The Russian Federation to the UN “Russia’s Outlook for Afghanistan and Eurasia”

Dr. Wang Jin (China), Fellow with The Charhar Institute
“Afghanistan and the Belt and Road Initiative”

Question and Answer Session

Ray McGovern (U.S.), Analyst, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA-ret.), Co-Founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
“The Real Interest of the United States in Asia”

Hassan Daud (Pakistan), CEO, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province Board of Investment

“The Perspective from Pakistan: The Role of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for Afghanistan Reconstruction.” 

Hussein Askary (Sweden/Iraq), Southwest Asia Coordinator for the Schiller Institute
“Put Afghanistan on the Belt and Road to Peace!”

Discussion Period

We welcome questions during the conference. Please send them to questions@schillerinstitute.org

Supplementary material by Executive Intelligence Review (EIR)Special Report Offprint: ‘Will Afghanistan Trigger a Paradigm Change?’

PDF of the invitation

“After the hasty withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan—U.S. troops, except for a few security forces, were flown out in the dark of night without informing Afghan allies—this country has become, for the moment but likely not for long, the theater of world history.”
—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, July 10, 2021

We face an extraordinary moment, of further descent into chaos, or the beautiful potential of Afghanistan becoming the seed-crystal of a new era of international cooperation so desperately needed in the wake of growing disease and famine worldwide.

Afghanistan was once a hub for the ancient Silk Road, the connection between the great cultures of Asia and those of the European side of the Eurasian continent. The entire Central Asian region was once known as “a land of 1,000 cities”, showcasing advanced technologies in oasis cities, including Merv, Balkh, Kabul, and Kandahar, with large-scale underground irrigation systems. Water development will once again be crucial, and the agricultural potential is great.
In the past weeks, most of Afghanistan’s neighbors have come together, in an attempt to forge a commitment to end the nightmare suffered by the people of Afghanistan, a nightmare also suffered by the military forces of many nations drawn into needless combat in the service of a British-centered oligarchy fostering the growth of drug trafficking and terrorism in the entire region.

Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union marked the end of an era—the division of the world into nuclear armed blocs hostile to one another—so also the utter failure of the 20-year misadventure of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan, and in the other failed colonial wars in Southwest Asia, poses the question: Can the great nations of the world cooperate in the transformation of Afghanistan, and the other war-torn nations, into modern economies, participating in co-operative development through the New Silk Road process, exemplified by China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Leading voices, from veterans’ groups and whistleblowers, to experts on the danger of global narcotics plague and on international political relations, will join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in dialogue, to impel the United States and Europe to join the growing international cooperation that is coming together. We can use this opportunity to make the turn from 50 years of failed policies, and instead to embark on the path required to achieve a new paradigm for mankind.


Peace Through Development: Italy’s Messina Bridge Campaign Grows

Campaign for the Messina Bridge Intensifies

March 17 (EIRNS) – In a few days, the “Technical Commission” established by the Conte2 government to evaluate alternatives to the Sicily-Italy bridge connection will present its conclusive report. According to insider sources, the Commission will issue a pilatesque report, avoiding to endorse either solution.

In view of this, the pro-Messina bridge lobby has mobilized in an unprecedented way to put pressure on the Draghi government:

1. A bi-partisan parliamentary group has been formed, composed by members of Lega, Forza Italia and Italia Viva (Renzi), to endorse the Bridge project.

2. Webuild, the largest construction firm in Italy and contractor for the Bridge project, has published a beautiful video on the Bridge as an engine of development and a technical jewel.

3. “Lettera 150”, an organization gathering hundreds of academicians, has drafted a Memo of Understanding under the direction of Schiller Institute friend prof. Enzo Siviero, which will be signed by the presidents of the two regions, which will be connected by the bridge, Sicily and Calabria, March 26.   

A statement by the newly formed bipartisan group says: “A parliamentary intergroup, composed by several components of national politics: this will be ‘Bridge on the Strait – Italian recovery and development starting from the South.’ An alliance aimed at Italian infrastructural development starting from the Mezzogiorno which, turning the paradigm upside   down, is meant as an expression of social-economic potentiality.”

The six-minute Webuild video presents the Bridge as a large payroller: it will create 118,000        jobs and “will attract towards Italy world trade gravitating in the Mediterranean.” It will “turn Southern Italy into the logistic pole of the EU and will promote the know-how of Italian companies involved.” It will be the longest single-span bridge in the world with a total length of 3,660 m and a 3,300 m long span. It will also be the highest, with towers 399 m  high, and the largest with a 65 meter driveway. It will require 1.5 million tons of concrete and 376,000 tons of steel. It will carry 60,000 trains and 6 million vehicles per year. Webuild is the largest Italian construction and engineering firm. They have built, among other things, the Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia and the second Panama Canal. Last year, they built the new Genoa highway bridge in less than 12 months.


Movisol Conference on BRI in Milan

The conference “Italy on the New Silk Road” organized by Movisol (LaRouche’s movement in Italy) and the Lombardy Region (state legislature) in Milan Wednesday, was a success, with Undersecretary Michele Geraci (of the Task Force China in the Italian government) opening it and emphasizing the importance of the MOU which Italy will sign with President Xi Jinping on March 22 in Rome, of the benefits for Italy of this cooperation with China, including for the development of the Italian Mezzogiorno.

Undersecretary of the Task Force China in the Italian government, Michele Geraci and EIR's Claudio Celani.

Undersecretary of the Task Force China in the Italian government, Michele Geraci and EIR’s Claudio Celani.

Geraci was followed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who explained the more profound meaning of this important development for the rest of the world, the realization of the New Paradigm for which Lyndon LaRouche and the Schiller Institute have been working for the last 30 years. See a full text of Helga’s remarks below.

There was a short message from Sen. Tony Iwobi, the first Nigerian parliamentarian elected for the Lega, about the historical significance on the Transaqua project, which was then described in detail by Engineer Bocchetto of Bonifica, which is working on the feasibility study with China.

Geraci, Celani, Zepp-LaRouche and Movisol leader, Liliana Gorini.

Geraci, Celani, Zepp-LaRouche and Movisol leader, Liliana Gorini.

Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, concluded the conference by thanking the Lombardy Region, which had helped to organize it, and dedicating it to Lyndon LaRouche, who is known in Italy not only as the “visionary” of the New Silk Road, as former Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti defined him Tuesday in Corriere della Sera, but also as the main promoter of Glass-Steagall and LaRouche’s Four Laws, and reminding people how many parliamentarians who had heard him speak at the Italian Finance Committee at the Parliament in Rome in 1998, admitted years later that he was completely right.


TRANSCRIPT OF HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE’S REMARKS

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is in one sense quite amusing to see what high waves the possibility of Italy signing the MOU with China is causing right now.  Because, when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in 2013 and then proceeded to make treaties in the meantime, I think it’s with 112 countries, an enormous growth developed, six major industrial corridors, the Belt and Road Initiative became very quickly the largest infrastructure project in history, ever.  And the strange thing was that for about four years, in the mainstream media in the United States and Europe, there was practically no reporting about this.

And then, all of a sudden, in an obviously coordinated way, the major think tanks of Europe and the United States started a series of attacks, studies, that China is causing countries to fall into a debt trap, that it’s just an effort to replace the United States as the dominant force in the world, to become Chinese imperialists, that the Belt and Road projects are not viable, that China is an authoritarian system and Xi Jinping is a dictator.  So all of a sudden, you had a barrage of attacks on this concept.

The funny thing is, if you would ask and listen to the leaders of the countries cooperating with the Belt and Road, like the Africans, the Asian countries, the Latin American countries, they would be full of praise and say that with the Chinese cooperation, they have for the first time, the opportunity to overcome the underdevelopment and poverty they had suffered as a result of Western colonialism, and 70 years of IMF conditionalities, which prevented them from having exactly that kind of development.  And they were full of praise, calling China a friend — so you get a completely opposite view.

I have come to the conclusion that everything in the Western mainstream media are saying about China is fake news, and just a lie.  And it comes from the fact that many people in the West simply have lost the ability to imagine that any country, let alone China, could promote something which is, indeed, for the common good of all of humanity. When Xi Jinping talks about the “shared community of the common future of mankind,” or the “community of destiny,” he means it!  And isn’t it obvious that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, in international space travel, of conquering all the problems of the world, that we have to think about the one humanity first, before we talk about national interests? As a matter of fact, the concept of a win-win cooperation for the Belt and Road Initiative, it has all the economic aspects which are beneficial to all the countries that have participated.

But it is much more than that:  Because from the standpoint of the evolution of mankind, if you take a step back, and don’t take a look at the conflict between Marseille and Trieste, which I understand is obviously very important for the Italians, but if you look at the larger point of view, isn’t it natural that infrastructure development would eventually open up all continents and connect them?

So now, all of a sudden, you have this eruption of anti-China propaganda, but it comes from the fact that we are now at a  point where something is happening, which has already happened 16 times in history, namely, that the up-to-now dominant power is being surpassed by the up-to-now second largest power. And in history this has led 12 times to war, between those two competing power, and 4 times it was just that the second power surpassed the dominant power without war.  China has emphasized many times, they don’t want, obviously, to follow the 12 examples where this conflict would lead to war, but they also don’t want to simply replace the United States in the role of the leader of an unipolar world, but that they want to build a completely new system of international relations based on sovereignty, on respect for the different social system, on non-interference, and actually proposing a completely new system of international relations.

So, the big question strategically is you have the conflict between the United States and Russia, which is obvious, because of the cancellation of the ABM Treaty, then the Russian reaction to that, and now the cancellation of the INF Treaty — so there are many who think that we are actually close, in worse strategic crisis than during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, because of the relations between the United States and Russia. But if you talk to some strategic insiders on both sides of the Atlantic, they easily admit that the much more dangerous conflict is actually the one between the United States and China:  Will the United States accept the rise of Asia, and the Belt and Road Initiative is just the obvious expression of that?  Or, is what was said by the RAND Corporation a couple of months ago, that it’s better to have the war with China now, than in 10 years, because the casualties will be less?

Well, obviously, this is something we have to change, and I think that the best way to change it is, indeed, to bring in this reality of a new paradigm of thinking altogether:  We have to leave geopolitics.  We have to leave the idea that there can be a legitimate interest of one country, or a group of country, against another bloc of countries, because this was what led twice to world war in the 20th century.  As a matter of fact, I think the potential to overcome this conflict is absolutely there.  I know in Europe, many people are fainting when you mention the name of President Donald Trump, but President Trump is not seeking confrontation with Russia — as a matter of fact, he wants to have an improved relation with Russia, which he proved in the summit with Putin in Helsinki.  And despite the present trade tension, President Trump always talks about President Xi Jinping as his very good friend, and China being a great country and that he wants to actually have a good relationship between the United States and China.

So the attacks on Italy, coming from the White House — the [i]Financial Times[/i] mentioned this Garrett Marquis — is not representing the same view as Trump.  It comes from a faction of the neo-con which are unfortunately also in the Trump Administration, but the factional situation in the United States is very divided.  You have the Democrats and the neo-cons trying to get Trump out of office with Russiagate, but on the other side, I think President Trump has proven a tremendous sustainability against the efforts to drive him out of office, and his supporters are absolutely backing him, and the chances that there will be a second Trump Administration are actually very, very high.

Now one of the accusations against China and the Belt and Road Initiative is that it would divide Europe.  I think everybody knows Europe is divided already, without China:  You have the North-South conflict because of the EU austerity policy, which impoverished, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, gave no development to the East European countries, so they are now happy to cooperate with the Belt and Road initiative, because the EU did not provide these things.  Now, the second area of division is obviously the migrant issue, where you have the division between East and West — the East European countries do not want to have any part of the proposed quota system of the EU.

Now, what Italy is actually doing in this context is really a role model, because the kind of cooperation between Italian firms and Chinese firms in the development of Africa is actually the only human way to address the refugee question.

So you have right now 13 countries which have already signed the MOU with China; you have, now with Italy, the first G7 country (which is really overrated, because the G7 is no longer that important as compared to the G20, for example).  And you have many ports — Mr. Geraci said, if actually all the ports of Europe which are already wanting to be a hub between not only the New Silk Road over the land route, but also hubs to the Maritime Silk Road, Portugal and Spain becoming the hub for all the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries around the world.  So there is a completely changed attitude developing very quickly.

Now, also even in Germany and France, the two countries which are now trying to put the brakes on the most, apart from the EU Commission, there are many cities which are absolutely recognizing their self-interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative.  You have three states in Germany — Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, and Brandenburg — which all the time have huge delegations back and forth; you have many cities whose mayors are complete fans of cooperation with China, and it is an increasing dynamic, which is growing more rapidly than you would think.

So, if you would ask my prognosis, I think the perspective of unifying Europe, not necessarily under the EU bureaucracy, but in the conception of de Gaulle, more like a “Europe of the Fatherlands” uniting with China, with Russia, with the Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU], and European countries, to cooperate fully in this new paradigm is absolutely there.

Well, I think that that is also the only way how Europe can impact the strategic situation:  Because if you had a united Europe of the Fatherlands cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative, including Germany and France, that would be the best way to get the United States to also give up their opposition — which I said, is not Trump himself, but these other forces — and get the United States to join the new paradigm.  And I think this is the [i]only[/i] hope we have to avoid a catastrophe where we would end in World War III with nuclear weapons, meaning the extinction of civilization. So in that sense, what Italy is doing right now, is of the greatest historical importance, because Italy, with what you are doing, with the MOU but also with the joint ventures with China in Africa, can become the role model for all the other European countries.

But the New Silk Road is not just an economic concept. Obviously, infrastructure, investment, all of this is extremely important, as the backbone, but it has a much more, and not so well-known cultural/moral dimension, which I think is best expressed in the fact that the Chinese thinking is actually based on the Confucian theory, namely, that you absolutely must have harmony among all the nations, developing all in a harmonious way.  And when some think tanks say that there is now a competition of systems between the Western liberal model and the state-guided model of the Chinese state economy, well, what they really mean is, China has developed its whole policy based on a Confucian orientation, which means that the state is also in charge of the moral improvement of its population through the aesthetical education.  As a matter of fact, Xi Jinping has said repeatedly, that he puts the highest emphasis on the aesthetical education, because the result of this is the “beauty of the mind” and the “beauty of the soul.”

So the problem is, the reason why some people in the West regard that as a competition, is because Western neo-liberal and liberal philosophy has moved away from that conception:  We are no longer humanists.  We are no longer thinking as during the Italian Renaissance or the German Classical period, but we have replaced that with a liberal thinking of “everything is allowed,” every degenerate form of culture is allowed, everything goes — I don’t want to elaborate that, but if you look at the violence, the pornography in the entertainment, we don’t have to worry.  We will lose that competition of the systems, simply because we are not taking care of our future generations, but allowing them to completely morally decay.

And that is why I think that we have to understand that the only way how Europe can persist in the coming future is not through military power — what Mr. Macron is proposing is ridiculous — but we will preserve our European culture [i]only[/i] if we return to the greatest tradition of our own history, meaning reviving the spirit and the ideas and principles of the Italian Renaissance, of the Ecole Polytechnique of France, of the German Classical music, literature, and poetry.  Only if we rise again to our best traditions can we persist in the coming world.

So I think that the cultural dimension of the New Silk Road is as important, if not more important, than the question of economics.

I would be happy to take any questions.  Thank you.


Page 1 of 3123
Mr. Jackson
@mrjackson