Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Our initiatives (petitions, etc)

Category Archives

French Schiller Institute–FAACA Conference: ‘China-Africa Cooperation in the Fight To Eliminate Poverty’

[Print version of this article]

May 9—The Schiller Institute–France and the Fédération des Associations d’Amitié Chine-Afrique (FAACA) held a three-hour, international zoom conference May 4, on China-Africa cooperation in poverty reduction. The FAACA is a multi-nation association, with an office in Dakar, Senegal. The event was a platform for diplomats and experts to confer, sharing a common interest in economic development and peace.

The premise underlying the presentations and discussion is that, with concrete infrastructure projects and related education, mutually beneficial trade, agro-industrial expansion, and humanitarian and health assistance in the interim, poverty can be eliminated. The context for this was the sober acknowledgement and discussion of the dangerous reality that the warfare in Southwest Asia, in Ukraine, and conflict in the Indo-Pacific, can escalate to regional, and to even world war, risking nuclear annihilation.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and leader of the Schiller Institute, went through the dangerous global situation at the beginning of her presentation (pre-recorded on video), which opened the forum. Today is an “historic crossroads,” she said, with the positive choice for humanity to take the road toward a new economic and security architecture, in particular, the “Oasis Plan” approach to development. Her presentation was titled, “The Role of Europe in the New Multipolar World.”

Assane Mbengue, the President of FAACA, then followed on the topic, “The Contribution of Chinese Enterprises in the Battle Against Poverty in Africa.” Diplomats from China and Senegal took part in the deliberations. These were His Excellency Ibrahima Sory Sylla, Senegalese Ambassador to China; and Zhang Hangbao, First Secretary to His Excellency Xiao Han, Chinese Ambassador to Senegal.

Some 50 people attended the event, moderated by Sebastian Périmony, of the Schiller Institute–France, with very lively discussion. The other speakers, from Africa and China, brought experience and expertise to bear on development and strategic questions. These included Boubacar Tiemoko Diarra, of the Commission for the Diaspora in China, and Vice President of FAACA, speaking on “Studies of the Project for MTC (Traditional Chinese Medicine) in the Fight Against Poverty in China and its Application in Africa”; Edmond Moukala N’Gouemo, representative of UNESCO to Ghana, addressing “The Implication of the Diaspora in the Establishment of Basic Social Services for Development”; and Jimmy Yab, from the School of Economics, Social and Political Sciences, speaking on “The Geo-Economics of the Belt and Road Initiative in the Fight Against Poverty in Africa.” Also participating were Professor Liu Haifang, the Director of the Center for African Studies at Peking University, and Zhang Yun Simon, the CEO of SOMETA SA, Senegal’s leading iron and steel company.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on behalf of the Schiller Institute, co-sponsor of the event, endorsed the anti-poverty, economic development efforts underway between China and Africa, and made an additional call for action, saying:

There is an epochal change taking place, and reason for absolute optimism that the plan of the African Union for 2063 will be fully realized. It will mean that the vision of statesmen who fought for the development of Africa, and several of whom paid with their life, is coming true, such as Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt; Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, the father of the Non-Aligned Movement; Cheikh Anta Diop in Senegal; Thomas Sankara in Burkina Faso; Nelson Mandela in South Africa; and foremost, Lyndon LaRouche, who had made a measuring rod for the moral identity of humanity [of] how Africa is treated.

Now the moral leadership role is already being taken over by the South African government, because it was they who brought the case of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza to the International Court of Justice. It was not the collective West. It was South Africa, and they did so in evoking the tradition of the fight against apartheid.

The Global South, the Global Majority, is actually the key today, in my view, to overcome the strategic crisis and the danger of nuclear war. Because the relationship between NATO and Russia, and NATO and China, is already so much poisoned and slandered, that it definitely requires the addition of the Global Majority to come out with a very strong voice. And you must unite. Speak with one voice. Because as Prime Minister Nehru and President Sukarno said in Bandung in 1955, if it comes to nuclear war, the Global South, the developing sector, will die as well, even if they die a few days or weeks later.

So therefore, the Global Majority has the absolute moral legitimacy to demand that the countries of the Global North cooperate, that they must stop confrontation, and they must work with the BRICS-Plus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEED: Scott, any response before you get going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SMALL: Helga, please go right ahead.

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

by Daniel Platt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Peace Coalition: Anything from This Geopolitical ‘Kitchen of Poison Must Be Overcome’

by Daniel Platt

May 3, 2024 (EIRNS)—Amid the tumult and policy crisis created by the unexpected explosion of opposition to the Biden Administration’s financial and political support of the outlaw Netanyahu regime of Israel, the International Peace Coalition (IPC) held its 48th consecutive meeting today. Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the original initiator of the IPC, opened this session with her oft-repeated demand that “We have to replace geopolitics with the idea of cooperation instead of confrontation.” Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the importance of the internationalization of the student movement against the genocide in Gaza. She pointed out that, while there are now 90 to 100 solidarity actions in universities around the United States, there are now also corresponding actions in France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and many other nations.

On the other hand, Zepp-LaRouche warned of the “new definition of anti-Semitism” being pushed in the form of legislation by frantic genocide apologists in the U.S. Congress. (Such laws, if passed, are against the United States Constitution, whose First Amendment stipulates that government must in no way interfere with the content of speech.) She singled out the brutal police deployments against the demonstrators, saying that with that sort of repression “the word ‘democracy’ has become completely hollow.” She was especially touched by the message of the children of Gaza, expressing their gratitude to the American students for attempting to save their lives in the name of humanity.

Zepp-LaRouche, on the subject of the war in Ukraine, reported that German General Harald Kujat (ret.) recently stated that Ukraine’s aspiration to restore the 1991 borders is not realistic. In addition, the goal of the United States was to weaken Russia, so negotiations have been sabotaged. There is therefore no exit, and no winning strategy. Ukrainian men are now unable to obtain passports, because every last one of them is a candidate for conscription into the military. Worse, of the $61 billion in military aid voted up by the U.S. Congress, only about $10 billion is for new weapons; the rest has paid for weapons already produced and delivered!

Zepp-LaRouche also warned against the “loud and wrong” proposals that the U.S. seize Russian assets in Western banks, saying that in reaction to such a confiscation the Global South will come to the conclusion that their assets are no longer safe with the dollar system. The likelihood is that their response to such confiscations will be a decisive move to replace the U.S. SWIFT system, with an alternative global financial framework, as the Global South realizes that the Wall Street/City of London financial “axis of evil” empire is finished.

News From the Freedom Flotilla

The meeting received reports from organizers of the Freedom Flotilla, which is attempting to leave Türkiye with 5,500 tons of food and medicine, and six ambulances, bound for Gaza.

In an interview updating the status of the Flotilla, pre-recorded for the meeting, Dr. Mubarak Awad, founder of Nonviolence International, said Israel prevailed upon the Guinea Bissau International Ships Registry to withdraw its flags from the two lead vessels. The Turkish government offered their flag, but wanted a unit of Turkish soldiers onboard. This option was rejected by the leaders of the Flotilla as it could be construed as a warlike gesture. Dr. Awad stressed that nonviolence was a cornerstone of the Flotilla’s policy. “We are willing to be shot at by the Israelis,” he said. “We have people coming from 40 countries. I would hope that we could even have a ship of Israelis.”

He was followed by Coleen Rowley, a former FBI special agent, whistleblower, and member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), who just returned from Türkiye. She was very impressed by the involvement of IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation. She mentioned a recent article on the Flotilla in an April 21 issue of the Washington Post, which included quotes from VIPS member and Flotilla leader Col. Ann Wright, despite the cited Israeli characterization of the IHH as terrorist.

Rowley was asked: “Is Israel a terrorist state?”

She warned against oversimplification; there are many Israelis who oppose the Likud’s policy. She quoted the late actor Peter Ustinov, “Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.”

The Inception of the Zionist Ideology

Prof. Cliff Kiracofe, president of the Washington Institute for Peace and Development and former senior professional staff member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, presented a précis of his book Dark Crusade: Christian Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy. He began with Great Britain’s Lord Palmerston, who dominated British foreign policy during 1830-1865, when Britain stood at the height of its imperial power. Palmerston said that to compete with Russia and France in the Middle East, the British Empire should sponsor a Jewish return to Palestine. The ideology of Christian Zionism was concocted in the 1830s and ’40s to support Palmerston’s plan.

One of its proponents was the Rev. John Nelson Darby, who traveled to the U.S. to promote the doctrine. Consequently, from 1858 to the present, Christian Zionism has permeated many Protestant churches in the United States. A central feature is the Armageddonist/End Times dogma that we must gather Jews in the Holy Land to trigger the Apocalypse when we confront Russia, China, and Persia, our principal opponents. Southern Baptists and Pentecostals have all embraced this heresy, which Kiracofe called “a bizarre and dangerous ideology.”

He described how the influence of this doctrine explains why the Congress passed the new definition of anti-Semitism. Influential Protestant clerics like Rev. John Hagee have been calling for war against Iran since the beginning of this century.

In response to Kiracofe’s presentation, Zepp-LaRouche replied, “Anything that comes from this kitchen of poison must be overcome.” She characterized the collaboration between Israelis and Christian Zionists as an “unholy alliance.”

Jacques Cheminade, the head of France’s Solidarité et Progrès party, added a quote from the Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz: “The idea that a country or any other specific place has an intrinsic sanctity is indubitably an idolatrous idea.”


Moderator Anastasia Battle invited students to participate in the discussion period, promising to protect them from “doxing,” which is the practice by opponents of free speech such as Bill Ackman, to publish personal information on political “undesirables” as a means to harm their professional careers.

Veterans for Peace activist Jack Gilroy reported on antiwar activism around the U.S., noting he had declined to pay a $250 fine after being arrested at an action against military contractor BAE. He intends instead to put BAE on trial.

Independent Congressional candidate Jose Vega reported from the streets of his constituency in the Bronx, where he is gathering petition signatures to get on the ballot. New York City is “on the precipice of change,” he said, and suggested that students from Gaza should be invited to come to the U.S. to study, as were Ukrainian students, since all the universities in Gaza have been destroyed. Rutgers University recently announced that they will admit some. Vega’s opponent, AIPAC darling Rep. Ritchie Torres, announced on Friday, May 3, that he plans to introduce the blatantly unconstitutional COLUMBIA Act, (College Oversight and Legal Updates Mandating Bias Investigations and Accountability Act), to impose “third-party anti-Semitism monitors” on institutions of higher education.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded by reminding the participants that the Oasis Plan gives everyone in the region a “beautiful vision for a joint future,” and that it is the only way to break the cycle of violence and revenge.

Cracks in the Facade of Western Hegemony – 41st. International Peace Coalition Meeting

by Kevin Gribbroek

While we should not pay less attention to the danger—which is increasing daily, one can say—it is also clear that if there is a decisive action, there is hope that we can turn the situation around.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

March 15—The 41st meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) convened today, and provided a very interesting contrast—one could call it a “dissonance”—between despair and hope. On one hand, several participants conveyed a sense of despondency due to the impression that the IPC and the peace movement more generally are trapped in an “echo chamber,” with few people in the general population “getting the message.” On the other hand, many participants reported on exciting initiatives designed precisely to break out of the “echo chamber” and build a bigger base of support for the IPC process. Based on remarks from several speakers, it is also evident that there is a growing revolt in the Global South against the arrogance of Western hegemony and the centuries of colonial policies that have impoverished their nations and destroyed the hopes and dreams of their people.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche began the proceedings with a strategic overview that indeed demonstrated this growing revolt by the Global South and the effects it is having on political layers in the West. Of great importance was Pope Francis’ recent demand that Ukraine have the courage to negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. In the United States, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on March 14 spoke from the Senate floor, demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resign and that Israel hold new elections, saying that Netanyahu does not serve Israeli security by making Israel a pariah state. In Berlin, during a joint press conference between German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, Ibrahim blasted Scholz in regard to the Palestinian genocide, essentially accusing him of racism. In Denmark, the Ambassador of the Palestinian Authority, Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, in an interview with the Schiller Institute, endorsed the LaRouche Oasis Plan for economic development throughout the region.

Zepp-LaRouche emphasized throughout her opening remarks that in no way has the threat of nuclear war diminished. She made it clear that only by changing the underlying axioms that continuously lead to failed geopolitical solutions to the war danger, and adopting a new paradigm of development exemplified by the Oasis Plan, is there any hope for peace.

The next speaker, Colonel Richard Black (ret.), former chief of the Pentagon’s Criminal Law Division, characterized the current historical dynamic as “moving closer to our 1914 moment,” referring to the events which triggered World War I, leading to the deaths of 14 million people. Based on various political moves being made in Europe and the U.S., he sees the emergence of a “war consensus” with the potential of NATO troops entering into direct conflict with Russia. “This is World War III,” he said. Despite the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, the Western “elites” are determined to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat … which will inevitably lead to a nuclear exchange.”

Terry Lodge, an attorney from Ohio and long-time member of Veterans for Peace, discussed the open letter he authored warning State Department officials that they are engaged in criminal activity by providing Israel weapons to carry out its genocide against the Palestinians. He aptly expressed the “dissonance” of the current period with his opening statement:

As dark and difficult as the last couple of years have become from an international human rights and war-making perspective, what has happened is that planetary citizens are coming together in gatherings like this, to talk sanely and talk rationally, and kind of reawaken awareness to the fact that humanity is struggling and trying to provide guardrails for the conduct of human behavior at a societal and national level.

He called the Biden administration’s arming of Israel a “ghastly, dark comedy,” but believes that “there are cracks that are occurring in this facade; that people like the numbers of you on this Zoom meeting can take some credit” for having caused those cracks.

Richard Sakwa, Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent in the UK, began his remarks with an analysis of the now-ongoing Russian elections. Prof. Sakwa recounted an interview by well known Russian media figure Dmitry Kiselyov with Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which Putin expressed his belief that the “Western vampire ball” is ending and that 500 years of Western dominance is over. Putin believes that a new epoch has started and that Russia—as in the Soviet days—is the leader of the new, anti-colonial era. In regard to Ukraine, Putin stated:

“For us, the Ukraine conflict is a matter of life or death. For them [the U.S. and NATO], it’s a matter of improving their tactical position globally and in Europe…. If the U.S. tries to play chicken, Moscow is prepared to use nuclear weapons and considers its arsenal more advanced than anyone else’s.”

Sakwa’s assessment is that the current strategic situation is far more dangerous than the first Cold War. Essentially, the West is playing nuclear chicken and as Putin made clear, the Russians don’t play that game.

Zepp-LaRouche asked Prof. Sakwa, given the gravity of the situation, What must be done to “penetrate the mainstream brainwashed population”? Sakwa, although not having a definitive answer, pointed to the peace movement of Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany and the election of George Galloway in the UK as a sign of hope.

Zaher Wahab, a prominent Afghan-American and Professor Emeritus of Education at Lewis and Clark College in the United States, began by thanking the Schiller Institute for its relentless efforts on behalf of humanity to promote peace and development everywhere. Prof. Wahab expressed his belief that because of the “deep economic, political-diplomatic, moral and social crises” in the West, while the Global South continues to rise, this heightens the danger of nuclear war. He endorsed the Oasis Plan, and enthusiastically called for its extension into Central and South Asia.

Jack Gilroy, a member of Veterans for Peace and Pax Christi, announced a very important initiative: On March 18, Pax Christi, in collaboration with a coalition called “Christians for a Free Palestine,” are spearheading a national day of action to deliver letters to all U.S. Senators and Representatives on the failure of Christian churches to speak out on the atrocities in Gaza.

In her closing remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated that the enemy of humanity is not nation states, but what she called “super-national structures”; structures of the neoliberal financial system which rely on war to maintain their existence. She fully endorsed the March 18 day of action and suggested the IPC mobilize for May Day demonstrations in Europe and elsewhere. She also urged everybody to encourage parliamentarians everywhere to endorse Mexican Congressman Robles’ letter against nuclear war.

Zepp-LaRouche concluded by stressing the urgent necessity of implementing the new international security and development architecture, “because it throws out the idea of geopolitics, by putting the idea of One Humanity first, and that the new architecture has to take into account the interest of every single country on the planet.”

40th International Peace Coalition Meeting: ‘In the Foothills of a Third World War’

by Daniel Platt

March 9, 2024 (EIRNS)—The 40th consecutive weekly online meeting of the International Peace Coalition on March 8 opened with a warning from Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche that we are continuing to flirt with nuclear war. She cited the currently ongoing NATO “Steadfast Defender” exercise where 90,000 troops are explicitly rehearsing a war with Russia as an example of the supercharged environment. The mainstream media, rather than looking at the increasing danger of World War III, marked by the recent scandal of the leaked audio in which German military officers discuss covert means of directly entering the Ukraine war, are focusing their attention on speculation over who leaked the audio file.

Turning to the situation in Southwest Asia, she said that the conflict in Gaza is being driven by geopolitical motives and cannot be looked at separately from Ukraine. Several UN Special Rapporteurs are now calling it genocide, calling attention to the growing danger of starvation, and saying that it is intentional on the part of the Netanyahu regime. Investigation of genocide will inevitably bring us to the question of U.S. and German involvement and culpability. The Oasis Plan, as proposed by Lyndon LaRouche in 1975, provides the only way out of this ghastly situation.

Zepp-LaRouche’s strategic overview was followed by military and intelligence experts who expanded on the nature of the war danger.

Col. Richard Black (ret.), former chief of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, observed that the Ukraine war was the lead item in President Biden’s “State of the Union” address, underscoring that whenever a President says he won’t send U.S. troops, it’s almost a promise to do the opposite.

German Lt. Col. Ulrich Scholz (ret.), a former NATO planner and lecturer on air warfare, warned: “NATO nations have not trained together for decades, and are not capable of going to war. If the Americans don’t do it, nobody’s going to do it.” Regarding the war propaganda in Europe, he said, “All the war talk is a face-saving exercise. They want out.” His advice? “Look for an area where we have common interests and stop the shooting.”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche interrupted the proceedings to report that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow has now advised Americans that they should avoid large Moscow gatherings for 48 hours, as extremists plan to attack such events. Numerous countries that routinely ape U.S. foreign policy gestures have followed suit.

Former U.S. diplomat, CIA officer, and vice-chair of the National Intelligence Council, Graham Fuller told the gathering: “The fundamental problem of world stability today lies in the inability of the United States to read the tea leaves, to understand the geopolitical shifts in the world today.”

He said that the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower; the U.S. can’t face this reality, and this is the danger. “One of the problems of democracy is that you have to galvanize the entire population to go to war…. You’ve got to demonize the enemy, demonize Putin, make it a struggle between absolute good and absolute evil.” Fuller asserted that advocacy of democracy is being used as a weapon, but we don’t support democracy when it is inconvenient. “We have a United States today which is perhaps the most ideologically driven nation in the world.”

Prof. Richard Sakwa, British Emeritus Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, warned: “We are now in the foothills of the Third World War.” He said that we should distinguish between two levels: the world as it was structured in response to the horrors of World War II, with the UN and international law in the spirit of “Never Again”; and the paradigm which replaced this after 1989, or what he termed the “Second Cold War.”

In the first Cold War, diplomacy continued. But when Obama expelled the Russian diplomats in response to unproven allegations, diplomacy was being destroyed. “A political West emerged based on Cold War thinking.” Sakwa said that there is an emerging consensus against this in the “Political East.” They promote an idea of commonwealth, in opposition to the imperialism of the West. “The Global South and Political East can hold us back from moving from the foothills to the peaks of a Third World War.”

Mexican Congressman Benjamín Robles Montoya’s statement March 6 on the floor of Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies, was shown to all assembled. The Congressman emphasized, “We have reached the precipice of nuclear war…. Achieving peace through development, that is the path.”

Prof. Steve Starr, the former director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program and published author in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists warned that the war danger is heightened by the fact that Joe Biden is up for re-election, and can’t be seen to be losing the war in Ukraine. He said that “the danger of nuclear war is greatly exacerbated by false narratives,” such as the one where we can use tactical nukes to make Russia back down. The electromagnetic pulse generated from a single nuclear weapon, detonated above the U.S., could take out our entire electrical power grid, all solid-state circuitry and computers. An 800-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated directly over a target such as Manhattan would ignite a firestorm over an area of 100-150 square miles. Each side has thousands of nukes, and the resulting smoke and soot created from their nuclear detonations would form a global stratospheric layer reducing the sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface and halting agriculture for 10 years, in what is called “nuclear famine.”

George Koo, retired specialist in U.S.-China trade, concurred with Colonel Black: The U.S. has a tendency to say one thing and do the opposite. He said that the U.S. is sending a signal to the Philippines and Taiwan, encouraging them to start proxy wars with China. The P.R.C. government fully recognizes who is behind this. They will take out U.S. naval forces in their neighborhood in response.

Humanity for Peace coordinator Anastasia Battle presented a report on the March 2 meeting in Detroit, “Emergency Conference for Peace in Gaza: The Children of God Cry Out for Justice,” at New Bethel Baptist Church in Detroit, the historic church of C.L. Franklin, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered a speech in 1966. Nine videos of the speakers are now available on YouTube.

Ray McGovern, co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, reminded the participants that President John F. Kennedy, during his June 10, 1963 speech at American University, warned that we should never give an adversary a choice between humiliating defeat, and nuclear war. Now this very choice is being presented to Russian President Vladimir Putin at re-election time. He presented his assessment of Vladimir Putin: “I would say he’s a statesman, and he’s a pretty cool customer.” McGovern went on to wryly quote former President George W. Bush: “Don’t ‘misunderestimate’ the Russians.”

McGovern presented some provocative speculation about the recent resignation of State Department harpy Victoria Nuland. He pointed out that we haven’t seen the entire leak from the German officers. If Russia intercepted it, so did the U.S. National Security Agency. Maybe Nuland was working behind everyone’s back with German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius to transfer Taurus missiles to Ukraine. McGovern emphasized that this is speculation, but as likely an explanation as any.

This was followed by a discussion session in which many new participants introduced themselves. In conclusion, Helga Zepp-LaRouche recommended that the Americans ally with the Global South. “The signs of hope are small, but sometimes when you are in a crisis, even small signs of hope can cause a shift.” She reported, as such a sign of hope, the growing number of leaders who have endorsed Lyndon LaRouche’s Oasis Plan for peace in Southwest Asia.

International Peace Coalition March 1 Meeting Warns, ‘We Are Sitting on a Powder Keg’

by Daniel Platt

March 1, 2024 (EIRNS)—The International Peace Coalition (IPC) met today for its 39th consecutive weekly organizing discussion. Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche warned that “the situation is moving from horrible to worse….” Reviewing the events of the previous few days, she called attention to the massacre where Israeli troops opened fire on hundreds of starving Palestinians who were waiting for food aid southwest of Gaza City, killing 120 and wounding 750 on Feb. 29. In response to Israel Defense Forces statements that their soldiers felt threatened, she said, “I can’t imagine how starving people can be a threat to a highly weaponized army.”

This event occurred a few days after Aaron Bushnell self-immolated outside the front gate of the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C, in protest against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Also during the past week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague heard from 50 nations on the legal consequences of Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation” of the occupied territories, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but will not render judgement until the summer.

Discussing the Likud regime’s apparent objective of driving the Palestinians over the border into Egypt, Zepp-LaRouche warned that this violates the tenets of the Camp David Accords and opens the door to a wider war. Under these circumstances, the implementation of the Oasis Plan, as proposed by her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, in 1975, becomes more urgent than ever before, because if you don’t inject hope into the situation, she said, there is no remedy for the rapidly worsening regional conflict.

Turning to the Ukraine war, she said that the danger there was greatly escalating, bringing us even more quickly to a possible global war. French President Macron has proposed to send NATO troops into Ukraine, while retired German General Harald Kujat recently charged that there are already NATO troops in Ukraine (in the role of “advisors,” as was the case with the initial American involvement in the Vietnam War.) German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has refused to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, because their 500-km range would enable direct attacks on Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin warns of possible nuclear war, but the Western press pooh-poohs his warnings. Russia Today has released the full text of what is claimed to be a discussion by senior German military officers on how to attack the Crimean Bridge in Russia. Russia’s government press spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, is said to have demanded an explanation.

Zepp-LaRouche concluded by saying that the only good news she could offer was the election victory of George Galloway, who just won a seat in British Parliament on the issue of opposition to the war in Gaza.

Jacques Cheminade, who leads the Solidarity and Progress Party in France, commented on the declaration by Macron on sending NATO troops to Ukraine, saying that it has been judged insane by a majority of French population. “He’s like a little dwarf playing with fire,” said Cheminade. Illustrating the absurdity of the situation, he reminded the discussion participants that Europe is still importing Russian LNG and enriched uranium. According to experts, the French, and probably also the German, armies are capable of fighting a war with Russia for only seven days.

Dr. James Cobey, who shared in the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines, described his project to create a “Palestinian Embassy” in Washington, D.C., which he called a potential “AIPAC for Palestine.” His partner in this effort is Miko Peled, the son of an Israeli general who fought in the 1967 Six Day War, but then became an advocate for an Israeli dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization after the Israeli cabinet ignored his investigation of a 1967 alleged Israeli war crime.

Next the participants viewed a video presentation by Nazih Musharbash, President of the German Palestinian Society. He said that the Jan. 26, 2024, ICJ Order of provisional measures to prevent genocide is being rejected by Israel. Israel is pushing the Palestinian population from one place to the next, bombing them, cramming them into impossibly small places. Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks that if UNRWA is cancelled, the Palestinian “Right of Return,” as guaranteed under point #5 of the Oslo Accords, will no longer be a problem. The IDF’s destruction of Hamas means that there is no functioning government. Regarding the massacre near Gaza City, he wryly observed that “warning shots are normally fired into the air.”

IPC Coordinator Anastasia Battle presented a report on the upcoming Interfaith , “Emergency Conference for Peace in Gaza” in Detroit. In the Michigan Democratic Party presidential primary elections, a campaign was launched for voters to vote “uncommitted” rather than endorse Biden’s enabling of genocide in Gaza. This resulted in 101,000 uncommitted votes. The next step being planned is a National Day of Action on March 2, to coincide with the Interfaith Meeting.

Executive Intelligence Review Ibero-American Intelligence Director Dennis Small called attention to Brazilian President Lula’s charge that Israel was committing genocide, and his stalwart refusal to “walk back” this accusation. He read an excerpt from a recent statement by the Brazilian Foreign Ministry: “Even so, the inaction of the international community in the face of this humanitarian tragedy continues to serve as a veiled incentive for the Netanyahu government to keep targeting innocent civilians and ignoring basic rules of international humanitarian law.”

Two activists from the UK explained the significance of the landslide victory of George Galloway and the Workers’ Party, who campaigned in opposition to the genocide in Gaza. The British government is trying to suppress growing public protests, calling them a threat to public safety, but there has been no violence. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman tried to ban them, saying they are antisemitic. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is saying that the demonstrations support terrorism. One of the activists charged that the UK is “a creeping police state.”

An organizer for Veterans for Peace reported on their campaign to circulate a letter, which demands that the U.S. State Department terminate weapons shipments to Israel, and calls on the Inspector General to investigate alleged criminal acts by senior Biden administration officials.

A ghastly video was shown to the discussion participants, a one-minute animation that is being broadcast on German state public television and is targeted at German children, in which talking cartoon representations of cruise missiles debate which of them would be the most effective weapon against Russia. Helga Zepp-LaRouche characterized it as part of the complete indoctrination of the population to prepare them for a coming war.

In concluding remarks, Zepp-LaRouche said that many people think the Zionist Lobby controls the U.S. But, as her late husband always said, the U.S. establishment uses Israel as a hand grenade to destabilize the region. The reason is geopolitical, a scheme to destabilize the region in order to contain the rising global majority.

Returning to the grim situation in her native land, she said, “Germany is right now like a hermetically sealed country. You cannot say anything…. We are sitting on a powder keg, and the ordinary population has no clue.” She urged all participants to organize prominent individuals to endorse the Oasis Plan.

Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Paris and Permanent Delegate to UNESCO & ICESCO signs Schiller Institute petition

On Thursday February 29, 2024, in Paris, HE Mr Mohammad Homayoon Azizi, Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Paris and UNESCO (on the right in the photo), added his signature to the Schiller Institute’s petition calling on the governments of the Western world to extend and strengthen cooperation in order to protect and preserve Afghanistan’s cultural heritage. H.E. Azizi added that he sincerely hopes that the 46th Session of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee, to be held in July this year in New Delhi, India, will contribute to strengthening relations in this field with his country. On the left, Karel Vereycken, representative of the Schiller Institute, warmly thanking the ambassador for his commitment.

Read and sign the petition here.

IPC Meeting: Only Through Development Will Mankind Defeat the ‘Structures of Sin’

by Kevin Gribbroek

The opposite of destruction is love. And what more loving could you do than to create the conditions for every living human being on the planet to fulfill the potential of their life.

Helga zepp-larouche

The 38th meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC), convened on Feb. 23, was a demonstration of why this deliberative body is uniquely suited to address and solve the crises threatening to plunge mankind into a prolonged new Dark Age or even thermonuclear Armageddon. Whereas most forum discussions on the issues of Gaza, Ukraine or any other conflict—be it mainstream or alternative media—are reduced to explanations of why one side is good and the other evil, much of the IPC meeting was devoted to deliberation over the true definition of good and evil from a philosophical standpoint. This proved very fruitful in helping participants to reach a higher-level understanding of why the Oasis Plan and economic development per se are so crucial to the survival of the human race.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the proceedings by focusing on the incredible rift taking place between the Global South and the “tiny minority” of the Global North over particularly the conflict in Gaza. Exemplary of this rift is the recently concluded G20 meeting in Brazil where the U.S. and other Western countries refused to sign a common declaration because both Brazil and South Africa insisted that it include language denouncing the genocide in Gaza. Another highlight of this rift is the ongoing hearings at the World Court, where one nation after another has condemned Israel for its actions against the Palestinians. Ma Xinmin, Legal Advisor to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, called Palestine “a litmus test for the collective conscience of humanity….”

Zepp-LaRouche continued by pointing out the insanity of Western leaders, who, despite the impossibility of Ukraine winning the war, are demanding that more long-range weapons be sent to the Zelensky regime for striking deep inside Russian territory. These leaders seem incapable of thinking about the consequences of their actions; that this could lead to World War Three! Because the strategic situation is so dangerous, it requires that the IPC mobilize that much harder to “offer solutions to an otherwise seemingly unsolvable conflict.” The way to free Palestine is the Oasis Plan because it would transform the entirety of Southwest Asia into a prosperous economic hub between Asia, Africa and Europe—a solution of optimism in the best interests of Israel, Palestine and all their neighboring countries. A similar approach is needed for Ukraine. Only a new paradigm of cooperation on economic development is capable of ending the cycle of violence.

The next speakers, Alan Rivera and Gerardo Castilleja of the Schiller Institute in Mexico, recounted a recent intervention they made at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, where they went from classroom to classroom briefing students and professors on the Oasis Plan. One professor even allowed them to show the Oasis Plan video. They then attended a campus ceasefire rally where they encountered a group of old American “lefties” repeating the same empty-headed “anti-imperialist” slogans from 40-years past with no comprehension of how to overturn the system to which they are opposed.

Dr. Mohammad Toor, Chairman of the Pakistani American Congress, stressed the necessity of peace through economic development. Weak countries must develop themselves so they do not fall prey to stronger nations. There are enough resources on the planet so that every nation can develop and become prosperous.

A university professor in Michigan spoke of the fear that permeates campuses, particularly concerning the Gaza issue. Despite a very large Arab and Muslim student body in the state, students and faculty alike feel they cannot express their emotions and feelings—they can’t advocate for what they feel is right. A large number of the students are Palestinian or have friends that are Palestinian, many of whom have lost family members in Gaza. To help people overcome this fear, the professor is organizing an arts and cultural event with the belief that, under conditions of oppression, the only way to speak up is through the arts.

The next speaker, Jack Gilroy of Veterans for Peace, reported on an initiative to deliver a document that outlines the crimes committed by Israel and the U.S. in Gaza to every State Department office in the U.S. The document warns State Department officials that they are complicit in criminal activity—the murder of thousands of people in Gaza—and could be prosecuted for these offenses.

During the discussion period, a profound dialogue was initiated by Father Harry Bury on the nature of good and evil. He challenged two fundamental beliefs that he views as obstacles to bringing about the objective of peace through development: The first is that there are evil people in the world. Father Bury believes that this is false; that there are good people that do evil things because they don’t know any better. These people must be educated to know what is good. The second belief is that the best way to prevent evil is through punishment. This is proven wrong by a worldwide recidivism rate of 80-85%. “Justice is not vengeance; justice is not getting even; justice is restoring the evil doer” according to Bury. Zepp-LaRouche, although agreeing in principle that people are fundamentally good, had one point of disagreement: Given that the human species is endowed by the Creator with free will, why is it that some people are quite capable of comprehending that what they are doing is evil but do it anyway? Why have they decided to be on the side of Satan?

The Michigan professor offered an idea, expressed in a book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil by Hannah Arendt, that evil is the absence of empathy; the inability to see others as equal with oneself. Zepp-LaRouche fully concurred with this view and explained Friedrich Schiller’s belief that only through the aesthetic education—education rooted in noble and sublime concepts—are people elevated to the level of reason.

Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute pointed out that to defeat evil one must put the City of London/Wall Street financial system through a complete bankruptcy reorganization, because that entire system is evil—what Pope John Paul II called the “structures of sin”—and creates the circumstances for evil policies to be carried out. As long as that system prevails, it will obstruct the potential to bring about the good in people. While the Boycott-Divest-Sanction (BDS) movement is fine, if you really want to go after the root of the problem you must take on the financial system.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded the meeting by expressing her profound belief that “poverty is the greatest violation of human rights you can imagine”—children growing up hungry with no education are being robbed of their humanity. The only way to solve the crises of Gaza and Ukraine is through a discussion of how to develop these impoverished regions, something which is eminently doable. In history’s past, the areas of Central and Southwest Asia were developed: Baghdad was the greatest city in the world; Afghanistan was the land of a thousand cities; Syria was part of the Silk Road. “If we connect this great tradition of the past with a vision for the future, if that becomes the motivation of all the people involved, I think we can bring this to a much more beautiful epoch in history.

Humanity Must Have a Vision for the Next Billion Years – International Peace Coalition Meeting

This article appears in the February 23, 2024 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

by Kevin Gribbroek

We have reached a point in history, where because we are sitting in one boat, we must step up to the level of reason, of finding a solution for the entire human species.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Feb. 16—The 37th meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC), convened Feb. 16, 2023, was devoted to fighting the pragmatism which infects the minds of most people in today’s society, which prevents them from conceptualizing higher-level solutions to the grave crises threatening mankind. People are often blinded by the particulars of the various conflicts—Gaza or Ukraine—robbing them of the ability to envision a means of resolving them, which would require simultaneously taking into account the needs of every single nation on the planet. This was the challenge taken up with the showing to the IPC of the new video: “The Oasis Plan—LaRouche’s Solution for the Middle East,” produced by The LaRouche Organization.

A map of LaRouche’s peace and development solution for Southwest Asia, “The Oasis Plan.” The IPC was challenged to circulate the new video of the plan produced by The LaRouche Organization.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and initiator of the IPC, opened the proceedings with a strategic overview, pointing out that in Germany the annual meeting of the Munich Security Conference was taking place. This conference, in the past a forum for finding solutions to critical security issues, has now degenerated into a public relations event for the military-industrial complex—the tone of the event being that of confrontation, not diplomacy. One exception was António Guterres, Secretary General of the UN, who made clear that 1.4 million Palestinians are facing an unimaginable destiny in Rafah. Also, the President of Ghana spoke, demanding a just new economic order, saying it cannot continue that one part of the world lives in wealth and the other part is faced with starvation.

Zepp-LaRouche continued by reporting on the 52 countries that will testify before the World Court in The Hague for one full week, starting Feb.19, on the subject of a UN General Assembly resolution of Dec. 30, 2022, alleging human rights violations against Palestinians by the Israelis over a period of 55 years. This is good, she said, but something much more fundamental is needed: Unless the hopelessness of the situation is changed, a solution can’t be found. This is why Lyndon LaRouche’s 1975 Oasis Plan for economic development of the entire region is so crucial. Unless you kick over the table of geopolitics—which the Oasis Plan would do—and go into a new paradigm of development, there is no hope.

Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the importance of “flooding the zone”; getting the Oasis Plan video out far and wide. With that, the video was shown.

Jason Ross, Executive Director of The LaRouche Organization and producer of the video, then fielded questions from IPC participants. Ross opened by making the point that charting a path toward peace sometimes requires changing the terrain. Under the current paradigm of “hegemonism,” there is no possibility of peace. There are two aspects of this paradigm which must be changed: The UN has estimated that it will cost $20 billion to reconstruct Gaza, and that it would take until 2092. This monetarist conception doesn’t take into account the necessity of transforming not only Gaza but the entire region in a way that benefits all people.

The other aspect is the problem that there are people who oppose war, who also, at the same time, whether they know it or not oppose peace. Ross used energy policy as an example: The Oasis Plan calls for nuclear power as the most efficient means of generating energy. Regrettably, many of the people who oppose war also have a Green, anti-growth Malthusian ideology and are opposed to nuclear energy. This ideology will doom people to poverty and unnecessary death, preventing the establishment of a new paradigm of peace through economic development. Ross concluded his remarks by stressing that the Oasis Plan is not contrary to the necessity of a ceasefire.

A participant from the UK sparked a very useful discussion with a question on how to finance development outside the conditionalities that enslave countries to Western finance. Ross explained that there is a new paradigm of lending outside of the IMF/World Bank policy of debt slavery, focused on lending for real physical economic development. This type of lending is being carried out by the African Development Bank, the New Development Bank, and various Chinese banks that are financing the many Belt and Road Initiative projects worldwide.

Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute added that, operating under the current bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system, U.S. and British banks will lend for real development only after Hell freezes over. With $2 quadrillion of financial aggregates on their books, Western banks lend for one purpose: more speculation. The aim of this type of lending is to ensure that no physical economic development occurs and to impose Malthusian genocide particularly on poor nations of the world. Those who attack China—an integral part of this new lending paradigm—need to explain how China succeeded in lifting 850 million of its people out of extreme poverty.

Bob Cushing of Pax Christi began by reading from the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 58, Verses 6–14, on the topic of fasting. Then, after adding a quote from peace activist and columnist Frida Berrigan, he concluded, “Here’s the ‘to do list’ now: Release the prisoners; set free the oppressed; share your food with the hungry; open the doors for the homeless; clothe the naked; end the wars. Now let’s get to work!”

Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute emphasized that with the proceedings before the World Court starting Feb. 19 on behalf of the UN General Assembly (mentioned above), a “field of action” has been made available to us for escalating our intervention into the strategic situation.

Alejandro Zenteno Chávez of Mexico’s Reason and Thought Society offered greetings to the IPC and stated his belief that the Oasis Plan provides a path to a solution for the whole world.

In her concluding remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche took the IPC participants on a tour of the “long arc of history,” noting that there have been several “high periods of human civilization” from Confucianism in China through the Greek Classical period to the Italian Renaissance and the American Revolution. However, throughout this historical arc, the dynamic was such that one area of the world could be experiencing a renaissance while another was in a dark age. Today that is no longer the case. Humanity is sitting in one boat: nuclear weapons would destroy everyone; the internet allows global connectivity; because of air travel, pandemics affect the whole world. Zepp-LaRouche expressed her conviction that because of this dynamic, regional solutions to crises won’t work.

Although nations will continue to be important, a paradigm must emerge that does not allow the interest of any one nation to be put above the interest of humanity as a whole. Common economic development among nations makes this possible. A discourse is necessary to establish a vision for how to preserve our immortality as a species—not only here on Earth but throughout the galaxy—given the reality of the inevitable demise of our solar system over the next billion or so years. With the gigantic vacuum of leadership in the North Atlantic, our task is to bring the idea of the new paradigm into the public discourse. This includes “flooding the zone” with the Oasis Plan. A handful of leading people coming out in support of the new paradigm could spark a renaissance and spread it like wildfire.

International Peace Coalition Meeting

A Transformation of the Moral Universe is Required

Feb. 9—This week’s online meeting of the International Peace Coalition began with moderator Anastasia Battle observing that the Coalition has now met for 36 consecutive weeks without interruption. She announced that a major focus of the Coalition’s activity will be to build a mass mobilization to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which has been the target of undocumented allegations by the Likud regime in Israel and its neocon supporters in the US, UK and elsewhere. 

Opening remarks were made to the meeting by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She said that the most breathtaking and horrible development in Gaza has been Netanyahu’s rejection of the offer by Hamas for a release of hostages, and the announcement that the IDF will attack the town of Rafah. 1.5 million Palestinians who have been forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza have been herded into a small area in Rafah, from which there is no escape. An IDF assault on these refugees will result in dreadful carnage. Zepp-LaRouche also commented on the efforts to disable UNRWA, noting that UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called it “irreplaceable” and that if you defund it, you “condemn the people who depend on it to death.” 

Even in U.S. establishment circles, she said, there is some recognition that this can’t go on forever. She mentioned an article in Foreign Affairs titled “Israel’s Self-Destruction,” which concludes by saying that Israelis must reach out to Palestinians, and to each other (because of the highly factionalized situation in Israel.) 

Zepp-LaRouche reminded the participants that although the Palestinian situation is most urgent, we must keep in mind that there is a danger of escalation to global war unless we can implement a new security and development architecture like the one she proposed in November of 2022. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó recently warned of this exactly: if one more major conflict is added to the ones in Ukraine and Southwest Asia, it can mean global war. Zepp-LaRouche said that the most significant aspect of the celebrated Tucker Carlson interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has already been viewed by at least 120 million people, is that Putin and Russia have at no point closed the door to cooperation with the West. 

Greetings to the attendees were offered by South Africa’s ambassador to Mexico, who was thanked by the members of the Coalition for South Africa’s important contribution to the pursuit of justice for Palestine. 

Former CIA analyst and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) cofounder Ray McGovern presented an analysis of the Tucker Carlson interview. He reminded the participants that U.S. President Eisenhower had warned that the military-industrial complex will succeed in dominating American policy if Americans are uninformed. Further, he said, one man who succeeded in making a dent in the otherwise pervasive climate of enforced ignorance was Julian Assange. Tucker Carlson has now made an additional, important contribution. 

A significant aspect of the interview was Putin’s reminder that there had been an agreement in early 2022, concluded in Istanbul, to end the Ukrainian war. The U.S.and U.K. intervened to throw those signed documents into the dustbin of history. What followed was the unnecessary killing of up to a half million of the flower of Ukrainian youth. 

Carlson asked Putin for his opinion on who’s in charge in Washington. Putin responded by saying that he didn’t know, but it was certainly not the president. McGovern said that Putin should necessarily be concerned about who really controls the nuclear button, and noted the contrast between Putin and Biden, pointing out that the Department of Justice has just said, in effect, that Biden can be excused for untruths because he is old and “not all there.” 

The meeting heard from a number of clergy and religious activists. A Christian minister from Dearborn, Michigan was outraged that the American media say that Israel is waging war on Hamas, while in fact, it’s a war on the civilians of Palestine. People who speak the truth are labeled antisemitic, he said. A recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, which labeled Dearborn a jihadist city, provoked an outraged response from the city’s mayor who then ordered an increase in security due to the danger of Islamophobic violence. The clergyman warned of the danger that Israel will extend the war into Lebanon and other surrounding countries, and said that Israel’s blocking of humanitarian aid should be a major issue. He concluded by saying that the killing of civilians by the IDF will cause further recruitment to Hamas, and the cycle of violence will cause yet more extremist, Netanyahu-like leaders to come to power in Israel. 

Other religious leaders discussed citations from Christian, Jewish, and Islamic scripture that bear on the present strategic crisis, concluding that “a total shift in the moral universe has to happen.” They reported on recent activism and discussed plans for the future. Pax Christi has numerous actions planned for tax day against American arms manufacturers, the “merchants of death” who receive a stupendous amount of U.S. tax dollars. Activists from Mexico and New York reported on successful embassy visits, urging funding for UNRWA and support for South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice. Rallies were also held outside the embassy of nations which had cut their funding for UNRWA.

 U.S. Senate candidate Diane Sare, who was actually participating remotely in the IPC meeting while attending such a rally, said that she was optimistic about the future because she sees that young people are becoming active. But, she asked, what is next? What should the world actually look like? The rotten old empire is dead; what replaces it? 

During the informal discussion, participants commented further on the Tucker Carlson/President Putin interview, saying that it shows Russia remains willing to be in a dialogue with the West. The former president of Guyana, Donald Ramotar, observed that the interview demonstrates that Putin knows he can have a military settlement, but he prefers a political, negotiated settlement. He went on to hail the government of South Africa for acting as the conscience for humanity as a whole. He said that they have ripped the mask off the face of the “genocide actors in Israel and the U.S.” He defended the Yemeni Houthis, saying their actions against Israel-related shipping constitute solidarity, not terrorism. 

In her concluding remarks, Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that the Rafah situation must be viewed with utmost urgency, but at the same time the entire world is changing. No one can speak of a “rules-based order” after the West has condoned what is happening in Gaza. Are we going to live by the law of the jungle, or by the universal principles in the UN charter? These ideas must guide our activism in the weeks ahead.

Page 1 of 7123...Last