General

As a strategic intervention meant to knock the world off its current trajectory towards short-term military and economic Armageddon between two irreconcilable blocs—that of the bankrupt Western powers running the U.K, the U.S. and NATO, on the one hand; and that of the emerging Global Majority, including Russia and China, on the other—Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche commissioned a study that was released today under the title, “Development Drive Means Billions of New Jobs, No Refugees, No War.”

It makes the case that a solution to the current showdown is readily at hand if the nations of the West join with the BRICS grouping to ensure the rapid industrialization of the whole planet. It emphasizes that this approach also provides the only possible solution to the migrant crisis sweeping the Americas and Europe: Develop the impoverished nations of the South to productively employ their labor force at home.

The new pamphlet is also meant to organize for, and underscore the central themes of, the upcoming Dec. 7-8 Schiller Institute international online conference “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men, Become Brethren!” It is there that the scientific breakthroughs of Lyndon LaRouche will be used as the touchstone for policy deliberation around the needed new international security and development architecture—to be organized along the lines proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Ten Principles.

It is only four days since the Russian deployment of their new Oreshnik hypersonic missile system delivered a shock around the world, and the implications are still being digested in Western policymaking circles. Early indications, however, are that those circles have by and large not yet been jolted back into reality, and they continue to escalate the confrontation with Russia. France has doubled down on the policy of using their SCALP long-range missiles to strike deep into Russia from Ukrainian territory. The Baltic nations are joining Germany in becoming “war-ready” for a frontal confrontation with Russia. And the outgoing Biden administration is being deployed to lob political and economic hand grenades in all directions as they head for the exit, as can be seen in the Department of Justice’s “lawfare” attack on the Modi government in India.

Nor is the response to date from the incoming Trump administration particularly encouraging, as is reflected in the naming of Scott Bessent to be Treasury Secretary. Bessent is not only a Soros protégé going back decades, who reportedly played a leading role in Soros’s infamous speculative operation in 1992 which “broke the Bank of England,” but he is also being cultivated by the City of London and Wall Street as their inside man to control Trump and make sure he doesn’t do anything the bankers disapprove of. London’s The Economist wrote happily: “By eventually picking Mr. Bessent, Mr. Trump has sided with his instinct to keep the markets happy. His selection suggests that he really could be constrained by their reaction, at least when it comes to economic policy.”

It is precisely that “constraint” being imposed by the global mega-speculators that has to be broken, and replaced with Lyndon LaRouche’s science of physical economy, if we are to get Mankind off the trajectory towards thermonuclear extinction.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute and initiator of the International Peace Coalition, delivered the following opening remarks to her weekly webcast, in which she evaluated the world strategic situation in the aftermath of the Trump victory in the U.S. presidential election.

I think it’s definitely a moment of a break in a very tense strategic situation. Trump has promised to stop wars. Obviously, we have to see if the words are followed by deeds; but also Vance, his Vice President, said something similar. So, I would take the attitude that he’s a newly-elected President, and let’s see if he follows through with his promises.

Obviously, the key question is not only what he does inside the United States, but naturally the foreign policy is crucial. I think he will do something to bring the Ukraine war to an end; I think there is a potential for that, even if the Russians are very cautious, which is understandable given their point of view. But I think that potential exists. I am not so optimistic concerning Southwest Asia.

But I think the really crucial question is, what will be the attitude of the Trump administration to the efforts by the Global Majority to build a new economic system? I would just hope that there are enough voices internationally who show the potential. The initial reaction from the Chinese, from Mao Ning, the spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry, was that the Chinese position is basically one of offering win-win cooperation. Given the fact that Xi Jinping already several years ago had offered to Obama that the Obama administration should cooperate with the BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative—to which Obama reacted very negatively by putting out the Pivot to Asia instead. But that offer obviously still exists, and given the fact that the countries of Hungary and Slovakia—who are very interested in ending the Ukraine war, because it’s a neighboring country and it’s a terrible thing to have such a war in their neighborhood—are also on a very positive course with China. I think there is a potential to end the Ukraine war, and to build bridges.

I think the countries of the Global South which have proven in Kazan that they are definitely determined to move in the direction of a more just and equitable new world economic order, I think they also will see the opportunity. I could very well imagine that many of them are reaching out to the new Trump government to see if a positive attitude can be arranged. Now, that may be as it may be.

I can only say that our task—that of the LaRouche Organization, the Schiller Institute—basically is that we have to use the moment to really catapult the world situation into a new paradigm; a new security and development architecture. I have said this repeatedly, and it’s more true now than ever before, that if we do not overcome geopolitics—which is the Wolfowitz doctrine, which is the idea that even demands that the U.S. should remain the hegemon of the world forever. But also geopolitics, which is the idea that one nation or a group of nations have the right to impose their interests over other nations. That thinking has to go, especially in the time of thermonuclear weapons. I think we have to really use this present situation to try to move out of this present extremely dangerous zone.

How dangerous it is, is underlined by the fact that just hours before the election result was known, the United States launched a Minuteman ICBM missile test, which is nuclear-capable, to demonstrate the nuclear readiness of the United States. I think this just shows you that the mindset of the present administration is still in the old paradigm; and that is exactly where the problem is located.

So, I think the next period will be extremely dangerous. I think that the period until the inauguration of Trump remains one of utmost suspense and danger, and naturally even beyond that. But I think if one can hope that what Trump said he will do—naturally one has to watch very carefully what Cabinet he is putting together. If it’s people who will insist, as Trump himself said during the election campaign, that he wants to split the relationship between Russia and China—which I think has zero chance of happening, given the fact that the reason why these two countries have moved together so closely has everything to with the strategic dangers. So, I don’t think there is any chance to split these two countries; but it would be very unfortunate if the message coming from the new Trump administration would be that he indeed wants to go in that direction.

If, on the other side, there is a concerted effort to try to move the world into a better place—and that’s what our upcoming Schiller conference is all about; to establish a new security and development architecture which takes into account the interests of every single country in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia — we are possibly on the verge of a completely new era. But it does require a lot of effort by a lot of people of good will.

So, I’m on the one side optimistic that something big can be done, but on the other side, it would be a fatal mistake to put down the alarms; because we are not out of the danger zone in the slightest. Therefore, I think it does still require a maximum mobilization of people who are fighting for peace.

Interview conducted October 6, 2024

Billington: This is Mike Billington. I’m the co-editor of the Executive Intelligence Review and a member of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Organization. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak with you again.

Billington:  Tun Dato Seri Doctor Mahathir bin Mohamad was the Prime Minister of Malaysia from 1981 to 2003. 22 years and then again from 2018 to 2020. He also served as the Secretary General of the Non-Aligned movement internationally in 2003, and held many positions in government and in the public sphere in his long career in Malaysia. So we welcome you to this interview, sir.

Dr. Mahathir: Thank you.

Billington: This is not your first interview with EIR. In 1999, Gail Billington, my late wife, visited you in Kuala Lumpur conducting a long interview. And in 2014, I had the opportunity to meet you and conduct an interview with you in Putrajaya at your foundation. Both interviews were published in the EIR. But this interview comes at a moment of perhaps the greatest danger in recent history, perhaps even in all of human history, as we are moving rapidly towards war between nuclear armed powers which could destroy life on Earth. The US has openly declared that it wishes to “weaken,” or even “destroy,” Russia, while President Putin has responded to the US and NATO threat to allow Ukraine to use NATO long range missiles deep into Russian territory, by warning that this would be seen by Russia as an attack by NATO, and that Russia would respond appropriately. You, like EIR, have warned that the world was heading to such a cataclysmic crisis, and we are now there. You told Nikkei, the Japanese news service, in June: “We may be going towards a third world war, because if you press Russia too much, and you appear to be wanting to conquer Russia, they may want to use nuclear weapons. That is going to damage the whole world.” What is your view on this now and what must be done?

Dr. Mahathir: Well, the strange thing is that the Western Alliance and Russia were partners in the war against Nazi Germany. But the moment Germany was defeated, immediately the Western alliance formed NATO as a military alliance directed against their former partner, Russia. And so the tension grew. It would seem that the Western alliance needs an enemy all the time. So it has gone on through the Cold War. And now they still want the former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO. This is a threat against Russia and, of course, Ukraine has a very long border with Russia. Russia objected to Ukraine joining NATO. I don’t see why Ukraine should join NATO, the relationship with Russia was all right and the relationship with the West was also alright, so there is no need to join NATO. But they insisted that Ukraine should join NATO. This was preempted by Russia, and now there is a war between Russia and Ukraine. That war cannot be won by Ukraine because Russia would not allow itself to be defeated. So we we may reach a situation where somebody has to give in or else the war will escalate, will involve the Western alliance against Russia. The attitude is that the war would solve this problem, but war will not solve the problem. They are going to lead to bigger wars, to a third world war. That is what I fear.

Billington: Indeed. At the same time, Israel has proven itself to be out of any control by international law, committing genocide against the Palestinians and now trying to draw Iran into a wider war, probably expecting the U.S. to join in, Malaysia, the current government in Malaysia, has spoken out strongly against the Israeli crimes, as you have also. This too could explode into nuclear war. How do you propose we deal with the whole Middle Eastern crisis?

Dr. Mahathir: Israel is behaving in this way simply because it is assured of backing by the US. Anybody who goes against Israel may have to face the US, and the US apparently supported Israel genocide in Gaza. This is very strange because normally the US would talk about human rights and the like. But with regard to Israel, the genocide carried out by Israel in Gaza is possible only because the US used the veto to prevent any action being taken against Israel. So we are going to see Israel behaving as if they are a great power and breaking all the international laws, because behind them is the US. It is the US which actually is behind the genocide taking place in Gaza.

Billington: There is the third site of possible war between nuclear powers, namely Asia, as the U.S. Insists on provoking a conflict with China and demanding that ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Countries) and other Asian countries join them. Japan and Korea have already formed a military link with the United States, and ASEAN member, the Philippines, has allowed the US to set up bases there, while Washington has even proposed joint naval patrols in the South China Sea, which would quickly lead to an open military clash between the U.S. and China directly. What is your view of this in your backyard?

Dr. Mahathir: The relationship between China and Taiwan is a little bit strange, because China could actually conquer Taiwan if they want to. But they find Taiwan is useful to China because Taiwan invests a lot in China. And Chinese tourists go to Taiwan. Also, Taiwan has access to technologies which China is interested in. So China retains the claim that Taiwan is a part of China, but has done nothing to show that it will take over Taiwan by conquest. So the situation should be left at that. But unfortunately. The speaker of the Congress [Nancy Pelosi] visited Taiwan, and she knows very well that that is going to provoke China. And indeed, this is what happened. China wanted to show its military capabilities, and Taiwan is told [by the U.S.]that they should upgrade their military capability by procuring more weapons from the U.S.. So suddenly the tension has grown, and now we are faced with the possibility of a confrontation and violence between Taiwan and China in the first place and also may involve the United States. But of course, China sometimes behaves strangely, like claiming the entire South China Sea as being a part of China, but that cannot be settled through war. It can only be settled through negotiation, because if there is a war, the damage to all the ASEAN countries and to China would be terrible. So I think the US is trying to get the ASEAN countries to confront China. But ASEAN countries are very weak and they are not capable of fighting against China. Malaysia, for example, wants to make the Chinese market available to us, and so are the other ASEAN countries. So why should we confront China? Yes, China has a claim against Taiwan, but they have not invaded Taiwan.

Billington: What do you think about the situation with the Philippines, and how is that affecting the rest of ASEAN there, they’re becoming engaged in this way with the US against China?

Dr. Mahathir: When China was a third world country, very weak, Malaysia  claimed an atoll in the South China Sea and built up facilities there. The Philippines did the same for Commodore Reef, but they withdrew. And when they withdrew, the Commodore Reef was unoccupied, and the Chinese moved in after claiming that the South China Sea belongs to them. But even such a move by China cannot be settled through a war against China. Philippines is not capable of fighting against China, and if the US gets involved, it will become another Third World War. So it is better if China and the Philippines negotiate a settlement between them without involving the United States.

Billington: Underlying this moment of great danger is the increasing disintegration of the Western financial system. The physical economies of the US and the European countries, especially Germany, are collapsing. Germany was once the industrial powerhouse of Europe and now is in a state of deindustrialization. You’ve been at the center of a fight against the domination of speculation and against speculators for much of your life. You told Gail in the 1999 interview, “When, for the first time, countries decided to float their currencies and allow the market to determine the exchange rates –that was way back in the 1970s — I felt even at that time that the sovereignty of countries had been lost.” Lyndon LaRouche, at that time, you probably know, that when Nixon took the dollar off of gold and launched the floating exchange rates in 1971, destroying the Bretton Woods system, LaRouche said that this would eventually lead to to a depression, to an economic collapse and even to war, perhaps even global nuclear war. He proposed at that time a return to the Bretton Woods system. But instead the deregulation of the world financial system continued. Is it too late now to return to the Bretton Woods?

Dr. Mahathir: Well, one would note that at Bretton Woods, the US dollar was valued at 35 US Dollars per ounce of gold. Today, it is 2,600 US Dollars per ounce of gold, which means that the US dollar has depreciated through the market. So it is not really a good standard. We should use gold as a standard and not the US dollar. But as you know, the US benefits from the use of dollars for settlement of trade, of trading between nations. Especially with oil, you have to settle in US dollars, which creates a demand for US dollars and therefore sustains its value. But actually the US dollar has no real value. It has depreciated very much. So we need an international currency based on gold for a standard. I think that would help stabilize the exchange and trade between nations. But of course, trade between nations can only be sustained if the world is at peace, and there is stability in the relations between countries. So what is happening now is that the US has provoked Russia, and there is a war between Russia and Ukraine. It’s also trying to provoke a war between Taiwan and China. And all these activities are not helping to stabilize the world.

Billington: I’m sure you have followed closely the BRICS nations which are going to be holding their meeting in Kazan, Russia, on the 22-24th of this month, just a few weeks from now, a few days from now, actually, and one of the major issues to be discussed there is the possibility of establishing a new trade relationship. Not a new currency for nations, but a new currency to be used for trade. Do you think that will answer the question you’ve just raised?

Dr. Mahathir: Whatever it is, it must be a currency that is stable. Stability, I think, is provided by valuing it against gold. If you have just an agreement to use another new currency, there will be no stability because against the gold it will depreciate. So we need we need a currency that is based on gold.

Billington: You also told Gail in that 1999 interview that the increasing domination of speculation, dominating the markets, you said “will surely result in a new imperialism, more noxious and debilitating than the old.” And you added that we were “seeing a new kind of imperialism, where the weapon used is really capital, capital that can be used to impoverish country to the point where they have to beg for help. And when they beg, then you can impose conditions on them.” This appears to have gotten even worse since your comment in 1999. Your thoughts?

Dr. Mahathir: As you know, this idea about a new imperialism came from Sukarno [President Sukarno, president of Indonesia from 1950-1967]. He was the first person to coin the word “neocolonialism.” This is based on the management of trade, the trade between countries. For example, Malaysia produces rubber, but the market is in London, and Malaysia does not get the full benefit of producing rubber because all the trading is done in London. So there they can actually increase the value or decrease the value of the rubber. And when they do that it affects Malaysia. It’s the same with the currency. As you know, a currency is supposed to fluctuate because of the market. But it is not really the market. It is the currency traders. It pays for them to make money through short selling. They create money which they don’t have, and they sell the currency in the market, and the value of the currency depreciates. And then, of course, they buy the devalued money to deliver to the first customer they had who had bought at a higher price. This was what happened during the currency crisis. That is why we decided that they should not deal with our currency. We should fix our value, not the currency traders. It’s not the market. Because of the currency traders.

Billington: Right. In fact, in that regard, you engaged in a very famous conflict with the IMF and with the hedge funds and the currency traders who were waging financial warfare on Malaysia and other countries, other developing countries in the 1990s. Can you describe what you did and the results of that?

Dr. Mahathir: As you know, in 1997, 1998, the currency traders devalued their Malaysian currency. We were puzzled by the behavior of the Malaysian currency, especially the depreciation, until we found out that it was the currency traders. So if it is the currency traders, we need not adhere to international practice. We felt that we should stop currency trading. And that was what we did. And indeed when we fixed the exchange rate, the currency trading ceased, stopped completely. But to do that, you need to have financial strength. Malaysia had huge savings. So when we did that, we couldn’t get access to the American dollar at the price we fixed the exchange rate. But we had enough dollars in our savings to meet the demands of trade.

Billington: As part of that conflict, you gave a speech at an IMF conference in Hong Kong in which you discussed what you just described here. You described the currency speculation, what it was doing to the Malaysian ringgit and explained your imposition of currency controls. The Asian Wall Street Journal, which is no longer published, but it was published as an Asian edition at that time, and the front page of the Asian Wall Street Journal, on the same day as that famous speech in Hong Kong published an article which was called “LaRouche report helps feed Malaysian Attacks on Soros.” The article claimed that your attack on Soros “came from an unusual source of publications run by Lyndon LaRouche, Jr,” whom they described as an “eccentric” and a “conspiracy theorist.” They don’t mention the things that Soros said about you — when he had called you “a menace to his own country,” and predicted that your policies would bring ruin to Malaysia. Did that happen? And how do you see that process from the current perspective?

Dr. Mahathir: Well, we were trying to find out who was responsible, and we found that Soros had attacked Italy, the Italian lira, for example. He was actually made persona non grata in Italy. He also attacked the British pound. So it was Soros who was responsible for changing the values of currencies, and it must be him who was responsible for the devaluation of the Malaysian currency, too. At that meeting I did mention his name, but he denied it. Whether it is true or not, I don’t know. But anyway, we concluded that it was the currency traders who were responsible for devaluating our currency, and action had to be taken to stop them from dealing in Malaysian currency.

Billington: And it worked.

Dr. Mahathir: Yes, yes we did. Later on, even IMF agreed that what Malaysia did was right.

Billington: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the wife of the late Lyndon LaRouche, who now leads the Schiller Institute and the international LaRouche movement, insisted that nothing less than what she calls “a new security and development architecture for all nations” can reverse this decline into war and economic destitution. She compares this to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the religious wars of Europe by establishing the notion of sovereign nation states within which each nation’s interests have to include the interests of the others. What are your thoughts on that?

Dr. Mahathir: I did not study her writings deeply, but I think there is some substance in what she says. I think that nowadays we are more connected than ever before. So whatever happens in one country affects all the other countries of the world. On the one hand, the world has become a big market and you can make tons of money from trading with the world. But on the other hand, of course, what happens in one country can affect the other countries of the world. And when the U.S. makes a decision, it affects us. So we have to be constantly aware of what other countries are doing, because whatever they do will affect us in one way or another. For example, when they apply sanctions to a country, it’s not only that country that suffers. Other countries trading with that country also suffer. And Malaysia, as a trading nation, suffers a lot whenever sanctions are applied to any country, even to Russia or Iran. We suffer even though it was not the intention to punish us for anything. We have done nothing wrong. But the fact is that when sanctions are applied, other countries have to pay the price.

Billington: Helga has also proposed something she calls the “Ten Principles of a New International Security and Development Architecture.” She argues that the populations of the Western world have been so indoctrinated with banality, especially since the onset of the rock-drug-sex counterculture in the 1960s, that we must introduce reason and classical culture to get through this crisis. So she addresses the need for development of all countries, the need for education for all people, for health care for all people, and so forth. But it also includes as the 10th principle: “The basic assumption for the new paradigm is that man is fundamentally good and capable of infinitely perfecting the creativity of his mind and the beauty of his soul. And being the most advanced geological force in the universe, which proves that the lawfulness of the mind and that of the physical universe are in correspondence and cohesion, and that all evil is the result of a lack of development and therefore can be overcome.” She stated that this idea is fundamental to all the great religions of the world, but that it has been lost in the hedonistic ideologies dominating the West today. What are your thoughts on that, sir?

Dr. Mahathir: If you look at the world today, the world has shrunken. We have become very small. We are all neighbors of each other, and we need the United Nations more than ever to solve our problem. Unfortunately, the United Nations was designed in order to sustain the big powers who won the war 70-80 years ago. I think the world should not be held down by what happened 70-80 years ago. We should have no veto power for anybody in any country. The vote is given to everyone equally, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, whether they are workers or they are capitalists. Each one has got one vote. In the UN, we find that five countries are superior to the rest of the world. Any one of them can frustrate 190 other countries. This is totally undemocratic. So if we want to have a world that is more stable and more peaceful, we need to get rid of these veto powers, and maybe amend some of the provisions of the United Nations, or even create a new organization where no one holds any veto power.

There is always talk about a kind of world government. Today, there are many common problems which affect all of us, all the countries. For example, climate change affects everybody, the Covid 19 affects everybody. We are feeling the effects of very common diseases. A currency crisis and all that. So whereas each country can deal with the simple crimes that occur in their country, but in terms of international common problems for the world, we need to have a new authority with clout, which can deal with the problems. For example, it is unacceptable that Israel can commit genocide openly and the world can do nothing. This is something that does not show that we understand, that the world has become small, and anything that is happening in any part of the world affects the rest of the world.

Billington: I’m sure you know that the UN General Assembly held a vote which overwhelmingly voted to demand that Israel stop the occupation, not just the current genocide, but obviously to stop the war, but also to stop the occupation, which has been illegal from its beginning. So that vote took place in the General Assembly, but they don’t have any enforcement power. So unfortunately, most people are, as you’ve indicated, the major powers that are benefiting from this, and especially the U.S., just ignore such a thing, and therefore nothing has happened. You have any recommendations on that?

Dr. Mahathir: Well, in the case of other countries, in Bosnia, for example, and also in many African countries, the UN sends a peacekeeping force to separate the combatants. But in the case of Gaza — no peacekeeping force has been sent to Gaza, and the Israelis are left to themselves, to do what they like. In fact, when Biden proposed a ceasefire, Netanyahu just ignored him and continued, even escalated, the killings. And now, it has spread to Lebanon. I can’t imagine a country as small as Israel can defy the feelings of the whole world, the opinion of the whole world. And this can only happen because behind Israel there is a great power which has a veto, which frustrates the whole United Nations.

Billington: You are currently engaged in a conflict with the Malaysian prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim. Actually you’ve been engaged for many, many years in various kinds of conflicts with Anwar Ibrahim. As you probably know I’ve written about this in the EIR a great deal. He has been accused by several of your own national newspapers of using the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to open investigations into his adversaries and their families. And that includes you, and Daim Zainuddin, who was your finance minister at the time of your conflict with the IMF, and even two of your sons. You are reported by the press to have said: “This is an abuse of the rule of law.” At the same time that you rejected the demands of the IMF and the speculators. Anwar, who was at that time your Deputy Prime Minister, openly opposed you, and argued that you should accept the demands of the IMF and George Soros and the speculators. And if I understand it correctly, you fired him. Some say that Anwar is now out for revenge. What is the status of this current investigation?

Dr. Mahathir: Well, I support any move to reduce corruption in this country. Corruption, of course, is a very bad practice that affects the development of this country. But what we have learned is that on the one hand, the opposition is accused of corruption, but as for the people who support him, an accusation against them are dropped. For example, the Deputy Prime Minister was facing 47 charges in the court of law. Suddenly they dropped the charges. At the same time, I was accused by him publicly of stealing government money, of abuse of power, which I did not. So I told him, show proof that I have stolen money. He said that I have stolen billions. I said show proof. I don’t know where the billions are, because I have never stolen billions of dollars. Can you show proof? So I took him to court and asked him to show proof. He has not been able to show any proof for the past one whole year, but instead of that, he took action against my children. I mean, it’s not fair. It’s quite obvious that his anti-corruption thing is not sincere, in that he exempts his own supporters, but he took action against those who opposed to him, even though they have no evidence that they were involved in corruption. I challenge him to show that I have money. I am prepared to give all the money that he says I have to charity, 100%. He said only half, but i am willing to give 100% if you can show that I have the money.

Billington: Let me go back a bit. You mentioned Sukarno as bringing up the question of the New Imperialism or the new form of colonialism. As I’m sure you know, in 1955, he called the meeting which became known as the Bandung Conference, the Asia Africa Conference, which was the first meeting of former colonial powers without their colonial masters there. In that famous meeting, he made a call for what eventually turned into being the so-called Non-Aligned Movement. That spirit has been revived recently by many, including Malaysia, which participated in an effort to revive the Non-Aligned Movement. It also is being revived in the form of the new BRICS Association and the many, many Global South countries who aspire to join the BRICS. Their basic principles are very similar to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence that were adopted by the countries at the Bandung Conference. This is something that Helga Zepp-LaRouche also points to often: that Sukarno’s speech at that event was essentially a call for a new world order based on that kind of principle, of honoring the rights of all countries. What’s your own view of the history of the Non-Aligned Movement and the current form of that with the BRICS?

Dr. Mahathir: The world is still divided into two confronting blocs, the East and the West. And other countries feel that they are being pressured to join one or the other. But these countries do not want to be involved in the confrontation between the U.S. and China and Russia. That is why there is a need once again to think about non-alignment, which was what was proposed by Sukarno. Today, that is still relevant. We want to get away from this confrontation because it is not good for us. We want to see a stable world where we can grow through trade with the whole world. But dividing the world into two parts and then applying sanctions and even taking military action and all that, these are very, very negative. These are not the way to solve the problems of the world. We need a stable world. We don’t need any blocks East or West, but we need a world where everybody is equal. And they should all solve their problems through the United Nations without the veto. That is what we need. But since we cannot change the United Nations, so they form BRICS. And again, that is another way of having non-alignment.

Billington: Do you think Malaysia will join the BRICS at the meeting this month?

Dr. Mahathir: Yes they have applied there. I don’t know what is the criteria for joining but certainly in spirit Malaysia believes in non-alignment.

Billington: Very interesting. Do you have any other thoughts that you’d like to leave with our readers and our followers? I know you followed the EIR on and off most of your life. What are your thoughts now for our followers?

Speaker2: I think this confrontation between East and West should stop. We should not divide the world into two. And we should have a workable United Nations that has no veto power. And of course, when a country is considered to be a recalcitrant, like the Israelis, then the world must take action to put a stop to this killing. Already they have killed 42,000 Palestinians and now more Palestinians living in Lebanon have been targeted, and the world basically shows that it has no power to do anything. It’s something not reasonable for civilized people to accept this kind of killing and do nothing about it.

Billington: Yes. We are certainly committed to resolving those fundamental problems facing mankind. As I said at the beginning, this is perhaps the greatest moment of danger that the human race has ever faced, given that it’s a nuclear age and the level of madness by some leaders who think that they can resolve problems through war, especially with nuclear weapons. This would mean the end of civilization. So we certainly appreciate your continuing battle to make your voice heard. We’re calling on citizens of the U.S. and of all the Western countries to recognize that their own fate rests in working with Russia and China, and not going to war with them, but actually having the kind of world cooperation that we need to have a peaceful world. So I thank you very much. We will get this interview out widely. Many, many people are looking forward to hearing your words. It’s been a long time since we’ve had a chance to speak like this, but it’s very much appreciated, I can assure you, by the growing movement that we represent. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has also initiated something called the International Peace Coalition, which has been meeting every week for 70 weeks now, over a year. There have been between 1000 and 2000 people attending those meetings every Friday afternoon, from 40 to 50 countries, virtually every week. The idea there is that people who believe in peace may have different political ideas, but those political ideas aren’t going to mean anything if we have a nuclear war. Nobody’s going to be around to enjoy the victory if we have a nuclear war and therefore we must get together and cooperate to bring about a peaceful resolution to these conflicts. That’s what we’re fighting to do. Your voice in that, in the International Peace Coalition, would be very valuable. And I invite you, if you possibly can, to join one of our meetings on Fridays. If you agree, we could perhaps use some quotes from this interview in one of those meetings. Would that be acceptable to you?

Dr. Mahathir: From what I see, I see openly we may hurt some people, but I always believe in freedom of speech. You should be able to hear what you like, as well as what you don’t like.  My concern now is that there are too many warheads with nuclear material. And once you activate nuclear material. You cannot reverse it. You cannot even get rid of it as waste. There are these problems now of nuclear waste, which we cannot do anything about, and which is still going to hurt people with this radiation and the like.

Billington: Thank you very much. Very good to see you again. And I hope I get a chance to come back to Malaysia sometime. And I’ll come come to Putrajaya again and and pay my respects. Thank you.

Oct. 10—Earlier this month, in Moscow, Richard A. Black, Schiller Institute representative at the United Nations in New York, interviewed Dr. Georgy D. Toloraya, Executive Director of the Russian National Committee on BRICS Research, and concurrently Director of the Asian Strategy Center at the Institute of Economics and Chief Researcher of the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of Russian Academy of Sciences. Mr. Black was in Moscow to speak at the 8th BRICS International School, October 2-4. His talk was titled, “The Role of Principle in the Current Development of BRICS.”

Richard Black: I just had the honor of giving a presentation on a panel of the Eighth BRICS International School in Moscow. Can you tell us how this yearly event was first launched? What is your view of what was accomplished this past week at the school?

Georgy Toloraya: First of all, about the school: The BRICS School was inaugurated in 2017 by the National Committee for BRICS Research (one of the first Russian NGOs, in existence since 2011). At that time, we gathered people from, mostly, five countries, about 30 of them, and it was very successful. Since that time, we have had this kind of function on an annual basis, constantly increasing the scope, and the participants of this school have already formed networks of future and current leaders of BRICS, which is very important. In this school they receive training from leading experts based in Russia and other BRICS countries, and we now include other international experts, like yourself. This year the event is also supported by BRICS-related units at the state-run Higher School of Economics and Moscow University of International Relations.

This year it was particularly challenging, because we had some new countries joining the BRICS. As of this year, we had more than 40 countries represented at the BRICS School. We hope to continue with this practice in the future, because this is an important tool to promote knowledge of the BRICS among young people, provide direct contact, and for supporting networks and expanding mutual understanding.

‘Biggest BRICS Gathering Ever Held’

Black: How is BRICS evolving, as we approach the yearly Summit, here in Russia? How can the four or five new members of the BRICS be best integrated? What about the 30 or more nations which have expressed their hopes of joining?

Toloraya: The Kazan BRICS Summit is a real milestone, because it gathers the old and new members for the first time. Also BRICS plus/outreach countries are coming, altogether a quarter of a hundred top leaders, as well as a dozen more countries on a lower level. This is the biggest BRICS and BRICS outreach/plus gathering which was ever held. Simply in matter of numbers this is the most important international event in Russia this year (which also is significant for Russia as an indication of international recognition), and also one of the biggest events for Global South and East leaders.

Black: I understand that Kazan is an Islamic center of culture, renowned throughout Asia. Is there a special significance of the BRICS Summit being held in Kazan?

Toloraya: There is always strong competition among Russian cities to be the host to BRICS summits and events, because it means investment from the state, and development, and lots of international contacts. So it’s very beneficial, although a challenging task for any city or location.

Kazan is the capital of Tatarstan, one of the biggest and strongest republics in the Russian Federation, where the majority of population are ethnic Tatars. It’s a Muslim republic, but that was not a decisive factor for its self-identification. It’s an important coincidence to show that Russia is not only a Christian country, but also it has a strong Muslim minority, and Buddhist and other religions. Well, it’s still Russia proper, and it’s very good that the foreign leaders will see for themselves that Russia is multinational, very tolerant, and has a lot of cultural and national variety.

Black: Schiller Institute leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been circulating a concise document titled, “Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture.” Is this relevant for BRICS?

Toloraya: As I mentioned, look at the number of countries and actors, and the number of ideas and suggestions which have being flowing in from many sources, and all these ideas and principles will be discussed. It will be all the norm in the course of the Summit. Many ideas have been tossed around, including the Helga Zepp-LaRouche “Ten Principles,” which are also there in circulation in preparation for the Summit, along with many, many other ideas and suggestions which are important for the Global Majority to dwell upon: cooperation for a new world order—more just, and more transparent.

Toward a New Paradigm of International Relations

Black: In a TASS interview, Zepp-LaRouche expressed the suggestion that the Kazan BRICS Summit use its potential authority to launch “a new paradigm,” a new architecture of international relations, even amidst the war escalations in Southwest Asia and Europe. What are your thoughts on this proposal?

Toloraya: The new paradigm of international relations—new order, or new type of relations—all is being discussed by the BRICS for years, and not only discussed, but is being implemented in practice by the BRICS. It’s not in a direct way that these suggestions are implemented, but any suggestions available influence the discussion, and they finally determine the rules by which this new world-order construct will be built.

Black: As a Director of Asian Studies within the Institute of Economics and a Chief Researcher of the Institute of China and Contemporary Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences, do you see a pathway—even if difficult—for practical improvement of India-China relations?

Toloraya: India and China have many problems between them—historically and more generally geostrategic ones. And as for BRICS, our rule is that the countries which have some issues between themselves don’t bring them to the table of the BRICS, because the BRICS is for providing joint vision, finding paths of cooperation and opportunities for collective efforts, not about discussing conflicts.

But, paradoxically, in many cases which I have witnessed, sometimes the discussion between the countries on different issues—general global issues—somehow helps them to look at their own bilateral contradictions from a new angle, find new solutions for them. Even having contacts on other matters helps the politicians and experts to better understand each other on the “damned issues.” So, it’s a useful tool to help settle these contradictions.

India-China contradictions exist in a much more fundamental way than between a number of other countries. But anyway, it’s easier to handle and manage them with BRICS than without BRICS.

Lyndon LaRouche’s Eurasian Land-Bridge Concept

Black: Do you see the prospects again for the ideas of American economist and statesman, Lyndon LaRouche, in Russia today? Concepts such as the Eurasian Land-Bridge; a principled, expert “dialogue of civilizations”; BRICS as a bridge from the East and South to the West; rising energy-flux densities of power plants supplied to the Global South?

Toloraya: I would say that some of the Lyndon LaRouche insights were very helpful. Dialogue of civilizations approach is the founding spirit in BRICS. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is actually now being embodied both in the Belt and Road concept of China and the Eurasian security concept—the Greater Eurasian cooperation concepts of Russia. So, this idea lives on, as well as other ideas, including the BRICS’ role as a bridge between the West and the Global Majority.

I would say that BRICS is a platform for collecting and codifying opinions for working out a joint position by the Global South and Global East and Global Majority—however vague this definition is—which can be negotiated with a more, I would say, coherent Western position, which is usually very well formulated within the G-7 and other collective Western institutions. So, BRICS provides maybe a discussion and a joint-position formulation platform, and a negotiation platform, provided the West would be interested in that kind of a dialogue. In fact a rudimentary mechanism of this nature can be witnessed in G20 activities.

Black: Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for an extraordinary “Council of Reason” of former high government officials, scholars, and artists to debate and formulate a pathway out of the current deadly crisis. What is your view?

Toloraya: The Council of Reason, or as I have called it, the “Club of Wisemen,” which could gather together leading thinkers from BRICS countries, as well as from Western countries, I think it’s a very good idea to discuss the global issues, and at least express some opinion on that to make it clear for both sides.

I have doubts whether it is possible to persuade the West, or to make it change its position, because all attempts at this effort have been not very successful. But at least the West should be aware of the Global East & South joint position, not shrug it away.

I noticed that one of the New Development Bank former directors was frustrated enough to comment at this time of his resignation, that, in fact, the Western financial system is irreformable—it cannot be reformed—only another can be created, which would compete with it.

So, I think this might be the same with ideology. I think it is very difficult to achieve a convergence of the ideologies and practices which would both make it in Western interests and East-South interests, such that they merge together in a sort of recipe for global development and global peace. But we must coexist on one planet and should not let it perish. So the Wisemen (and women) should discuss and suggest some modus vivendi and modus operandi for the future. How the competing nations should behave themselves and interact. What common development and progress priorities, not artificially limited to neo-liberal values, can they pursue jointly and separately. How these processes can be globally governed in a just and representative manner. A sort of global Westphalian and human-centered development ideological construct of a kind.