Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • French
  • Russian
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Italian
  • Spanish
  • Arabic
  • Persian
  • Greek

General

Category Archives

International Peace Coalition Meeting: We Must Not Lose Our Humanity

by Daniel Platt

March 29, 2024 (EIRNS)–The 43rd consecutive weekly online meeting of the International Peace Coalition began today with an acknowledgment of the importance of the recent memo issued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), titled “The French Road to Nuclear War”, and it was noted that some of the authors of that report were participating in this IPC meeting, including Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq; Ray McGovern, former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); and Coleen Rowley, former FBI special agent and whistleblower.

Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the proceedings by recalling the film, “Storm Over Asia”, released by her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, in 1999. During its first ten minutes, this film describes the ongoing “Great Game” of conflict between the Anglosphere and the Asian powers, why it is happening, and who is doing it. At that time, the active conflicts were in the North Caucasus region, but we see the same dynamic going on in Ukraine now. French President Macron’s threat to deploy 20,000 troops to Ukraine is, said Zepp-LaRouche, “a very tricky situation,” and added that she thought it was of great importance to have members of the VIPS on the call to dialogue with important speakers from France and elsewhere. The recent terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall music venue, located in Krasnogorsk, Moscow Oblast, adds another dimension of danger: Russia has compiled substantive evidence that the attack came from Ukraine, including large amounts of money in cryptocurrency deployed to sponsor it.

Zepp-LaRouche reported a number of positive developments, including the decision of the Irish government to join South Africa in its action against Israel before the International Court of Justice; the resignation of Annelle Sheline from her State Department position in protest against U.S. support for the Likud coalition’s genocidal policy in Gaza; and the momentum to free Palestinian political prisoner Marwan Barghouti, the one figure who could unify all Palestinians.

Following Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks, a special statement from Dennis Kucinich was read, who was a U.S. Congressman from Ohio from 1997 to 2013, Mayor of Cleveland, and is now an independent candidate for Congress. Kucinich stressed his support for non-violent conflict resolution through diplomacy.

Scott Ritter, a signer of the VIPS memo on Macron’s threat to deploy French troops to Ukraine, said that such a move “would begin a ladder of escalation” that would lead inevitably to a nuclear confrontation. He described the mind-set of NATO leaders as a “Casino-based addiction,” which leads the afflicted party to follow up on the stupidity of his initial bet by mortgaging his house and spending his kids’ college fund. Russia does not intend to move on to Poland or the Baltics, Ritter said; Russia’s security is threatened by NATO’s “irresponsible expansion.” Russia proposed a new European security framework in 2021–Ritter advised Western leaders to go back and study it now.

Col. (ret.) Alain Corvez, former advisor to the French Defense and Interior Ministries, described himself as “totally aligned” with the views of Zepp-LaRouche and Ritter, and elaborated on his reading of French President Macron’s insane proposal to send French troops to Ukraine. Leader of France’s Solidarité et Progrès party, Jacques Cheminade, described President Macron as “puerile and dangerous at the same time,” noting that he has displayed photos of himself on social media showing his biceps, as well as hugging Brazilian President Lula da Silva: behavior that is “full of contradictions.” Cheminade asserted that the economic and financial collapse of France “explains the flight forward.”

Coleen Rowley, another signer of the VIPS memo, recalled that there have been 70-80 such memos, and they have all been correct. She said that it has been sad to witness continual lies that have led to unnecessary wars, noting that when leaders become desperate to maintain power, they become reckless, and lose their ability to reason. They start believing their own propaganda. Unlike Russians, Americans have not experienced the costs of war on their own soil.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche strongly agreed on this point; the present generation has no idea what war does. For them, war has been reduced to a video game in which you can simply re-start the game when you lose.

Ray McGovern began his remarks by reminding the participants that he has served in uniform, and he knows a bit about war. On the other hand, Joe Biden, Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan know nothing about war. Biden had “as many deferments as Dick Cheney–five, count them.” Because of the media, Americans have no idea how close we are to a three-front war. McGovern recalled, “I was alive during the genocide of Jews” during WWII. Was there anyone of moral standing who spoke out against it? Very few. He shared the story of Albrecht Haushofer, a German active in the anti-Nazi resistance, and quoted from Haushofer’s sonnet (https://www.prosperosisle.org/spip.php?article985) titled “Schuld”(“Guilt”) which was found after he was executed in prison. He concluded by saying, “It’s Good Friday… I would just remind you that we are not to be discouraged…There are enough of us.”

During the discussion period, people shared problems and successes they had encountered in their efforts to organize. A high point was a report on the previous night’s intervention by Senate candidate Diane Sare at the $25 million fundraiser for Joe Biden in New York, with guest stars Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Sare had devised an ingenious banner of super-thin material, which she was able to smuggle into the event under her clothing. It read “WAR PIGS ALL,” and she unfurled it directly in front of the podium. As she was dragged out, Sare was videoed shouting, “You’re all out of your minds, you’re going to take us to nuclear war with Russia.” This video has gone viral. Sare’s intervention was quickly followed by others, including by members of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Cliff Kiracofe, former Senior Professional Staff Member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, made an interesting observation about the Crocus City Hall attack, concerning the Tajik ethnicity of the perpetrators. Russia has suggested that Britain may have played a role in organizing the attacks. During the 19th century, the British were recruiting and manipulating Central Asians for their Great Game. The Islamic Renaissance Party, illegal in Tajikistan, has its headquarters in London.

A Connecticut peace activist, new to the IPC, said that many people she works with want to know if there is the possibility of sending UN Peacekeeping troops to Gaza if Israel continues to disregard the ceasefire resolution. Ray McGovern responded by insisting that contrary to statements by U.S. Government officials, the resolution is binding de jure. He said that the Israelis now admit that the 1967 war was launched without provocation, and UN Resolution 242 is also binding, though no one has enforced it. Things may be different now. It is certainly unconscionable to allow 90 Palestinian children to die every day. Coleen Rowley added that there are options and avenues for further enforcement of UN and ICJ measures. The strongest would be peacekeepers; before that, economic sanctions would be an option.

In closing, Helga Zepp-LaRouche reminded the participants that Easter marches are an old tradition in Europe. She urged everyone to go out and leaflet them. In the U.S., activists can go to churches with leaflets. As an official in Bavaria recently reminded us, you can’t have both guns and butter, so there will be increasing austerity demands which will make people more desperate. We must not lose our humanity, the right to develop and become beautiful souls.


IPC Meeting Friday, March 29: Organizing Works! Do More of It

Even as the March 22 terror attack in Russia, the sharply escalating Russia-Ukraine war, and ongoing NATO plans to put boots on the ground in Ukraine threaten to push the planet over the edge into thermonuclear war, those who would stop such insanity should take careful note of two developments over the last 48 hours.

First, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), who represent a growing current among American military and intelligence circles, issued a March 24 urgent open letter to President Joe Biden, “VIPS MEMO: The French Road to Nuclear War” (“Subject: On the Brink of Nuclear War”) in which they warn that French President Emmanuel Macron’s repeated calls to put NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine “would be leading the American people down a path toward a nuclear conflict decidedly not in the interests of the American people—or of humanity itself.”

Second, a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was finally approved on March 25—because the United States didn’t veto it, like it had every previous such resolution, but this time only abstained. This is a far cry from what is needed to actually stop the genocide underway and provide humanitarian life support to Gaza’s 2.3 million people—let alone to implement a full development program, such as LaRouche’s Oasis Plan—but it does show that the Biden administration is feeling the political heat.

The heat is coming from a shocked American population, many of whom have taken to the streets to make their opposition to the genocide known—and threaten Biden’s reelection. And the heat is also coming from a rapidly growing majority of what is already the Global Majority of nations and peoples, who have made it clear that they will no longer submit to 500 years of colonial rule and more modern looting of their economies by the speculative policies of the bankrupt City of London and Wall Street financial system.

Allies in the International Peace Coalition, have been intensely involved in organizing the forces to make that political heat grow, both in the U.S. and Europe, as well as the nations of the South. From that we draw a simple conclusion: Organizing works! But a lot more needs to be done, and quickly.


Join us this Friday at 12pm EDT/5pm CET. We will be joined by leaders from Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity including:

– Ray McGovern, former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
– Coleen Rowley, former FBI special agent and whistleblower
– Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq
and other experts.

Please share this invite with your organizations and friends. Come with full organizing reports.

Send an email to questions@schillerinstitute.org to get the zoom details for the meeting of the International Peace Coalition. 

Our Outcry Must Not Come Too Late!This statement was presented at the March 22, 2024 meeting of the International Peace Coalition, where its immediate distribution internationally was a central topic of discussion.Read the Statement 
Online ConferenceThe Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development  RSVP Today
WATCH: Mexican Congressman Robles Calls for New International Security and Development Architecture
 READ: Mexican Congressman Robles Issues Open Letter:

Interview With Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, Who Supports the Oasis Plan

March 14, 2024 (EIRNS)–COPENHAGEN (Schiller Institute in Denmark)—The Schiller Institute in Denmark conducted an hour-long video interview with the Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian yesterday, in which the Ambassador expressed his anguish about the death and destruction in Gaza and, also, the West Bank, the lack of support for ending the war by Western political leaders, and expressed full support for LaRouche’s Oasis Plan and the peace through development concept. He was interviewed by Tom Gillesberg, President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark.

Watch the Oasis Plan video and sign the petition in support of the Oasis Plan Idea

Register for the Schiller Institute free online conference Saturday April 13, 2024 at 11am EDT; 5pm CET: The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace Through Development Between Israel and Palestine and for All of Southwest Asia

The video, which will be widely circulated internationally, includes links in the video and description to the LaRouche Organization video “The Oasis Plan: LaRouche´s Solution to the Middle East,” and the link to register for the upcoming April 13 Oasis Plan video conference.

H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian has had a distinguished career in the academic and diplomatic spheres. His academic expertise is in international relations and conflict resolution. He was educated in Jerusalem, the American University in Beirut, and earned his MA in international relations and PhD in political science at Toledo and Cincinnati universities in Ohio in the U.S. He was a professor and eventually Executive Vice President of Bethlehem University on the West Bank of Palestine. He taught an Israel-Palestine conflict resolution course together with Israeli professor Edward Kaufman at the University of Maryland for 26 years.

He was also the PLO’s leading advisor about the status of Jerusalem.

H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian then became the Palestinian Authority’s Ambassador to Great Britain for 13 years, Hungary for one year, and now Denmark for the last four years.

The interview also covers, especially, the urgent need to stop the current genocide in Gaza, and violence and oppression on the West Bank; the need for UN and international recognition of an independent Palestinian state and what it will take within Israel to get there; his Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution class at the University of Maryland; concluding with his warm praise of the Schiller Institute..

Articles by the Ambassador in Palestine-Israel Journal: https://www.pij.org/author/326

More extensive CV: http://passia.org/personalities/351

Full transcript: 

Interview with Palestinian Authority Ambassador to Denmark H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian 

We Shall Overcome: Peace, Palestinian Independence, and the Oasis Plan in Southwest Asia 

Note to the reader: “The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution Course” section is marked below with a section title, as this section was not included in the interview article in EIR Volume 51, Number 12, March 22, 2024. 

TOM GILLESBERG: I’m Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, and I’m very grateful for having this opportunity to interview His Excellency Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian, the present Ambassador of Palestine to Denmark for the last four years, appointed by President Mahmoud Abbas. 

You also have a very distinguished career behind you, both in the diplomatic field, and also in the academic field, so why don’t you introduce yourself for the audience? 

AMBASSADOR PROF. DR. MANUEL HASSASSIAN: Thank you very much, Tom. It has been a pleasure seeing you for the second time, and I am really overwhelmed by your generous offer to interview me. I’m a supporter of your institute as you know. And you have done so much for the cause, for international humanity, and this great step of interviewing a Palestinian ambassador in Denmark. 

I was born and raised in Jerusalem. I went to the Frères School, which is taught by De La Salle Brothers, for high school. Then went for two years for my social degree to Birzeit University; I was in the liberal arts. Then I was accepted to finish my BA at the American University of Beirut, which is considered to be one of the most prestigious in the Middle East.  In 1975, I got my BA and went to Ohio, to the United States: I earned my master’s degree in international relations at the University of Toledo, Ohio; then I continued my education, pursued my PhD at the University of Cincinnati, Ohio, and I got my PhD degree in 1986. I came back to Bethlehem University in 1981, where I was preparing for my dissertation. I was an instructor in 1981, because I hadn’t finished my PhD, but I became Dean of Students. In 1986 I became assistant professor, and I stayed as Dean of Students for nine years. Then I became an associate professor, and I became the Dean of the Faculty of Arts. And in 1996, I became the Executive Vice President, which is the highest position of a Palestinian in a Catholic school. In the year 1999, I became a full professor at the University of Bethlehem, and all my work was assessed by professors in the United States, to give me this distinguished title. I have taught [at the University of Maryland, U.S.] with a colleague from the Hebrew University, from the Truman Center, Prof. Edy Kaufman for the last 26 years. We stopped during COVID. 

[H.E. Ambassador Prof. Dr. Hassassian has also been the PLO’s chief advisor in negotiations over the status of Jerusalem.]  

I was appointed ambassador by President Mahmoud Abbas in the year 2005. I served 13 years as the Palestinian ambassador in London, and then in 2018, I moved one year and served in Hungary. Because of a disagreement with the Hungarians, we were disputing the transfer of their embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, so I was called by my President to come back. I stayed one year, and we never had any representation at my level. So, when I was transferred to Denmark to become ambassador, a year later, they appointed a Palestinian ambassador to fill the gap. 

[A more complete biography, including other academic positions and awards, may be read here.] 

Amb. Hassassian: I really appreciate the Danish public: They’re very supportive of the Palestinian problem, because they are champions of human rights, and they have been during the Holocaust, when they helped all those diasporized Jews, who had been slaughtered by the Nazis and the fascists. So there is a long record for Denmark to be a champion of human rights, and we are not surprised to see the same people, with the same stamina of supporting the Palestinians, at least on the public level, where they want to see a cessation of this conflict, and the opening of borders for humanitarian assistance. And unfortunately, the government is not on par with the public opinion. 

Tom Gillesberg: It’s like at the time of the Danish occupation: It was not the government who helped the Jews get to Sweden.  

Amb. Hassassian: It was the people. 

Gillesberg: It’s the people. 

Amb. Hassassian: Absolutely.  

Gillesberg: And I think that’s an important point. 

 Amb. Hassassian: So that’s why I’m trying to draw a comparison, which in my humble opinion and knowledge about the history of Denmark-I came here knowing a little bit about Denmark, but now I can tell you, I know the culture, the people, the way they think, the way they promote their politics, and I can see there is a wedge between the public opinion, not only on the issue of Palestine, but on issues of local politics. This government is conservative, and regardless that it has certain apologetic stands when it comes to Palestine, but still this government helps the Palestinians in terms of subsidies, in terms of infrastructure development, in terms of supporting UNRWA. But on the political level, they are for a two-state solution, but they don’t show their political teeth, to put pressure on the Americans or the Israelis, in order to stop this carnage, this onslaught, this butchery of civilians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  

   So, we are a little bit, with cautious optimism, we relate-myself, as an ambassador-I relate to the government, I can’t say they have been reticent in receiving me as the Dean of the Council of Arab Ambassadors, let alone that I also lead on issues relating to the Middle East, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). We have met several times with the foreign minister, with the deputy foreign minister, with the director of MENA [Middle East, North Africa], and we had regular discussions about the updates of what’s happening in Palestine, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the burning of the Quran, and what have you. So, I can say that there is a certain kind of a rapport between our Embassy, the Council of Arab Ambassadors, and the Danish government. But we don’t see immediate action.  

   We don’t see, in the bilateral relations, coming out strongly in supporting the Palestinians, stopping this carnage! Today, our people are dying from hunger and starvation, lack of medicine, food. Thirty-six hospitals have been destroyed. We have only six operating now. It is a shame that 12,000 children have been martyred, let alone more than 7-8,000 women and elderly. And these are staggering figures! Even during the Second World War we didn’t witness such a tremendous number of casualties. 

This systematic onslaught on our people is not only-and allow me to say, it’s not against Hamas. Now, it is obvious, it’s against the Palestinian people. They want to throw us into the sea, into the desert, and once they finish with Gaza, they want to start, and they already started, in the West Bank, let alone they are putting economic strangulations, all kinds of hurdles, even during the month of Ramadan for our faithful to go and pray in Al Aqsa Mosque.  

   You can see there is a systematic policy of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and decimation of a nation.  

   All these three are being practiced by such a government, that is a very, very, very extreme, fascist government. I would say it-sorry, I have to say-fascist government, because the way it has been playing this conflict, it has been ruthless in its policies. It never showed any kind of tolerance, but the absolute idea behind this is the reoccupation, again, officially, of the West Bank and Gaza. And this is where we have to have the international community-with all the UN resolutions that have been in favor of Palestine; unfortunately, they have been vetoed by the Americans, and that’s why, for 30 years, the Americans have failed to broker the peace process, because they were supporting the top dog over the underdog.  

   And now we are looking for a collective brokership, i.e., starting with the United Nations-maybe Denmark could play a very important role, let alone Europe. And we are not dismissing the United States, but it cannot be the sole broker in this conflict, because they have showed reluctance in finding a plausible solution during this conflict. All the Americans have been doing for the last 30 years is crisis-management. 

   Gillesberg: Now we’ve reached clearly a point, and I think the story is Oct. 7 happened, then this whole thing started. But if you look at the process that was ongoing in the West Bank before Oct. 7, it clearly was that these policies that we now see in place, of basically, annexing both the West Bank and Gaza, to be a permanent part of Israel, that was already ongoing! It’s not like the attacks began after Oct. 7? 

   Amb. Hassassian: Actually, you have hit the bullseye with this comment. Because unfortunately, the international community-Europe, America, what have you-thought that this conflict started with Oct. 7, with the onslaught of Hamas against innocent civilians. But nobody has even thought about the root cause of this problem, which started 75 years ago. Let alone in 1948 our people were diasporized, and this Zionist entity was established and created by the support of Great Britain and the international community, with the displacement of the Palestinian people and the creation of something called the State of Israel. And people are not aware that we have been living under occupation for so many years, and Gaza has been strangulated for the last 16 years, with the economic blockade, and with the lack of any kind of basic subsidies. And, of course, if you put anybody in a pressure cooker it has to explode. And the explosion of the Oct. 7, for the Gazans, by Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the others, was a mere reaction to this blockade, to this suffocation of 2.2 million people living in the most densely populated area in the world.  

   And people started looking at Hamas and others as being the terrorists, but they forgot that Israel has been practicing state terrorism! This is not the first onslaught on Gaza: This is the fourth war against the people of Gaza! And there have been ongoing onslaughts in the West Bank with the building of settlements, with the settlers taking the law into their own hands, and trying to uproot the Palestinians, trying to uproot the orange trees and olive trees, and trying to create havoc among the Palestinians by shooting, by killing, by looting, by uprooting and what have you.  

   So the question should not be a separation of Gaza from the West Bank, let alone East Jerusalem, with all the settlements, with the creeping settlements that have been taking place by a government that is called a settlers’ government: This land-grab also created a certain kind of chaos and confusion, let alone stringent policies against the people living in East Jerusalem. And today, during the month of Ramadan, also, we have been seeing harassment, we have been seeing blockades of people from the West Bank to come and pray during the holy month of Ramadan. In other words, Israel is creating more tension, it’s creating more absolute policies that will make it very uncomfortable for the people living in Jerusalem, let alone its continuous bombardment, killing in the West Bank, and in Gaza, ongoing, unstopped by the international community.  

   Gillesberg: Also, one thing is what has been going on for a long time, what you can call the “silent death” of Palestine. But what we’ve seen after Oct. 7 is, I think, something which is unprecedented, since the Holocaust. Maybe there have been other holocausts ongoing, but they were in the background. Here we have fully televised, with the whole world watching, since Oct. 7, this genocide in Gaza, and even the International Court of Justice came out and said, yes, it is very plausible that a genocide is ongoing. We’ll look into it, and meanwhile, we demand of Israel, we demand of the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, that they do everything to make sure that no genocide is ongoing. Not just because people were killed, but because there clearly was this intention of killing, in the statements from the government, from military persons, and so on.  

But this is still ongoing. 

   Now, the Israeli government has said, if we get to Ramadan and we do not have an agreement for Hamas and the other groups to let go of all the hostages, then we will begin an attack on Rafah; then comes the next phase of what is a leveling of Gaza.  

   And now, we are in Ramadan, so what do you see is going to happen? 

   Amb. Hassassian: Actually, I want to comment on the International Court’s decision, which was considered to be a consulting perspective, which was totally bogged down by the American veto. So Israel doesn’t care about the United Nations and the resolutions. They have never abided by them, because, always, the Americans are behind them politically, by using the veto, let alone, militarily and financially, and they are accomplices in the genocide, by sending, also, certain Marines to fight in Gaza. So this is not something that we don’t  

know- 

Gillesberg: And all the bombs that are falling on  

Gaza- 

Amb. Hassassian: -are all American made.  

   And that’s why I wanted to make this short comment, that the International Court of Justice is an advisory opinion. It’s not binding, and Israel just overlooks that and they don’t care.  

   Saying this, look today at Gaza: We have more than 31,000 martyrs. And I said how many children, and women and elderly.  

   Seventy percent of the infrastructure and buildings are totally destroyed. Gaza is almost flattened. 2.2 million people don’t know where to go; they are displaced from their homes, 1.9 million.  

   Now, they were once in the north, went to the south, back to the north. And now, with the threats that are coming from Israel to invade Rafah, again, something that shows the intentions of Israel, that Israel is interested in occupying Gaza and flattening Gaza, and getting rid of the 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, so it is a war on the Palestinians, not a war on Hamas. Because, if the war was on Hamas, tell me what the Israelis have achieved so far? They did not get rid of Hamas, and they will never get rid of Hamas. I say it as a member of the PLO. 

   Gillesberg: But it’s an ideology-you cannot kill an ideology. 

   Amb. Hassassian: It’s an ideology-absolutely! Absolutely! You just snatched it from the horse’s mouth.  

   Second, they did not manage to diasporize the Palestinians in Gaza, because the Palestinians in Gaza are resilient and determined to stay on their land. They do not want to revisit the Nakba of 1948. That’s number two. 

   Number three, they are depleting all their resources with no end result. Therefore, they have lost the world public opinion, although, still, governments support them. And they now have a badge of dishonor on this government in Israel, that is a settlers’ government, an apartheid government, that does not want peace with the Palestinians, but they want to kill them and kick them out of the country.  

   All this has been negative repercussions when it comes to Israel. So what is the number that Israel wants in terms of casualties, to say that our mission is complete? It’s like , undefined!  

   Under the rubric of security, Israel has been justifying all of its atrocious crimes during the last 75 years of occupation. Israel is now known, not as a democracy, but as a rogue state with the hierocratic ideology of the supremacy of the Jews over the Christians and Muslims in the world, not only in Palestine. And their consistent, systematic policy of the confiscation of land in Jerusalem, the taking over of religious places, the spitting on priests and sheikhs, all this is a reflection of how hateful these settlers are against the non-Jewish or non-Israeli citizens such as myself.  

   And look, 22% of the population in Israel are Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship. They are being discriminated against. And they are being put on radar, as far as they are concerned, that these are not committed Israeli citizens. Although we are represented in the Knesset, in the parliament. But there is no respect, and they are being treated as third-class citizens, in what they claim to be the democratic state of Israel.  

   From this perspective, we conclude that this government will never have peace with the Palestinians! And this government should not be supported by the international community. It has showed its ugly face of occupation, and it has showed that it’s not for the twostate solution! They are for one state, apartheid state, having all the ethnic minorities, the Arabs, and what have you, under their control, under the Israeli flag.  

   And that, as you can see, is impossible with the adamancy of the Palestinian people fighting for their inalienable rights, and their rights to self-determination in having their independent state. The international community has accepted that during the Oslo process-30 years nothing has been done to rectify the situation and to end the occupation.  

   I tell you, violence, insecurity, instability in the Middle East, will end with the creation of an independent, democratic Palestinian state, with the borders of 1967. We, the PLO, already in 1988, had given, on a golden platter, the recognition of the State of Israel on 78% of historic Palestine. What else can we do in order to honor our promises to the international community?  

   Gillesberg: You mentioned this Oslo peace process, and the Schiller Institute at the time, and the leader at that time of our organization, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, was a very prominent voice in supporting that process, but also saying that it will not be successful unless there’s an economic development policy driving it. That is, that both for the Palestinian State to function, but also for Israel to function, and for them to live in peace and harmony, there’s got to be a collaboration on a greater goal, of an Oasis Plan for the whole region, which will benefit all. 

   So, instead of seeing your neighbor as your enemy, you will see your neighbor as a collaboration partner in this development process. And in light of this terrible onslaught that’s been going on in Gaza, we have, from the Schiller Institute, released a new video on this idea, called “The Oasis Plan: LaRouche’s Solution to the Middle East” where it describes the late American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal-developed since 1975!-for peace through development between Israel and an independent Palestine, by developing water resources, including nuclear power desalination plants, along two new canals between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea; and the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean; transportation and other infrastructure, to create a future vision where Israelis and Palestinians would economically develop the region, as a way of paving a path to peace. 

   We might get back to what a solution might look like, in terms of states, but before that, what do you think of the Oasis Plan proposal, and having a greater vision for making the impossible possible in the region? 

   Amb. Hassassian: I want to be very brief on this comment, which you have made. I’ve seen your video and I was very impressed with your vision for the future. Economic development should be always tied with political stability, and if we are not independent as Palestinians, to pursue economic development in partnership with Israel and Jordan, what I call the “Benelux model of economic development,” where you meticulously have stated in your statement about how to proceed and how to build that kind of, what I call “sustainable development,” that sustainable development would add to the prolongation of peace and stability between the two countries. But we cannot really apply economic development between occupier and occupied. It has to be on equal footing. You have to see, symmetrically, both as independent entities.  

   But definitely, economic development and cooperation between countries in conflict will really add to the sustenance of peace, the longevity of peace in the future, where peace and harmony will create coexistence, and that coexistence could be transferred into markets of economic interest, into cooperation, also into wielding public sector with the private sector, to come on par with the process of development, that is totally tied with the evolution of our curricula, our education, our health, and what have you; and you could exchange, in terms of skill, the development of countries like Israel, which is highly developed technologically; we have the sources of manpower. We are the most intellectual in the Middle East. So, with resources, with intellectualism, with the manpower that we have, we could create a certain kind of joint entity that will benefit both peoples.  

   Economic development after political independence is the way to our security and stability. And as you know, the Middle East has been the fulcrum of conflict for the world, because everybody is trying to seek their national interest in the Middle East. Once we have that kind of stability and security, I think we will be open for more economic transactions, for more bilateral, for more international trade systems, for a NAFTA kind of economic relationship, with Israel, with Jordan, with the Arab world, with the Islamic world. And look, Israel could benefit a lot with the opening to Asia, Islamic Asia and to Africa, and to the Middle East.  

   So there is benefit, much more than non-interest I would say, in this part of the world.  

   But, Israel has been choosing the path of destruction, the path of instability, the path of supremacy, the path of apartheid, over the good things that you have said, which would create that kind of harmony, peaceful coexistence, between epistemic communities that have been too long in a conflict, where this is the time for conflict resolution.  

   Gillesberg: Things are so terrible that you would say, “How can this end?” But all wars do end at some point. If nothing else, simply by exhaustion. Israel, even in this short time since October 7th, the Israeli economy has shrunk by 20%. So, it’s not a free ride. And if the war expands as some people in the government in Israel are talking about, to Lebanon, against Hezbollah, against other parties, this is also leaving Israel in ruins. 

   So, at some point, and hopefully with Western intervention, hopefully with the United States realizing that they’re simply losing all respect anywhere in the world if they don’t intervene to stop this. Then people have to sit down-probably not with the present government; they probably will be kicked out or Netanyahu thrown in jail or whatever. But still, the Palestinians and the Israelis have to sit down together and figure out how do we solve this in a way where we all can live here? 

   You have earlier written about a two-state proposal; you have also written about that maybe it won’t be a two-state, maybe it has to be one state. What are your thoughts? 

   Amb. Hassassian: Thank you again for a very interesting question. Let me first say that Israel also is paying a heavy price, but not in terms of casualties as much; and you cannot compare it with that of Gaza, of course. But as you said, their economy shrunk by 20%, and if they continue, it will shrink even more. And there will come a time when the Americans-because now they are going into elections-they might stop sending arms to Israel, and that will be negative as far as the Israelis are concerned.  

But let’s not forget that half a million people already emigrated from Israel since October. And this is a sign that Israel is no more a safe place to live, for the simple fact that this kind of policy has brought negative repercussions in the Israeli society. And let me assure you, now the Israeli public is going onto the street, they want Netanyahu down, and they want early elections. This is one of the negative repercussions of this onslaught in which Israel misjudged the outcomes. They thought that they would win with a blitzkrieg; they could flatten Gaza and get rid of Hamas. But now it’s becoming a war of attrition. They are not fulfilling their objectives, and they are losing now in terms of international support. Let alone that the Gazans have proved, their resilience in staying on the land. So in general, when you talk about the stoppage of the war, Israel is also wearing out all these machines. Look, every day there are desertions from the Israeli Army; people now are not convinced about this war, because they saw that a calamity is coming in their society. 

   I tell you, now they are against Netanyahu; tomorrow they will be against the war in Gaza. Because they know that they have-it is inevitable historically-that they will not get rid of the Palestinians. They have to think and to learn how to survive.  

   And I tell you, if you go back to the history of Andalusia, Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived happily ever after. It is not something that we never perceived. We perceived it, but it’s Zionism that has been the root cause, and not Judaism. That’s why we make the distinction. The Israeli people are not all Zionists. Let’s say that not all are Zionists; many are for the two-state solution, many believe in coexistence.  

   That’s why we as Palestinians would try to mobilize more and more people from inside, because the change in Israel is not coming from a political diktat from an outside power. Even the United States cannot impose its political diktat to stop this war. But it has to come from within. The Israelis from within should understand that such a government is bringing destruction. So far, unfortunately, we did not reach that level in terms of public opinion in Israel. They are all circling around their government in support, because it has always been the security obsession that makes people encircle themselves in providing support to the government. Although this government is an apartheid settler government, still the majority of the Israelis, right-wingers are supporting such a government. Unless we change, inside, the political discourse in Israel, that this government is going to bring in the future, total destruction of Israel, from within its society, we cannot see an improvement on the ground when it comes to negotiations for final status talks with the Palestinian side.  

   Gillesberg: Just in terms of, on the other side, that’s also why we put out this Oasis Plan; is to say somehow you have to-there’s a tendency, when people are in these things, people say, “First we need the political solutions. Once we have the political solutions, then we can go on to the economic ones.” The problem is, on what basis will you get political solutions, if there is no trust? Somehow, you have to have trust coming, on the one side from a vision of how the future should be. Instead of saying “The policies today-we simply keep doing what we have been used to doing for a long time,” with the same results. You have to say, “We want a different future; we have a vision for the future, but if we want to get there, then we need collaboration.” Because without collaboration, without burying the hatchet, without changing the geometry, we will never get there.  

   I think there’s a recognition in Israel that you can’t go back simply to the 6th of October; that’s gone. You are in a different world now, so somehow something has to change. 

Based on that, I would like to ask you, because when you were a professor in Maryland, you were working together with an Israeli professor — 

AMB. HASSASSIAN: Edy Kaufman. 

GILLESBERG: —teaching an Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolutions class at the University of Maryland for many years. And I think this might be relevant, because at some point, we are going to have Palestinians sitting down with Israelis; both of them have very good reasons to be very upset and very hateful about what has been happening, because there are a lot of losses. But somehow, they have to work together. So, could you tell us something about your classes, and maybe we could also have an idea about that? Can you describe this conflict resolution model? 

AMB. HASSASSIAN: Yes. 

GILLESBERG: And why you have said that there is no military solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? 

Amb. Hassassian: Let me make two brief comments. The first comment, I do agree with you; economic development is a key factor for stability. In the context of conflict, what we have witnessed in 1993 with the Oslo Agreement, is that we should have strengthened our nexus of civil societies by collaborating economically, educationally, and what-have-you, as part of economic development, in order to make it much stronger in the process of negotiations and in the outcome. Nobody could achieve maximalist position in a negotiating process; it has to be an optimal one, which would be giving in, conceding, both parties to each other. But as long as the negotiations are not symmetrical, but asymmetrical, where the top dog is over the underdog, that is not going to be successful.  

   That’s why I do agree with you. What happened in Oslo is that economic development did not proceed the way it should have. More settlements have been built; Netanyahu came to power; Camp David’s failure, and look where we are now. I will stop on this issue, but I do agree with you that economic development is the fulcrum of any stability in the world. 

But without political independence of the Palestinians, we cannot talk about the process of economic development in its full context of bringing longevity of peace and what-have-you in the future. I do agree with you that economic development is extremely important. It could have pushed the peace process and the negotiations to a much better level. But unfortunately, the Israelis have wrecked this. 

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Resolution Course 

To go back to your question on the conflict resolution class that I co-taught with Edy Kaufman, a professor from Israel, who is originally from Argentina, emigrated as a Zionist to Israel at the age of 16. Although he is a peacenik, he was the director of B’Tselem; he was chair of the International Human Rights Watch, and has a long record of peace initiatives. 

We taught a class at the University of Maryland, together, in the classroom. Having students—American, Arab, Muslim—in the class; about 30 students. We used to conduct scenarios of role-playing. In order for the students to understand, first we started with the historic narrative. Each professor would tell his historic narrative. Then we would decide to choose one of the intractable issues; one time Jerusalem, one time refugees, one time security, one time economic development, and what-have-you. And we would try to put it on the table like a proposal in the United Nations, where Israelis and Palestinians are going to defend themselves, whether to agree or not to agree to the proposal. 

So, we divided the class into two, and we started with role-playing. It has nothing to do with the Jewish religious background or Islamic; we just divided them randomly. We said, you take the Israeli position, and you take the Palestinian position and Arab position. Then we put the issue, let’s say, of settlements on the table. The Israelis would start their arguments in a way that settlements are part of the Biblical prophesies; this is the Jewish Promised Land from God, and this and that. And the Palestinians said we are the indigenous population; you came here, you are Zionist colonizers. 

I’m just giving you an example. This part, which is adversarial— our theory is called ARIA—Adversarial, Reflexive, Integrative, Action Plan—ARIA, like the musical aria. 

The first stage, which is adversarial, is the fact that we end up with the dialogue of the deaf. None of the delegates who are negotiating is listening to each other. With body language and screaming, they are trying to win over the other members, to show them that they are right, and the other side is wrong. It’s done by both parties. So, nothing comes out of it in the United Nations; a total deadlock, a total stalemate. 

Now, the second step in this theory, is the fact that each party goes back and tries to assess what they have achieved in the adversarial position. They start to rationalize, “Was I stupid in going to the anti-climax position, or was it right to do that in order to impress the audience?” Both sides will start re-thinking. This is where we call the Reflexive part of the negotiations.  

I have to tell you that both sides reversed roles. The Palestinians would play the role of the Israelis; the Israelis would play the role of the Palestinians, in order to reach the third stage, which is the Integrative stage, where we search for common ground. Searching for common ground is the prelude towards positive negotiations. Although we would be still reaching the optimum and not the maximalist. And once we go through the process of the search for common ground, we start indexing and prioritizing which is most important for both to start with in the negotiating process. There is what we call the Action Plan. 

Once the Action Plan is finished, it is all positive, because they have agreed to incrementally start with these most important issues while, they’re considering the least priorities, until they reach the complex priorities, where the conducive conditions in the room through the negotiations will be very positive towards finding a plausible solution. Nobody will be completely satisfied with the outcome of such negotiations, but, at least, there is a common denominator that I lose some to gain some. 

This is what we have done for the last 26 years; not only with students, but with journalists from Israel and Palestine, with politicians from Israel and Palestine and the Arab world, with military from Israel and Palestine and the Arab world, and what we call second track diplomacy, which has been very successful when we’ve used it. It is so unfortunate that when it comes to first track negotiations, the mindsets are totally locked in with the zero-sum conflict. 

Now, we always believe that such a theory, as practitioners, could lead from zero-sum to mutual acceptance of each other. And we believe through reciprocity that we can achieve the unachievable. And believe me, we use the six intractable issues, which are the questions of water, settlements, Jerusalem, security, and what-have-you, with all these segments of society, and we have found plausible solutions. But when it comes to the first track, we are stuck. 

So, I always enmeshed academics with politics, and that’s why, since I’m well-versed in history, in politics, in international relations, and, of course, the experience I got in politics when I was in London and in Denmark, let alone in Hungary, have enriched my perceptions of international cultures. I have brushed my tools of communication through the understanding of the Western mind, and so far, God helped me in achieving my mission of trying to raise awareness wherever I went. 

And just a footnote, I’m a little bit shy to say it, but I have to say it. In 2015, I got one of the most distinguished awards from the United Kingdom as the most accomplished and distinguished diplomat. So, all that basically boils down to our contribution in raising awareness, and this is where I meet with civil societies in the host countries; I meet with church leaders; I meet with parliamentarians. I’m constantly in touch with the foreign government here, and the foreign governments in London and Hungary. And so far, we are trying to change some perceptions. 

I can tell you, since I came until now, I have seen dramatic changes in first, the public opinion in Denmark, let alone also in Danish government—although sluggish improvement, but it has been improving. And this is due to our relentlessness and resilience in trying to instill in the mindset of the Western culture, and among the Danes, and among the Danish politicians, that ending, this long occupation is overdue. And that Denmark should recognize, as a first step, the state of Palestine in the United Nations. 

GILLESBERG: Exactly getting the academics, getting the professors, getting the philosophers, the thinkers involved, instead of simply having a primitive political process with mudslinging and whatnot, this is what we do in the Schiller Institute. 

On April 13th, we will have an international online conference-it’s on a Saturday-called “The Oasis Plan: The LaRouche Solution for Peace through Development between Israel and Palestine, and for All of Southwest Asia.” We urge everybody to participate in that and share the invitation; get involved in dialogue.  

   One big change-now you are a diplomat in Denmark, I’m very ashamed to say it, but it’s not just a Danish problem. We used to pride ourselves on having dialogue. Even if you disagreed, you could still sit down and discuss and learn the other’s viewpoint. And exactly that part of diplomacy, you could say, has been taken out in the Western world of the political process. There is no dialogue; there is no trying to see the other point of view. It’s just the narrative, the narrative, the narrative. The narrative comes down; it wasn’t Moses coming with the tablets of clay. This is just whoever coming down, “This is the narrative, this is what you have to repeat. If you don’t repeat it, then you are out.” And unfortunately, this has very much become the case in Denmark, but I think most people in Denmark, and other places, are getting pretty tired of this. 

   They want to be able to think; they want to be able to formulate their own thoughts. To do that in a good way, you need information, and that’s what we do, for example, with this online conference. But also here, since we are closing, do you have any concluding words for the viewers? Also, what do you think, and is there something they should do? 

   Amb. Hassassian: Absolutely! I commend you for what you have been doing. I commend the institute for its continuous struggle to bring justice to the world. I think this is your noble mission, and we believe that by raising awareness and stating the true facts on the ground, it will make people listen to you. I think your approach to conflicts, not only Palestinian-Israeli, but to the international conflicts, gives you great credibility, because you look towards peace and justice through economic development. Your Oasis video is one of the most impressive I have ever seen for the Schiller Institute, let alone comparing it with others. And I think you have to continue with what you are doing. 

   I know you cannot reap the benefits immediately; this is an ongoing process by recreating a new generation in Denmark, and around the world, to understand that wars are quick fixes, but the process of negotiations, tolerance, understanding, justice, human rights is a long process. It’s a tormenting path. Once you instill those good qualifications in the mindset of people, especially the youth, then we can reap the benefits of your contribution in the coming generation, where in this generation, we are sick and tired of regional conflicts, world conflicts, where unipolar power has proved to be a dismal failure. We’re looking for a balance of power on the political level, in international relations; but also, we need institutes like yours to continue working with civil society, with culture, with a progressivity of cultures, between adversarial cultures, to come to a conclusion where our humanity should not be lost; our fairness should be there; our inclusion of each other is of utmost importance; and tolerance is the key towards a sustainable development, in terms of security and stability all around the world. 

   I commend you for what you have been doing. And I would be, from now on, a supporter and a spokesman for your institute, which I think is one of the most brilliant and impressive institutes that I have met in Denmark. My loyalty and respect to you, and I hope that we continue our future relationship by bringing more people into dialogue and try to create a harmonious peace among adversaries. 

   May God also help us in this process, because really it is full of hurdles and full of complexities. But eventually we shall overcome. 

   Gillesberg: Well, thank you, Your Excellency Ambassador Prof. Dr. Hassassian. It has been a great pleasure. 

Amb. Hassassian: My pleasure. 

Gillesberg: We hope to speak again. 

   Amb. Hassassian: Hopefully, hopefully. Thank you so much for hosting me. 

GILLESBERG:  We hope to speak again. 

HASSASSIAN:  Hopefully, hopefully.  Thank you so much for hosting me. 


Our Outcry Must Not Come Too Late!

This statement was presented at the March 22, 2024 meeting of the International Peace Coalition, where its immediate distribution internationally was a central topic of discussion.

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late.

—Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let us mince no words. The world is now on a direct, short path to thermonuclear war. Don’t blame Russia, or China. We, in the trans-Atlantic world, are the problem, and with us lies the solution. If we continue to wait to “see what happens,” if we want for those in the “military-monetary power structure” to come to their senses, we will be too late to stop humanity’s last war. The time to act, is now.

On Sunday, March 17, at the conclusion of the Russian Presidential elections, Vladimir Putin, responding to a reporter’s question regarding French President Macron’s Feb. 26 comments that deployment of NATO ground troops to Ukraine could not be ruled out, said: “It is clear to everyone that this will be one step away from a full-scale World War III. I think hardly anyone is interested in this.” However, as the late Israeli politician Abba Eban, once said,  “never underestimate the factor of insanity in politics.”

The Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights lists 110 armed conflicts in the world today. This is the result of today’s imperial “rules-based order.” The obscenity of the war in Gaza, which rationalizes tens of thousands of children being mass-murdered for crimes and causes of which they are entirely innocent, requires us to stand up and act. We must disrupt the plans of the merchants and missionaries of death, that assure us that “they must destroy Gaza (or, for that matter, Ukraine) in order to save it.” 

International Peace Coalition founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche has said:

A new world economic order is emerging, involving the vast majority of the countries of the Global South. They have declared: Colonialism is over! The European nations and the U.S. must not fight this effort, but, by joining hands with the developing countries, must cooperate to shape the next epoch of the development of the human species to become a renaissance of the highest and most noble expressions of creativity!

This cannot be done in a world dominated by war. We need the greatest outcry against war that the world has ever seen. Therefore, the International Peace Coalition declares a red alert mobilization. The war for humanity must be won now before the final war—the war against humanity itself—is ever fought. Demonstrations, boycotts and exposés of the death merchants, letters and statements from and to institutions, vigils, and every imaginable creative, non-violent direct action to disrupt the world’s rendezvous with doomsday is needed now. 

Choose Humanity Over War! 
Oasis Plan for Gaza, Not Genocide! 
Stop NATO’s War With Russia!


International Peace Coalition Meeting: The War for Humanity Must Be Won Now!

Most people are not thinking that there can be any change, or that they can be part of a change—of changing the entire order of the world. Most people think they’re too small; this is not their job. But we should think as world citizens, because if the world is in disorder, each of us has the right to think of how to make the world better. — Helga Zepp-LaRouche

By Kevin Gribbroek

March 22, 2024 (EIRNS)—The 42nd meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) was convened today with well over 200 participants from 25 different countries. In response to the dire warnings by most of the guest speakers that the danger of world war is intensifying, there was a marked upshift in the number of people participating in a very lively dialogue session, brainstorming on how to “win the war for Humanity.”

A common thread throughout the meeting was the growing psychosis of Western leaders. Exemplary of this psychosis is French President Emmanuel Macron, who recently doubled down on his “incomprehensibly crazy” threats to send French troops into Ukraine, risking thermonuclear war with Russia.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute and initiator of the IPC, began the proceedings by providing a very unsettling picture of the current strategic situation. She warned that not only do we have an increased danger of war between NATO, and Russia and China, but also the humanitarian crises in Haiti, Gaza, Sudan and other areas are causing the unnecessary deaths of massive numbers of people: “To say that humanity finds itself in an extraordinary crisis is a very mild way of describing it.” Discussing the current thinking of Western leaders, she said: “It’s as if madness, sheer insanity has gripped the minds of many leaders in the West”; that they want to go for confrontation against Russia. As a result, “Inch by inch we are moving towards World War III.”

Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the necessity for an intensified mobilization which can succeed, because the majority of people throughout the world do not want war. She informed people of the new IPC statement, “Our Outcry Must Not Come Too Late,”, which she encouraged people to get out everywhere to counter the brainwashing by the mainstream media, which only make known the voice of warmongers. She ended by stressing the critical need for a Westphalian solution based on a new paradigm of cooperation for economic development, which includes the interests of every nation on the planet.

Col. Richard Black (ret.), former head of the U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon and former Virginia State Senator, presented his assessment of the current war danger: At the IPC meeting of March 15, he had expressed his suspicion that Macron’s threat of sending French troops into Ukraine was a “carefully orchestrated trial balloon” by NATO designed to see if people in the West would accept a great world war against Russia. Black now believes that this suspicion is “gelling” into reality. He characterized the current situation as a “wag the dog” scenario: With the tremendous unpopularity of Western leaders such as President Biden, war would be used as a way to save their political futures. The revelation that the U.S., France, U.K. and Poland already have troops in Ukraine, as if it’s no big deal, is also part of the operation to condition people into accepting an escalation against Russia—an escalation that could lead to thermonuclear war.

Jacques Cheminade, leader of the LaRouche-affiliated Solidarité et Progrès political party in France, began by asserting that the primary cause of Macron’s increasing insanity is the economy: France is on the edge of a collapse. The danger is that France will be downgraded by the international ratings agencies, such as Moody’s, before the European elections. Psychologically, Macron believes he can escape the pressure of the financial crisis—and his plunging approval ratings—by becoming the “King of Europe” with his hysterical flight forward for war against Russia. The hope is that a number of high-ranking retired French military officers, who had endorsed the Solidarité et Progrès declaration to abolish NATO, are reacting against Macron’s insanity. Although a good development, Cheminade stressed that unless this resistance is international, it will lead nowhere. He closed by remarking that the IPC “must be the international leadership of sanity in the world” and that we must “raise our sense of who we are to the level of responsibility that is demanded at this moment of history.”

Brad Wolf, a lawyer, former prosecutor and full-time peace activist, spoke next on his work as one of the founders and primary leaders of the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal. The purpose of the Tribunal is to hold U.S. military contractors accountable for knowingly producing weapons used for killing innocent civilians. The principal targets are Boeing, RTX (Raytheon), Lockheed Martin and General Atomics, a major producer of drones. He highlighted the “revolving door” collusion between these corporations and government officials, such as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, who sat on the board of directors of Raytheon. By exposing these crimes to the public, the goal is to motivate people to take action.

Well-known peace activist and radio talk show host Garland Nixon stated his belief that, given the gravity of the situation and the irrationality of the ruling elites, we must build and broaden a “rational movement to overwhelm these elites.” What is driving this madness? As Dennis Small of the Schiller Institute had made sharply clear, “This is a lawful consequence of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system being in end-phase. And that’s what we’re witnessing.” He followed up by reporting on a glimmer of rationality in a March 19 Newsweek article listing 13 U.S. cities which would be wiped out by nuclear weapons if war broke out with Russia.

To demonstrate that it is not some abstract possibility, Zepp-LaRouche reported on a chilling development: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced today that Russia now sees itself in a state of war with the West. Prof. Steven Starr, nuclear weapons expert from the University of Missouri, pointed out that for the first time since the beginning of the Cold War, there have been attacks deep within Russian territory using NATO weaponry. He believes NATO troops openly entering the war in Ukraine is the final red line which will trigger war against Russia.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered her closing remarks by stating her belief that the reality of the worsening strategic crisis will increasingly dawn on people, and that we must take advantage of this by getting the new IPC statement, “Our Outcry Must Not Come Too Late,” out everywhere. Then, expanding on Dennis Small’s statement that the war insanity is being driven by the financial collapse, she said that the other factor is the economic rise of the Global South—which increasingly is allied with the BRICS. As long as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” remains in effect—the idea that the U.S. must maintain its unipolar hegemony—this will be a cause of perpetual war. She concluded by saying: “If the present world order leads to world war, with what can we replace it to create a durable peace for all of humanity to get us out of this danger? And I think a new security and development architecture is the only thing which addresses the underlying, fundamental problems.”


Webcast: What Putin’s Re-election Means for NATO’s War Hawks

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue March 20, 12pm Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.

What Putin’s Re-election Means for NATO’s War Hawks

Look at Vladimir Putin’s re-election in Russia. Contrary to most of what was written in trans-Atlantic nations, it was not only fair, and an accurate reflection of what Western pollsters have themselves consistently recorded about Putin’s popularity. It was also a referendum on the war against Russia, which Russians knew, or came to realize, was being run by NATO, and not by Ukraine. Further, that “Ukraine” war, is a war into which Ukraine itself was seduced, even if largely willingly, not by Russia, but by NATO. (Britain’s Boris Johnson’s notorious role in destroying the 2022 peace negotiations is well-known.) The war was intended as a violent intervention into the Russian electoral process, was provoked two years earlier than that election, and included a “financial nuclear war” in the form of sanctions, and the de facto expropriation of $300 billion in Russian holdings. There were unsuccessful attempts to provoke a violent coup in the streets. There were even drone-attack military assaults on Russia, and the Kremlin itself, possibly involving NATO capabilities, reminiscent of the attacks on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

And what was the result? The result was “incommensurable” with what NATO intended, in every way. The Russian economy is stronger than before; sectors of Ukraine have voted to join the nation of Russia; and Vladimir Putin will be President of that nation for six more years, if not longer, with a degree of support not enjoyed by any politician anywhere in the trans-Atlantic “NATO” sector for decades. Russia also now enjoys immense popularity among the nations of the Global Majority, particularly the African nations, because it has not only survived, but advanced. When NATO forces attempted to recruit nations from the Global South/Global Majority to denounce the Russian electoral results, they were able to convince, essentially, no one.

In remarks to reporters last night, following confirmation of his election victory, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S.-led NATO military alliance would mean the planet was one step away from World War Three, a scenario hardly anybody wants. Putin was responding to a question from Reuters, regarding French President Emmanuel Macron’s Feb. 26 comments about not ruling out the deployment of NATO ground troops in Ukraine in the future. In response, Putin said: “Everything is possible in the modern world.”

“It is clear to everyone, that this will be one step away from a full-scale World War Three. I think hardly anyone is interested in this,” Putin said further. He added, though, that NATO military personnel were present already in Ukraine, saying that Russia had picked up both English and French being spoken on the battlefield. “There is nothing good in this, first of all for them, because they are dying there and in large numbers,” he said.

What should this teach intelligent people in “NATO world?” Some have asked, does the Wall Street/London axis have a Plan B? Is there another faction that may come to power that realizes that their “Project Democracy” show has closed? Are there any signs of intelligent life among the governments and governing factions of the failed states of the NATO alliance? Can anyone any longer think outside of the boundary conditions of their intellectual “Flatland?” The “Ten Principles” of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and the LaRouche Oasis Plan, a policy-application of the Ten Principles, are the essential “intelligence test” of the moment, for those in the trans-Atlantic that would  want to know how to grow the “mind power” that might yet allow them to survive the hereditary stupidity of their failed, and failing axioms.

Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her Weekly Live dialogue March 20, 12pm Eastern/4pm CET and help usher in the Year of the New Paradigm for all Humanity. Send your questions, thoughts and reports to questions@schillerinstitue.com or ask them in the live stream.


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.”


Mexican Congressman Robles Issues Open Letter: “More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!”

March 12, 2024 (EIRNS)—Congressman Benjamín Robles Montoya of Mexico issued the following “Letter to Current and Former Legislators of the World,” on his letterhead of the Chamber of Deputies, LXV Legislature. It is datelined Mexico City, March 13, 2024.

Current or former legislators, public officials or candidates for public office, can endorse the Open Letter ‘More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!’ by adding their signature here.

More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!

Dear colleagues from around the world:

A year and a half ago, a group of current and former legislators of Mexico and other countries around the world held a series of international seminars on the subject: “Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!” In November of that year, we circulated an urgent call to our colleagues, current and former legislators of the world, “to join this effort that we have launched, in order to urge all world citizens to also unite to create a new international security and development architecture, which respects the security interests of all nations and which guarantees the right to welfare and economic development of all people on the planet.”

Today, 18 months later, it is more urgent than ever that we mobilize to stop the danger of a nuclear war, and that we redouble those efforts before it is too late. The war in Ukraine is at the point of turning into a direct confrontation between, not just weapons, but NATO troops directly deployed on Ukrainian territory, and Russia. And now Netanyahu’s genocide against the Palestinian people has unleashed such great human suffering that the entire planet is shaken, a genocide which threatens to expand that war throughout the region.

In a speech I delivered at the March 6, 2024 session of Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies, I stated:

“The expansionist drive of the powers, the monstrosities of a voracious economic system that has generated inequality and misery, are a breeding ground for conflict.

“Economic sanctions have only served to aggravate conflicts, to produce more suffering for the people, to provoke shortages of medicines and energy, as well as to drive world inflation.

“How valid is the famous phrase of the Hero of the Americas, President Benito Juárez, that `among individuals as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace!’…

“Today the threat of nuclear war is again looming, with the United States sending weapons to Ukraine and Israel, where what is happening is an atrocious genocide; with meddling in the China-Taiwan conflict; with Russia, pulling out of strategic arms reduction treaties and nuclear test bans.

“Colleagues, we have reached the very precipice of nuclear war and it is imperative that all nations raise their voices—not the voice of one nation, nor of several nations, but of all humanity—for peace and against nuclear war.

“Let all the citizens of the world also unite in pursuit of a new international security and development architecture that guarantees the right to welfare and economic development of the people of the planet. Achieving peace through development, that is the path.”

For all of these reasons, we reiterate more urgently than ever our call to you, current and former legislators of the world, to join forces—above our different political and ideological orientations—in the necessary deliberation around a new security and development architecture.

With fraternal greetings,

Benjamín Robles Montoya

Federal Congressman

Congress of the Union of Mexico

Current or former legislators, public officials or candidates for public office, can endorse the Open Letter ‘More Urgent than Ever: Stop the Danger of Nuclear War!’ by adding their signature here.


International Experts Warn of Danger of Nuclear War Today

Read the transcript International Experts Warn of Nuclear War

International Experts Warn of Nuclear War

 

          From the International Peace Coalition meeting, March 8, 2024

Helga Zepp-LaRouche:[Founder of the Schiller Institute, Germany] Let me all greet you and express my gratitude that so many experts are on this call because, I think a few thinking people in various parts of the world are getting really, extremely concerned about the fact that we are closer to nuclear war than at any time in history before. And given the breathtaking irrationality of many Western leaders, it is requiring an extraordinary effort of the International Peace Coalition and other peace movements, which we have to unite, to really get a change in the situation.  First of all, we have the ongoing NATO maneuver, Steadfast Defender. This is 90,000 NATO troops deployed already now since February into May, exercising for the first time the idea that there is an attack by Russia on a NATO country, and large numbers of troops are being moved in this maneuver. There is a Russian publication which comments on that, saying that such maneuvers give a very good cover and a pretext for an actual attack, so in that sense, we are in a heightened alert situation for that reason. And the same goes, naturally, for the overall strategic situation, where the idea to have an international security and development architecture on the international agenda, which would take into account the interest of every single country on the planet, that is also coming more and more into the discussion because, as you will hear in a few minutes, a congressman from Mexico has made a very important speech with exactly that demand.

          So I will stop here, at this point, but I can only say we are in a situation where we could lose civilization at any moment—it is that tense, and I think the discrepancy between what we know is going on, and what the awareness of the population is, there couldn’t be a greater gulf. And that is what we have to urgently remedy, and get people mobilized to change the policy, into a new paradigm, for a shared community of the one future of humanity, because that’s what we have: We are one humanity, sitting in one boat, and if this goes wrong, there is nobody going to be left to discuss why. That is why we have to increase our efforts tremendously.

          Thank you.

Col. Richard A. Black (ret.):[Former head of the U.S. Army Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, former Virginia State Senator] The writing is on the wall: Ukraine is a slaughterhouse. They’re losing the war, and the time is now that NATO, if they want to do something, they’re going to have to step in and do it themselves. Keep in mind, that there are a tremendous number of people in all NATO’s countries, whose lives and reputation, whose family wealth, depends on war-connected activities, and they do not intend to let Ukraine go down.

          So it’s an extremely dangerous time. We need to do whatever we can to resist the possibility of American and NATO troops becoming directly involved in the Ukraine war to a greater extent than they already have. Thank you.

Lt. Col. Ulrich Scholz (ret.):[Former NATO officer, former Tornado pilot, Germany] What I think is the war has to end, because it’s leading nowhere. On the very first day it was leading nowhere. Now, the question is, really, why do they keep on doing it? And for me, I would say, it’s a face-saving exercise now. They want to get out, but they don’t know how.

          And the poor Ukrainians, I think, nobody is asking them, because officially we have their President, who is always very belligerent, but how do the Ukrainians feel?  So, I think they are exhausted, and they are bled out, and I think just from this point of view, whoever is going to win on the political end, whoever is going to win, the Ukrainians are going to lose. So, I think this is the issue, that we somehow get talks, in Türkiye or wherever, where we can find, in the area of both sides, the West and Russia, we come to an area where we have common interests.  I think that’s just diplomacy: Look for an area where we have common interests, and then focus on that one, and stop the shooting. That’s the only way to get out it.

Graham Fuller:[former U.S. diplomat, CIA analyst, and Islamic scholar]As long as the United States simply cannot face the reality that it is no longer able to call the shots in the world, then we are still faced with a very dangerous situation. It’s almost like a tired boxer, who insists on climbing back into the ring, and showing that he can still fight and still be number one. It’s harsh to say that, but I fear that that is the reality at this point. Perhaps the truth in the United States is slowly sinking in, with the rise of China and the rise of the BRICS powers and the Global South; maybe it’s gradually sinking in. But it cannot happen too soon, because otherwise we are in a very dangerous game of “chicken” in Ukraine, with the United States determined to prove that its side will win.

          And I hope, if some kind of voice of rationality can emerge at end, and bring this war to a close, this could, hopefully, influence other very ugly and tragic situations, like the one in Palestine and Gaza, today.  Thank you.

Prof. Richard Sakwa:[British political scientist, former professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, U.K.] First point, I do agree that we are now in the foothills of a Third World War. It’s not, in a nuclear age, this sort of war is not going to be immediately declared, but we are—so far, we actually haven’t hit the first ladder on the escalation precipice or escalator, but we are very close to doing so. There are plenty of people in Moscow who are suggesting that, perhaps, some sort of a salutary warning, perhaps a small nuclear strike on a European town has been mentioned.

          So once the taboo on even talking on a limited nuclear war is out there, and the way this is being dismissed by Western commentators, shows just how dangerous this moment is. This says precisely, which I know that the LaRouche Organization and all of us are emphasizing peace and development: In other words, a framework for commonwealth. We see it in all of the statements of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the enlarged BRICS-Plus organization, and indeed, the Russo-Chinese alignment, which is so important, and,indeed, with India and so many other states.

          So, the Global South, the political East, simply refuses and hopefully can act as a moderating voice, and hold us back, escalating and climbing up further from the foothills to the peaks of the Third World War. That’s a little note of optimism, but I think in these dark times, we have to cling to the idea that the rest of the world simply isn’t playing this game.

Prof. Steve Starr:[Professor at the University of Missouri, former director of University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program] There’s a false narrative that you can use a tactical nuclear weapon, to stop the Russians, you can make them back down. Well, Russia has nuclear weapons, just as the United States does. And once we introduce nuclear weapons into a war, if you’re fighting another nuclear power, you want to bet that they won’t use them against you? I  think that’s another false narrative.The Russians made fun of the idea of winning a limited nuclear war back in the 1980s.

          So I think the danger of nuclear war is greatly exacerbated by these narratives, that “we can make Russia back down,” that “we have nuclear primacy over Russia,” and if we have leaders who are delusional and accept these narratives, then it’s a very strong likelihood that we can wind up being victim to them.

Dr. George Koo:[retired business consultant specializing in U.S.-China trade and Chairman of the Burlingame Foundation] All of the previous speakers have spoken about the danger of a nuclear war, as a result of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. I just want to mention that the Pacific is also a spark, a sensitive point, because the United States is sending the signal to Philippines, to Taiwan, and trying to encourage, and trying to encourage them to start a proxy war.

          In the United States, we have learned since we withdrew from Afghanistan, it’s much better go get others to do the actual fighting for us, and we just provide the wherewithal, the arms and the military weapons. But I want to point out to the American public, that if the United States has successfully provoked a firefight between China and the Philippines, or between China and Taiwan, the P.R.C. government fully recognizes who’s actually behind such conflict. And I predict, and I feel the first thing that will happen, if such conflict were to start, the first thing they would do, would be to take out all the U.S. naval vessels in the Pacific, so that, whether it’s the Taiwan people or the Filippino people can see that China is fully capable of destroying the military backing, and that will cause them to think twice.

Ray McGovern:[former CIA analyst, co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)] The next year, President Kennedy—actually less than a year later—in his speech to American University on June 10, 1963, warned: Look, the thing we have to remember is not to give another nuclear power a choice, between humiliating defeat and using nuclear weapons.

          Now: Why do I mention that? Well, there is going to be a humiliating defeat in Ukraine. The Russians are not even going to have to consider using nuclear weapons, but the acolytes and the sophomores that are advising Biden, might just say to the President, “Look, you know, we only have several months before the election. We’re going to lose, it’s going to be a humiliating defeat in Ukraine. Technically, if we don’t get that $80 billion more from Speaker Mike Johnson, we’ve got these other weapons—why don’t we try these mini-nukes? That would show ‘em, that would show the Russians, and that would last us, maybe, right to the election.”

          Now: Am I imagining something? No! These people have done the unimaginable, time after time after time.

Congressman Benjamín Robles Montoya:[incumbent Member of Congress, Mexico] [addressing the Mexican Congress, translation from Spanish] Today, the threat of nuclear war is again looming— with the United States sending weapons to Ukraine and Israel, where what is happening is an atrocious genocide. And meddling in the China-Taiwan conflict, with Russiapulling out of strategic arms reduction treaties, and nuclear test bans.

          Colleagues, we have reached the very precipice of nuclear war, and it is imperative that all nations raise their voices—not the voice of one nation, nor of several nations, but of all of humanity—for peace and against nuclear war. Let all the citizens of the world also unite in pursuit of a new international security and development architecture that guarantees the right to welfare and economic development of the people of the planet. Achieving peace through development, that is the path.

          That is all, Madame President.

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.


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.


Page 3 of 129First...234...Last