Global Diplomacy

Only Fools and Liars Deny Ukraine Is a Murderous Nazi State

April 17, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in General updates, Geopolitics updates, Sanctions, Ukraine, World war danger updates

April 16, 2022 (EIRNS)—Ambassador Tony Kevin, who served in the Australian Embassies in Moscow, Warsaw and Phnom Penh, has provided a core piece of evidence proving beyond any doubt that the slaughter of innocents in the Ukrainian city of Bucha, which is the key “evidence” justifying the massive mobilization of the U.S./NATO forces for a war on Russia, did in fact take place—but well after all Russian forces had pulled out of the city! It was already known to readers of EIR that the bodies displayed in the streets and in mass graves in the Ukraine military videos taken in Bucha after April 4 could not have been killed by the Russians. The Mayor of Bucha had publicly announced on March 31 that all Russian troops had completely departed the city four days before the videos were taken. As Kevin notes: “One would have to suspend belief in medical science data that four days after death in a prevailing temperature range of 3 to 11° above zero Celsius, human bodies would already be dark-blotched, visibly decomposing, putrescent, giving off highly noxious gases, and almost impossible to approach without vomiting.”

But that leaves the question, who did kill them, and why? Here Kevin provides the missing clue:

“On Friday, 1 April, the Deputy Mayor of Bucha, Kateryna Ukraintsiva, made an important, and in retrospect chilling public announcement on the ‘Bucha Live’ Telegram website, a local news site watched by local people: ‘The emergence of the Armed Forces in the city does not mean complete liberation, it does not mean that the city is safe and that you can return here. About evacuation, it should be understood that evacuation can take place only in safe conditions. That is, after complete cleaning, demining, and creation of evacuation routes. The same goes for humanitarian supplies. Civilians who remained here are advised to stay in their shelters and not to wander down the street, so as not to interfere with the cleaning of the city.’”

With the population thus confined to their homes, Kevin notes: “The working assumption of the fanatically anti-Russian Azov Battalion soldiers who had entered Bucha would have been that, of the few people who had remained in their homes in Bucha during the month-long Russian occupation (when most had fled the war southward), many were pro-Russian or at least neutral in sentiment, i.e. traitors to Ukraine.” The Nazi killers then had two days to conduct systematic, nighttime house-to-house searches for “saboteurs and accomplices,” who were killed and dumped on the streets and in mass graves, where they were “discovered” on April 4 and shown around the world.

The Schiller Institute Conference of April 9 demonstrated to the world that the NATO planning for war on Russia and China—a war that would certainly be nuclear and destroy civilization as we know it—is virulently opposed by most of the world. Anatoly Antonov, Ambassador to the U.S. from the Russian Federation, shared the Plenary Session proudly with Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as well as leaders from China, India, South Africa, Italy, and others, and with participants from 65 nations. Ambassador Antonov emphasized the importance of the Schiller Institute, that “without your assistance, it will be very difficult to find a compromise which fits everybody.” Speakers addressed the fact that the illegal and criminal sanctions against Russia have created a field day for the Western speculative hedge funds to further drive up the prices of food and commodities, driving destitution and starvation on a massive scale worldwide. (Zepp-LaRouche and Amb. Antonov’s opening remarks are here.)

To end the madness, to stop the Anglo-American-led descent into fascism and war, we must consolidate the historic cooperation displayed in the Schiller Institute conference, and get broad layers of the American and European populations and institutions engaged in a dialogue at the highest level, to achieve the necessary transformation demanded in the Schiller Institute petition: Convoke an International Conference To Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations. Sign it and circulate it.

Franco-German call on France to Leave NATO and Bolster P5

February 12, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in France, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Germany, Global Diplomacy, World war danger updates

Paris, Feb. 12, 2022 (EIRNS) – In an op-ed published by the French “souverainist” weekly Marianne, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, argue in favor of a French exit from the integrated command of NATO. The German economist Peter Dittus is the former secretary general of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), while the Frenchmen Hannoun its deputy director general.

Their arguments are the substance of their new book called “OTANexit: Urgence Absolue”, published on Jan. 16.

“Since November 2021,” they say, “the French, like other peoples of the West, have been subjected to an unprecedented mental conditioning conducted by the United States and Nato on the theme of the “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine”, which may go down in history as an episode of disinformation along the lines of the fabricated intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003.”

This is a lie, they say. “The only war that NATO seems to be winning is the one of information. We show in our book this striking German propaganda map in the weekly Bild of December 4, 2021, giving an imaginary detailed plan of the “imminent Russian invasion”. The role of propaganda is terrifying, because of the charge of hatred generated by the lies on both sides. On the NATO side, the aggressive and bellicose discourse of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is irresistibly reminiscent of the famous Orwellian inversion: ‘peace is war’”. (…) “France’s current alignment with NATO, through its participation in the integrated military command under American leadership, is a strategic dead end for a country with a universal vocation like France. Today, this country has a historic role to play in stopping the march towards war in Europe initiated by the sleepwalkers of NATO. France’s exit from NATO, which will mark the end of the alignment of France’s foreign security policy with the United States, will have an immense impact on the world.”

“It will signal Europe’s independence from American exceptionalism, the renewal of multilateralism, the emergence of a multipolar world and the rapid demise of the obsolete NATO framework. France will then rediscover its universal vocation, contributing to the global balance for peace, and playing, thanks to its rediscovered impartiality, a role of synthesis within the P5, the concert of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France), a P5 whose composition must be maintained and whose role as regulator of world peace must be enhanced.”

Full text of Marianne op-ed:

“Faced with the Ukrainian crisis, France’s NATO exit is an absolute emergency”

The following op-ed was published by the French “souverainist” weekly Marianne, Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun, who argue in favor of a French exit from the integrated command of NATO. The German economist Peter Dittus is the former secretary general of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), while the Frenchmen Hannoun its former deputy director general. Text:

“Breaking with the policy of non-alignment followed by de Gaulle, Giscard and Mitterrand for 43 years, France once again became a member of the integrated military command of NATO in 2009, without the French people having been consulted by referendum. The current Ukrainian crisis reveals the serious perils to which France is exposed by being attached to a defensive collective security organization under the command of the United States that has become expansionist.

“Since November 2021, the French, like other peoples of the West, have been subjected to an unprecedented brainwashing (“mise en condition”) conducted by the United States and Nato on the theme of the “imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine”, which may go down in history as an episode of disinformation along the lines of the fabricated intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in 2003.

“What is the reality? Millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the two self-proclaimed Donbass people’s republics live under sporadic firing and shelling by the Ukrainian army against separatist forces. The concentration of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders is obviously aimed at dissuading Kiev from attempting to regain direct control of the enclaves of Donetsk and Lugansk by force. NATO’s successful disinformation on Ukraine has consisted in presenting Putin’s moral obligation to defend these Russian-speaking populations – which Ukraine wants to progressively deprive of the right to speak their language – as a prelude to the total annexation of Ukraine by Russia.
The myth of an “imminent Russian invasion

“NATO manages to pass off a concentration of Russian troops ready to come to the rescue of Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the Donbass as an “imminent Russian invasion” of the whole of Ukraine, including Odessa, Kharkiv and Kiev. A crazy invasion that in reality Russia completely rules out… unless it is pushed into it by a possible prior Ukrainian attack on the Donbass.

“The only war that NATO seems to be winning is the one of information. We show in our book this striking German propaganda map in the weekly Bild of December 4, 2021, giving an imaginary detailed plan of the “imminent Russian invasion”. The role of propaganda is terrifying, because of the charge of hatred generated by the lies on both sides. On the NATO side, the aggressive and bellicose discourse of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is irresistibly reminiscent of the famous Orwellian inversion: “peace is war”.

And if France had the solution?

Paris must avoid the military spiral into which the United States and NATO want to drag it. In the coming weeks, it must not allow itself to be involved in a war in Eastern Europe that is not its own. France has already agreed to deploy hundreds of men in a NATO battle group in Estonia. On January 1, it took the lead in the NATO Rapid Response Force, which includes at least 7,700 French soldiers. President Macron has just announced the possible dispatch of a thousand French troops to Romania under the NATO banner on the “eastern flank”, in the Black Sea region. The military escalation is dangerous. For the security of the French people, it is necessary to exclude committing the French army under the banner of Nato in a war in Ukraine or Belarus.

“On the other hand, France has a diplomatic weapon to resolve the serious crisis between NATO and Russia. The detonator of this crisis was the stubbornness of Jens Stoltenberg and the Americans to pursue since 2018 a creeping process of accession of Ukraine to NATO, called “open door policy”, seen by Russia as a threat to its security. To put an end to the current confrontation, President Macron should simply declare solemnly in the name of France that his country will oppose any request from Ukraine to join NATO.

“As decisions on membership of the Alliance require unanimity, France can exercise a veto. In doing so, the president would be in line with the commitments he made during his 2017 presidential campaign not to support NATO’s expansion to Ukraine. It would be an elegant way out of the crisis. Alas, the French president, during his visit to Moscow and then to Kiev on February 7 and 8, 2022, did not consider this simple solution because French diplomacy did not oppose in the NATO bodies the crazy “open door policy” to the membership of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. On the other hand, France supports NATO and the G7 in their demand for the return of Crimea to Ukraine, knowing full well that this cannot be done without a war, possibly nuclear.

American subordination

“At the time of the 1992 referendum on the European Union treaty, no one could have imagined that this great project of Mitterrand and Kohl for peace would be deviated from, from 1998 onwards, by the American geopolitical project to take de facto control of the European common defense and security policy. This was due to the simultaneous enlargement of the European Union and NATO to ten Eastern European countries between 1991 and 2007, and also to President Sarkozy’s decision, with far-reaching consequences, to abandon in 2008 the Gaullist strategic position of refusing to participate in NATO’s integrated military command.

“From the moment that 21 of the 27 EU countries, including France, became full members of NATO, the initial spirit of Maastricht was betrayed, because “Europe for peace” was inevitably going to be thwarted by the interference of the United States, with its own geopolitical objectives, in the common European defense and security policy. In reality, there can be no independent French or European defense within the current framework of participation in the integrated military command of NATO by France and 21 other European Union states. The concept of “European strategic autonomy” within Nato is an illusion, given the control of the United States over this Alliance. The European Union seeks to hide this fundamental flaw behind a vague concept: the “strategic compass”.

The fundamental incompatibility between the US-controlled NATO and an independent French or European defense does not prevent our leaders from defending the thesis of complementarity between the EU and NATO in terms of defense, as summarized on December 11, 2021 by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs: “We are keen for the EU and NATO to complement and reinforce each other in order to contribute to strengthening security and defense in Europe. This is the meaning of the strategic compass that will be adopted during the French Presidency of the EU Council.

Defense: the impasse of “at the same time”

The EU’s “strategic compass” is above all an effort to provide a conceptual framework for the false idea that “European strategic autonomy” in relation to the United States is compatible with the Nato membership of the vast majority of EU member states. This complementarity between NATO and the EU, the “at the same time” applied to defense, is an illusion. The fussy logic of national independence has given way to the vague and misleading concept of strategic autonomy and the search for interdependence and interoperability with our “allies”.

“Beyond the immediate crisis surrounding Ukraine, the presidential elections of April 10 and 24 must allow for a decision on the question of NATO. All those who refuse NATO’s march towards the war that is brewing on the eastern borders of the European Union have a unique opportunity, with the presidential election of 2022, to send a simple and clear message of peace to the leaders of our country, in one word: Otanexit. It is a question of ensuring that a candidate for peace is elected president, who is committed to putting an end to France’s alignment with NATO.

“One can think that the outgoing president will want to avoid a debate in the presidential campaign on the question of our military alliances in NATO: alliance with the adventurism of the Anglo-Saxons, whose arrogance was revealed by the Australian submarine affair, unnatural alliance with Islamist Turkey, alliance with Polish nationalism, and tomorrow perhaps, alliance with a Germany that could use NATO as a springboard for its remilitarization, or even alliance with Kosovo against Serbia This list alone allows us to measure the risks of a collective security system comprising 30 heterogeneous nations, and dominated by one of them.

An unconstitutional “defense union”

“On January 7, 2022, at a joint press conference with President Macron in Paris, the President of the European Commission allowed herself a federalist statement that exceeded her prerogatives: “We agree that we need a real defense union. In the presence of President Macron, she spoke of adding a “defense union” to the Economic and Monetary Union in the future, without taking into account the fact that this statement is contrary to the French Constitution, which is based on national independence, national sovereignty and national defense. It is necessary to oppose the stealthy European federalism that is currently being practiced, which cannot replace a federalism that is democratically accepted – or rejected – by referendum, according to the procedure followed in 1992 by François Mitterrand for the transfer of monetary sovereignty provided for in the Maastricht Treaty. The French people must reject the concept of defense union under the banner of NATO that Ursula von der Leyen wants to impose on them.

“France’s current alignment with NATO, through its participation in the integrated military command under American leadership, is a strategic dead end for a country with a universal vocation like France. Today, this country has a historic role to play in stopping the march towards war in Europe initiated by the sleepwalkers of NATO. France’s exit from NATO, which will mark the end of the alignment of France’s foreign security policy with the United States, will have an immense impact on the world.

“It will signal Europe’s independence from American exceptionalism, the renewal of multilateralism, the emergence of a multipolar world and the rapid demise of the obsolete NATO framework. France will then rediscover its universal vocation, contributing to the global balance for peace, and playing, thanks to its rediscovered impartiality, a role of synthesis within the P5, the concert of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and France), a P5 whose composition must be maintained and whose role as regulator of world peace must be enhanced.”

Taliban Delegation in Geneva Discusses Humanitarian Needs

February 12, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in Afghanistan, COVID-19, Economic development updates, General updates, Global Diplomacy, Healthcare

Taliban Delegation in Geneva Discusses Humanitarian Needs

Feb. 11 (EIRNS)–Beginning Feb. 7 and extending through today, a large Taliban delegation has been meeting behind closed doors in Geneva in sessions convened by the humanitarian organization Geneva Call, to discuss the country’s dire humanitarian crisis with representatives of non-governmental organizations, foreign diplomats, Swiss government officials, Doctors Without Borders and other institutions. In the course of this week’s private meetings, Afghan Health Minister, Qalander Ebad, met with World Health Organization (WHO) Director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, with whom he discussed the Afghan health system’s enormous needs, especially Covid-19 (Omicron) test kits, vaccines, expanding the healthcare workforce, etc. Tedros issued a call to the international community to “continue the dialogue to support the people of Afghanistan, so that we improve the health and wellbeing of all Afghan people.” Today, Al Jazeera reports, the Taliban were scheduled to meet with Swiss and other European officials, and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

According to the Associated Press, the meetings were kept private, in order to build conditions for more aid to the country. That meant exacting some commitment from the Taliban on issues of human rights–women and girls–education, etc. No one from the Taliban delegation was made available to the press. According to Raphael Naegeli, head of the Asia-Pacific division of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the Taliban delegation’s presence in Geneva in no way suggested recognition of its government; but stressed it was important to continue to engage with the Islamic Emirate and to impress on them the need to provide certain guarantees and show the international community they are a serious and trustworthy government..

As a result of this week’s discussions, Geneva Call tweeted this afternoon that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan had in fact adopted a humanitarian declaration, making commitments in five areas: humanitarian aid, healthcare, education, explosives (left in the country after years of war) and environmental and cultural protection. Geneva Call stated that the Taliban commitment “represents a step towards enhanced protection of civilians in Afghanistan, acknowledging that needs are dire and that increased support and collaboration is needed to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan population.”

Zepp-LaRouche: the Unipolar World Is Over; We Need a New Model of International Relations

February 10, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in China, Economic development updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Helga media coverage or interview, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Russia, United States, World war danger updates

Feb. 9 (EIRNS)—“The world is currently in an incredibly dangerous situation, with a Cold War that threatens to become a hot war at any moment,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated in an interview on Pakistan PTV World’s “Views on News” broadcast today. We are the proverbial 100 seconds away from the midnight of a nuclear catastrophe, a war danger that is playing out around the extreme tensions around Ukraine. The United Kingdom and the United States are putting massive pressure on Europe to fully join the drive to push Russia into a strategic corner and launch scorched-earth economic sanctions and attacks on that country. But, as of this moment, Europe is not fully on board—as can be seen in German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s trip to Washington, and especially French President Emmanuel Macron’s six-hour discussion in Moscow with Russian President Putin. They are increasingly aware that the current policies of confrontation, driven by the breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system, cannot continue, or they will succeed in blowing up the entire world.

But we are also witnessing the beginnings of a gigantic international political and economic realignment as well. “I think we should not underestimate the incredibly historic meeting which took place between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the Olympics, where they concluded a new strategic partnership which is a new model for international relationships,” Zepp-LaRouche stated. What this reflects is the fact that the unipolar world is over, and countries around the world—from Pakistan to Argentina to Hungary—are responding to that new reality. “It takes politicians and the media a while before this reality sinks in,” Zepp-LaRouche noted.

“Europeans right now are really completely scared about the possibility of the Ukraine crisis going out of control,” Zepp-LaRouche noted, “and they are trying to put a new model on the table. But I believe that something else is needed. We are right now at a branching point of all of history, and we need a new model of international relations, where thinking in terms of geopolitics, in terms of blocs, in terms of wars of one against the other within a zero-sum game—this has to be overcome.” A new international security architecture based on the universal economic development of all nations must be forged, even as we stand at the very edge of a terrible existential danger. “We must fill people with hope that it can be accomplished,” Zepp-LaRouche told a meeting of Schiller Institute associates today. Americans in particular must ensure that the United States joins with Russia and China in forging constructive solutions to the world’s problems. The Pakistan PTV program was titled, “U.S.-China Competition – Pakistan’s Exertions to Avoid Block Politics.” {A transcript with only Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks during the interview is at this link.}

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

February 10, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in Activity of the Schiller Institute, China, Economic development updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Helga media coverage or interview, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Media coverage of our activity, Pakistan, United States, World war danger updates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia Organizes UN Security Council Debate vs. Wielding Sanctions Against Peoples and Nations

February 9, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in Economic development updates, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Russia, Sanctions

Russia Organizes UN Security Council Debate vs. Wielding Sanctions Against Peoples and Nations

Feb. 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—Being chair this month of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation organized an Open Debate on Monday on “General Issues Relating to Sanctions: Preventing their Humanitarian and Unintended Consequences.” Two UN officials and representatives from 19 nations spoke, most warning of how the use of sanctions has run amuck, becoming the preferred choice instead of the original concept of a measure of last resort, often with disastrous consequences for the right to food, water, shelter, and health of peoples caught in the crossfire of sanctions. Several African representatives noted that eight of the 14 U.N. sanction regimes are imposed on African nations.

First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy spoke for the Russian side, warning that UN “sanctions must never be used as a ‘punitive’ tool….

“We strongly call for UNSC-imposed restrictions to always remain targeted and flexible. We need to take greater heed of what the authorities of states under sanctions think, be more realistic when elaborating the so-called benchmarks and make sure that they do not turn into a mission impossible.

“By our estimates, many of today’s UNSC sanctions regimes already fall behind the de facto situation, interfering with plans for state-building and socio-economic development….

“Collateral damage of sanctions must be taken seriously, as it devastates the national economy, brings down living standards and the well-being of the population. This problem grew even worse against the backdrop of the fierce COVID-19 pandemic. We hear words that the Security Council’s restrictive measures must not have a bearing on the life of ordinary people, but unfortunately when it comes to the practical impact of such restrictions, they often trigger deterioration of socio-economic situation in countries that live under sanctions…. We are convinced that UNSC sanctions machinery needs to be ‘humanitarized’….”

He had even harsher words against “the malignant trend” of unilateral sanctions imposed by countries outside the UNSC, by individual countries or groups of countries, which often include sanctions on third parties who break those “unilateral” sanctions. Polyanskiy cited, as he went along, examples of the damage resulting from UNSC and unilateral sanctions, ranging from the freezing of assets of Afghanistan and Libya, to the sanctions against Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Iran, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Guinea Bissau, and the DPRK, including the 60 years of sanctions against Cuba. According to the UN rapporteur’s report on the debate, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield shamed the United States, putting up a strong defense of sanctions for allegedly improving lives, asserting adamantly the U.S.’s right to impose unilateral sanctions, because imposing them through the United Nations Security Council is often blocked by “certain members.” She had the temerity to assert that humanitarian exemptions “ensure that the pain of sanctions do [sic] not affect ordinary people,” daring to claim this as true in Afghanistan, Yemen, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Somalia.

Scientists Invent ‘4-minute’ Covid Test

February 9, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in China, COVID-19, Economic development updates, General updates, Healthcare, Healthcare

Feb. 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—Scientists at Fudan University in Shanghai have come up with a new method for coronavirus testing, which they say is as sensitive but much quicker than PCR lab testing. The new method involves electromechanical sensors capable of detecting, with high precision, SARS-CoV-2 RNA in human genetic material, according to the study published Monday in Nature Biomedical Engineering science journal.

“We implemented an electromechanical biosensor for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 into an integrated and portable prototype device, and showed that it detected [the virus RNA] in less than four minutes,” the researchers said.

The study involved testing the new method on 33 samples taken from Covid-19-infected patients and 54 Covid-negative controls taken from people with influenza and fever, as well as from perfectly healthy subjects. PCR tests were also taken. The new electromechanical sensor showed results that matched excellently with the PCR tests, showing positive results for those infected with Covid-19 and negative for other samples. The results of the testing were received within four minutes.

Catholic Journalist: ‘We Have a Moral Obligation to Save Afghans from Starving’

February 9, 2022by madeleine in Afghanistan, Sanctions

Tony Magliano, a Catholic columnist for peace and justice, syndicated internationally, wrote on Feb. 3, “We Have a Moral Obligation to Save Afghans from Starving,” posted on Catholic Online, and since appearing in local media, e.g., on Feb. 6 in the Clarion Herald, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Magliano wrote in his strong article, that the Federal Reserve’s freeze of Afghanistan’s national funds, is a strategy which “heartlessly ignores the fact that Afghans are now starving to death. This de facto collective punishment, albeit unintentional, is immoral and illegal according to international humanitarian law.” Magliano calls for unfreezing funds, for getting the Afghan Central Bank operating, and to “do our best” so that no one starves. He provides the email and telephone numbers to contact Congress and the White House.

Other national figures in the Catholic church are speaking out, including Sean Callahan, head of the Catholic World Services (CRS), the aid agency associated with the U.S. Bishops Council, who wrote an article in December, issuing a call for international action to stop the starvation. CRS Vice President Bill O’Keefe likewise has spoken out on the need for the Afghanistan national economy to function. He was quoted in The Intercept Jan. 23, “The U.S. government, and the international community, has got to find a way to get over itself, and support the administrative state and structures on the ground to prevent a humanitarian crisis. Twenty-three million people without a functioning government and without help is not going to be a solution that we can stand for.”

Putin Asks: Does NATO Really Want To Fight Nuclear Power Russia?

February 9, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in France, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Russia, World war danger updates

Feb. 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—President Vladimir Putin reported in his opening remarks to the joint press conference following lengthy talks with President Macron, that the two had “continued to exchange views on the proposals regarding long-term legally binding security guarantees, which Russia has made to the United States and NATO,” and also discussed at length the battle over the Minsk agreements.

He opened his remarks on their discussion of Russia’s security guarantees proposals, “remind[ing] everyone that these proposals include three key points: NATO’s non-expansion, non-deployment of offensive weapon systems near the Russian border, and the return of the bloc’s European capabilities and infrastructure to the 1997 level, when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.”

His reiteration of Russia’s “categorical” opposition to NATO’s eastward expansion through the admission of new members, particularly Ukraine, in response to questions from French reporters, however, was dramatic:

“Why is Ukraine’s potential admission into NATO dangerous? The problem does exist. For example, European countries, including France, believe that Crimea is part of Ukraine, but we think that it is part of the Russian Federation. And what happens if attempts are made to change this situation by military means? Bear in mind that Ukraine’s doctrines declare Russia an adversary and state the possibility of regaining Crimea, even using military force. Just imagine what could happen if Ukraine were a NATO member. Article 5 has not been canceled. On the contrary, Mr. Biden, the President of the United States, has said recently that Article 5 is a sacred obligation and will be honored. This is fraught with a military confrontation between Russia and NATO… Ask your readers, your audiences, and the users of online resources, ‘Do you want France to fight against Russia?’ Because this is how it will be….

Asked again, he reminded another French reporter that Russia is a nuclear power:

“Do you realize that if Ukraine joins NATO and decides to take Crimea back through military means, the European countries will automatically get drawn into a military conflict with Russia? Of course, NATO’s united potential and that of Russia are incomparable. We understand that, but we also understand that Russia is one of the world’s leading nuclear powers, and is superior to many of those countries in terms of the number of modern nuclear force components. But there will be no winners, and you will find yourself drawn into this conflict against your will. You will be fulfilling Paragraph 5 of the Treaty of Rome in a heartbeat, even before you know it.

“Of course, the President does not want to see developments unfold in this way. I do not want it, either. That is why he is here and has been tormenting me for six hours now with his questions, guarantees, and solutions.

“I believe his is a lofty mission, and I am grateful to him for his efforts. For our part, we will do our best to find compromises that suit everyone. There is not a single point that we consider unachievable in the proposals we sent to NATO and Washington.”

Russian Envoy Warns of Explosions in Afghanistan if Economic Aid Not Sent

February 3, 2022by Mary Jane Freeman in Afghanistan, Economic development updates, General, General updates, Geopolitics updates, Global Diplomacy, Russia, Sanctions

Russian Envoy Warns of Explosions in Afghanistan if Economic Aid Not Sent

Feb. 2 (EIRNS)—Members of the “Extended Troika” —Russia, China, Pakistan and the U.S. — a diplomatic format set up to coordinate policy on Afghanistan, are currently working out the date for their next meeting, which should take place before the end of February, Russian Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan and Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Second Asia Department, Zamir Kabulov, told TASS news agency on Jan. 31. He also reported that a number of other nations, including Japan, are preparing to reopen their embassies in Kabul, which will help gradually normalize the situation in Afghanistan, while laying the groundwork for restoring ties between the country’s new leadership and other countries, he noted.

Russia is focusing its efforts on “completion of the inter-Afghan peace process” (which requires, for one, an “ethnically-balanced government,” Kabulov said), as well as how the international community can participate “in the inclusive post-conflict rehabilitation” of Afghanistan. To help foster the peace process, Russia would be happy to host talks in Moscow between representatives of the Taliban government and domestic opposition forces, should they wish to do so, the envoy told TASS.

There are reports that such talks did begin. A source “close to the Resistance Front” —the Tajik-Afghani force led by Ahmad Massoud— told Afghanistan’s Tolo News yesterday that Russia had mediated a meeting recently in Moscow between Massoud and the First Deputy Prime Minister of the Taliban government, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar. The meeting remains unconfirmed, however; there is “no official information … about the trip of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to any country,” a government press spokesman told Tolo News.

Massoud did meet with acting Afghan Foreign Minister Mutaqqui in Tehran a few weeks ago, a meeting which Kabulov told TASS had “ended inconclusively.” But in Kabulov’s view, “nevertheless, the very instance of such a meeting inspires optimism. It was an indication that the Taliban authorities have given serious thought to making the new government more balanced in ethnic and political terms.”

But without economic aid, Afghanistan could blow up, he warned. Terrorism declined sharply when the Taliban first came in, he told TASS. “However, in autumn, with no money in Afghanistan, the Taliban’s counter-terrorist potential began to falter, and terrorists of all kinds began to reappear.” There is a lull in terrorism now, because of winter, but come Spring, he warned, the “probability” of “large-scale resistance” cannot be ruled out. Kabulov cited the potential for inter-ethnic conflict, “which is fraught with active armed actions,” and insisted: “It is important for the Taliban movement and the international community right now to take utmost efforts primarily to stabilize the social and economic situation inside the country.”

Page 12 of 34First...«111213 »...Last

Recent posts

language