Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Category Archives

Zepp-LaRouche on CGTN TV–CPC Youth League Centenary: ‘Youth Development in an Uncertain World’

May 17, 2022 (EIRNS)–CGTN on March 17 ran an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whose write-up on CGTN is titled, “Communist Youth League of China Centenary: Youth Development in an Uncertain World,” and the video link is prominently included.

Author He Yuhan, opens his coverage of Zepp-LaRouche with a quotation from President Xi Jinping, from his May 10 remarks at the 100th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Communist Youth League of China. He then reports, “Schiller Institute founder echoed Zi’s words, and fully endorsed the essential value of youth in a modern country’s development and tackling global challenges.”

Yuhan stated about Zepp-LaRouche’s key points, “She identified two elements as crucial to the vigor of Chinese youth today: a thriving and developing economy and a favorable environment in which the younger generation grew up.”

Yuhan reports, “The vector of development is important in people’s personality building, Zepp-LaRouche told the audience.” She said, “If the vector of development is upward, people become optimistic.”

The Schiller Institute founder also made a comparison for the audience of a difference between German and Chinese attitudes towards children. “Germany’s Green Ideology regards children as a burden to the Earth, but the Chinese see children as full of potential and possibilities,” she said.

Zepp-LaRouche asserted that youth faced with an escalating Russia-Ukraine conflict, the lingering COVID-19 pandemic, and rising global inflation, have the potential to put aside ideological differences and meet the challenges to make a better world. She told the audience, “If young people unite together, I think it’s a peaceful force we absolutely cannot ignore.” {The full article and interview are found here.}


Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Pakistani TV: We Must Find a Way To Get Peace, Immediately!

May 10, 2022 (EIRNS)—Two diametrically opposed views on what could happen in the Russia-Ukraine conflict were presented on yesterday’s “Views on News” program on Pakistan’s PTV public television channel. One, presented by a guest Pakistani columnist, was the dominant “narrative” of Russia, the sole aggressor, the sole party responsible for a war which will last for a long time, devastating Ukraine in the process, but that’s the way it is, because Putin won’t give in.

Schiller Institute founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche countered forcefully, when given the floor:

“Most important, is to find a way to get peace, immediately, to not accept the idea that this will be a war which will go on for very long, because if that would happen— There are some people who think this war should go on until the last Ukrainian. This is a very cynical approach, because the main suffering people will be the Ukrainians.

“There is right now in Germany a huge debate which erupted because there were several open letters directed to Chancellor Scholtz, one coming from a group of intellectuals who warned that Germany should not send heavy weapons to Ukraine, because that implies the danger of the conflict going out of control and leading to World War III, and there is generally a recognition that if this comes to WW III, nobody will be left—nobody in Germany, nobody in Pakistan, nobody in the United States! So there is a growing momentum of people who say, ‘We must have a negotiated, diplomatic solution, immediately’.”

Geopolitical thinking, the idea of exhausting, of crushing Russia, of finishing off Putin, or that you keep fighting until your enemy is completely destroyed—this will lead to World War III! People should really think about that, Zepp-LaRouche insisted.

Nor is how the war came about as simple as the last speaker made it look, she noted. For 30 years, the Schiller Institute has been trying to shape events so as to bring about a new peace order, not commenting on what happens, but presenting such ideas as the Eurasian Land-bridge as the basis of peace. That potential for peace was destroyed by the drive for a unipolar world, with its color revolutions and regime changes against any government which would not accept that unipolar order. The West does have a share of responsibility for this crisis, in which, if Sweden and Finland join NATO, we could face again a reverse Cuban missile crisis.

Asked later by the host about such consequences from the war as growing malnourishment worldwide, Zepp-LaRouche urged governments to get together to set about doubling food production, to end the threat that 20% of the world’s people—1.7 billion souls— may fall into food insecurity and famine.

She counterposed the two systems developing in the world: the trans-Atlantic sector and those governments with neoliberal economic systems, which is blowing out, as Germany did in 1923; and Russia and China, which are responding to the West’s confrontational policy by trading in national currencies, setting up new banks and credit mechanisms. Much of the rest of the world —India, Indonesia, South Africa, even Brazil under Bolsonaro, Nigeria, among them—also refuse to go along with the West’s confrontation.

The danger, Zepp-LaRouche warned, is that if the West continues its confrontation, it may come to a break between the Western world and the countries gathered around Russia and China, which would be very dangerous, and an economic catastrophe, for Europe, for example. A different approach is needed! Governments must get together and agree to double food production. The U.S. could compensate for the loss of all Ukraine’s grain simply by cutting the amount of grain it burns in ethanol in half, and it should do that. Governments simply have to make available to farmers the credits, fertilizers, machinery they require to produce, and food production can be doubled.

The “Views on News” host, who had listened carefully, responded wholeheartedly: “absolutely.” The interview can be found here.


“Form a Partnership of Young People From All Over the World to Fight for A Better Future”

May 4 (EIRNS) – In the course of a wide-ranging interview with author and publicist Daniel Estulin , Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche today responded to a question about the subject of the Schiller Institute’s upcoming May 7 international dialogue on “The Role of Youth in Creating a New International Economic Architecture.” 

“Essentially it will be a continuation of the last one [on April 9, “For a Conference to Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations”], because what we have initiated is the idea that you have to have an international security architecture which includes the interest of every single nation. Which is why in the last conference we had speakers from Russia, the United States, Europe, India, South Africa, Latin America. It’s the idea that if we, as humanity, cannot come together and decide on principles which guarantee the survival of all of us, then we are no better than some wild animals – although even wild animals are not as mean as the way some people sometimes behave. So, this was a very productive conference.

“I have this idea that you have to put the international security architecture on the basis of common development, so it’s an international security and development architecture. Because once you have an agreement for the development of all nations – Africa, Latin America, Asia, the poorer parts of Europe and the United States — then that common interest can be the basis for a common security architecture.

“So, what the next conference is addressing, mainly, is young people. Because if you put yourself in the shoes of a young person, let’s say in Germany, France, Italy, the United States, etc., the future is not looking very bright. You’re looking at World War III, you’re looking at a collapsing economy, a collapsing financial system, world starvation, a pandemic which is not yet under control.

“This conference intends to form a partnership of young people from all over the world to fight for a better future, because the future belongs to the young people. They are not being asked right now: Is it really their interest that the world should go up in a thermonuclear mushroom cloud, followed by a nuclear winter? Young people should have a say in what their future is.

“There are such exciting developments taking place! For example, we are on the verge of getting thermonuclear fusion power. That is incredible, because once we have commercial thermonuclear fusion, we have energy security and raw material security on the planet. Also, space travel will be much enhanced, because you have a new fuel source for space travel. Then there’s the whole idea of cooperation in space: build moon villages, and eventually build a city on Mars.

“All of these are things which excite young people. That is where humanity can go, provided we get out of this present crisis. So that is what this conference will address, and I think we will have many young people there from all five continents.”


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Responds to German Heavy Weapons to Ukraine

Faced with a Looming Nuclear War with Russia: Has the Bundestag Lost Its Mind?

An Appeal to Citizens: Don’t Let Germany Get Drawn Into Nuclear War with Russia —

April 30, 2022 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote the following as the lead article in the German weekly newspaper Neue Solidarität for the May 5, 2022 issue, which has been translated from the German original. (https://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2022/18/hzl.htm)

The irresponsible and highly dangerous decision of the German government and Bundestag to give into the pressure from the U.S. government, NATO, and the warmongers in their own ranks, and agree to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, must immediately be reversed! It represents an acute danger for the existence of Germany, as it makes us—together with the United States, Great Britain and other NATO member states that are also providing a vast arsenal of weapons to Ukraine and training Ukrainian troops in their own countries or, according to Figaro journalist Malbrunot even inside Ukraine—a party to the war. It is also a big step in a spiraling escalation toward a nuclear Third World War! Instead, Germany and France must push, with great force, for an immediate cease-fire and a diplomatic solution.

The Biden Administration is trying to mask its participation in the proxy war against Russia, with repeated statements by President Joe Biden that the military option in Ukraine is not on the table, because no one wants to trigger World War III. But given the massive arms shipments, the various aid amounting to $14 billion in the past two months, and now another $33 billion on top of that, and given the sharing of intelligence with the Ukrainian armed forces, as is openly admitted by the White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, the United States is already de facto a participant in the war.

Bruce Fein, an American constitutional law expert and former associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration, argues that the U.S. and NATO member countries are already co-belligerents in the war. John B. Henry, the Chairman of the Committee for the Republic, which includes well-known former diplomats and members of government, is of the view that, under international law, this gives Vladimir Putin the right to take military action against the U.S. and those countries.

After Chancellor Scholz had refused on April 22 to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, because he wanted to do everything possible to avoid an escalation that could lead to World War III, just three days later, his intention had evaporated. German Defense Minister Lambrecht announced just in time for the major meeting at the U.S. air base in Ramstein on April 26, to which U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had invited military leaders from 40 countries, that the government coalition had decided the day before to supply Gepard anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine. So much for statements by the Chancellor or for Germany’s sovereignty—they are obviously meaningless.

Secretary Austin announced that from now on, such meetings would be held once a month at the Ramstein air base, which houses the headquarters of the “United States Air Forces Europe” and “Air Forces Africa,” the NATO “Allied Air Command Ramstein,” as well as the “U.S. Air and Space Operations Center,” which controls drone strikes in the Middle East and Africa. The purpose of such meetings will be to optimize and coordinate the weapons production by arms industries in the various countries. Interestingly, the largest and most modern American military hospital outside the U.S., which is largely financed by Germany, is also located there. Obviously, decisions of greater import are taken in Ramstein than in Berlin, including as to whether or not Germany will be a party to the war in Ukraine.

So far, NATO and Western governments have turned a deaf ear to Putin’s warnings about crossing red lines, although he has repeatedly shown that his words are followed by deeds. This time, we should heed the warnings. In a meeting with lawmakers in St. Petersburg on April 27, one day after Lambrecht’s announcement, Putin said that in the event of outside intervention and the creation of an unacceptable threat to Russia, retaliatory strikes will be lightning-fast. Russia, he added, has the tools for that purpose that no one else has at this point, and they will be used. All the decisions, he said, have already been made.

On the same day, April 27, the Wall Street Journal carried an article titled “The U.S. Should Show It Can Win a Nuclear War,” in which former Undersecretary of the Navy Seth Cropsey maintained that the U.S. should prepare to win a nuclear war if it did not want to lose it. U.S. warships should be armed with nuclear weapons, he wrote, and destroy Russian nuclear-missile submarines that are the main base of Russian second-strike capability. A similarly insane fantasy underlay the U.S. “Global Lightning” exercise, held in late January, which practiced an extended maneuver involving a hybrid of conventional and nuclear methods of warfare.

The idea that a limited nuclear war is possible and that it could be “won,” and that small nuclear weapons that are “usable” should be deployed, is madness. Nuclear arms expert Ted Postol has made an absolutely compelling case, most recently in a dialogue, on why the use of even a single nuclear weapon will inevitably lead to a general nuclear war, leading to the use of all existing nuclear weapons. And all the political morons who lightly talk about the need to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine, even if it means the risk of nuclear war cannot be ruled out, belong in a locked hospital ward, not in positions of political responsibility.  (The Postol remarks were made in a recent interview with Robert Scheer.)

Postol describes the effect of nuclear weapons: “We’re talking about a wall of fire that encompasses everything around us at the temperature of the center of the Sun. That will literally turn us to less than ash, if this thing gets going. I can’t emphasize how powerful these weapons are. When they detonate, they’re actually four or five times hotter than the center of the Sun, which is 20 million degrees Kelvin. They’re 100 million degrees Kelvin at the center of these weapons.”

Human beings can’t imagine the scale of such heat, he explains. He himself has written articles repeatedly about the consequences of nuclear weapons on cities, for example. Postol said, “This is something beyond anything that human beings have been able to imagine. And I don’t know how to emphasize how dangerous this is.”

He further describes that a single nuclear weapon would wipe out an urban area with a radius of 5 miles, or an area of about 75 square miles, that it would take only 20% of the American ICBMs available “to destroy all of Russia’s ICBM, land-based ICBMs—maybe a thousand,” and thus 80% of the warheads could be used for other purposes (for example against targets in Russia, China or Germany). Russia, he goes on, because of its less capable early warning system, had to set up an automated response in the event the Russian leadership were killed in a surprise U.S. nuclear first strike. Russia’s unfortunate inability to improve its early warning system, according to Postol, has resulted in a “doomsday weapon” that makes the situation much more dangerous because a fatal error could trigger a nuclear war.

It should be clear to every thinking person—and the 586 members of the Bundestag who voted for the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine are obviously not among them—that the Federal Republic of Germany becomes a co-belligerent because of that, and thus becomes a target in the event of war. Ramstein, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, Büchel, Pirmasens, Baumholder, to name just a few targets, would burn up.

Rather than pursuing a course of suicide and the end of humanity in a misconceived loyalty to the Alliance, Germany must work for an immediate ceasefire and diplomatic negotiations. Rather than letting ourselves be whipped up into a hatred of Russia (and China) by commissioned war-mongering journalists and gun-toting women, we need to start doing our own thinking again. It is not the policy of détente that has led to the current crisis—it allowed for the peaceful reunification of Germany after all, it is the expansion of NATO five times to the East and the obstinate refusal of the political and military establishment to respond to Putin’s demand for legally binding security guarantees.

We are indeed living through a turning point, but not in the way the “narratives” of mainstream politicians and media would have us believe, rather the attempt to maintain a unipolar world in which only the U.S. and U.K. are in charge, has failed. The majority of nations in the world are in the process of building a world order based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and enabling the economic development of all.

Germany will remain non-sovereign and an occupied country for only as long as we allow it to be so in our minds. We must work now for real peace, for a diplomatic solution, and beyond that for a new international security and development architecture that guarantees the survival of humanity. Become active with us to make that happen!

—zepp-larouche@eir.de

Add your name to the petition To Convoke an International Conference to Establish A New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations ; and watch, and circulate the April 9, four-panel international conference which was a crucial initiating step in bringing that new architecture into being.


Webcast: Ignoring Crossing of Red Lines is a Sign of Insanity

In a statement issued yesterday, in commenting on the turn-around by the German government on delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, Schiller Institute chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked, “Has the Bundestag Lost Its Mind?” In discussing this and other indications that U.S.-NATO escalation against Russia is moving close to crossing the red lines which define Russian security concerns, she said that it is urgent to drop the present dangerous course, and return to diplomacy. By becoming “co-belligerents”, as defined by international law, former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein said Putin would have a right to strike those countries.

She used the example of German Foreign Minister Baerbock’s comments that there is “no way back” to the pre-war period as a prime example of this insanity. Can’t nations acknowledge that the present course is wrong? At a time when starvation threatens nearly one-fifth of the world’s population, why are western nations escalating their attacks on Russia and China? It’s not surprising that many former colonial nations are refusing to back the U.S. and NATO. She said that China’s emphasis on experimental projects of seed development to fight hunger resonates with the former colonial nations. Why have western nations done nothing to address this?

She concluded with a brief summary of her late husband’s commitment to creating a new financial system as the basis for peace, which underlies her call, and the Schiller Institute’s mobilization, for a new strategic and financial architecture. She urged viewers to join us, to make this happen.

Petition: Convoke an International Conference to Establish A New Security and Development Architecture for All Nations


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Briefs ChinaPlus Radio ‘World Today’ Broadcast on Germany Decision to Arm Ukraine

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, was interviewed on April 27 about the German government’s decision to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine.

CHINA RADIO INTERNATIONAL: You’re listening to World Today…. Germany has for the first time announced the plans to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht says the government has approved the delivery of Gepard tanks equipped with anti-aircraft guns. The decision comes as U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin held talks with dozens of NATO member country counterparts over the Ukraine war at an American air base in western Germany on Tuesday.

Joining us now on the line is Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

CRI: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has actually for weeks been resisting calls for Germany to deliver heavy weapons to Ukraine. He has been suggesting that such a particular move might trigger a direct military confrontation between NATO and Russia. So, with that in mind, how would you look at Germany’s latest decision?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a complete catastrophe. This government endangers the life and security of the German population. They have made an oath, the German Chancellor and others, that they would protect the interests of the German people and protect them against harm, and this is a complete violation of that oath. It is quite telling that this occurred on the very day that Austin had this meeting in Ramstein [Air Base]—I mean, this was a complete violation of German sovereignty. He’s holding court, and this decision by the German government will only prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people. They’re cannon fodder in a proxy war between NATO and the U.S. and Russia; and obviously, the attitude on the side of these people is to fight this to the last Ukrainian.

It’s a complete catastrophe, because when Foreign Minister Lavrov said this could lead to World War III and a nuclear war, this is being ridiculed by the German media in cartoons, as if it would be just scare-mongering. I think we are in a very, very dangerous situation.

CRI: Hmm, indeed. As we heard from Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the threat of nuclear war really should not be underestimated. But we understand that for decades, Berlin has actually been maintaining a policy of not exporting weapons to any particular conflict areas. So help us understand, what’s the rationale behind that policy? And now what’s the war going on in Ukraine: Do you think it is fair to say that Germany has abandoned that particular policy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this thing makes very obvious that Germany is an occupied country, that it’s not sovereign, and what you have seen in the last days in media and in the parties, is that in all of these institutions you have Atlanticists who have been making a drumbeat, saying, “Oh, Germany is not a reliable ally.” But in reality, this delivery of heavy weapons makes Germany a party in the war, and therefore a target if this thing continues to escalate.

Part of the problem is also the EU, because Josep Borrell, who’s the so-called “foreign minister” said this situation will be “decided on the battlefield.” He has never mentioned the idea of diplomacy or that there should be negotiations. And it’s completely insane to try to settle conflicts in the 21st century with war! It’s madness! I can only say, it’s complete madness.

CRI: So, critics, including some officials in Ukraine, have accused Berlin of dragging their heels on giving heavy weapons to Ukraine, and on some of the other possible measures, like a possible embargo of Russia energy imports. Do you think those criticisms that I mentioned are fair to Germany?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the reality is, George Friedman, who is a strategic analyst in the United States, he already said in 2015 in a speech in Chicago that the German-Russian relation is the only threat to the United States, because the combination of German technology and capital, and Russian raw materials and labor, would be the only counterweight to the United States. Now, one result of it is that this relationship between Germany and Russia, as of now, has been completely ruined, and this, in light of German history. One should not forget, Russia lost 27 million people in World War II.

The idea to have an embargo against Russian oil and gas, is more insanity, because there are many leaders of the industry who have said this would mean millions of unemployed, entire sectors of industry would collapse; so it’s really an aggression against German interests if such demands are made.

CRI: So, realistically speaking, is Germany capable of sustaining its supply of heavy weaponry to Ukraine, if we talk about a scenario where this conflict between Russia and Ukraine becomes a protracted war?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s obvious that Germany has a significant arms industry, and they would naturally be happy, like the military-industrial complex in the United States, to deliver these weapons. But the effect on the rest of the economy—you know, you already have massive inflation in food prices, energy prices; if this continues you will have social chaos. The poorer parts of the population already can’t make it to the end of the month. And it’s a complete outrage that there are billions and billions being expended for weapons, when you have a world famine of 1.7 billion people facing starvation. I’m really upset, and I hope you can hear it, because this should not happen! This is really something which needs to be reversed.

The people who are responsible for this, they can commit suicide if they want, but they have no right to completely drive Germany into a catastrophe.

CRI: By the way, do you think President Putin has a point when he said, recently, in a meeting with UN chief António Guterres, that this increasing Western delivery or Western supply of heavy weapons to the battlefields in Ukraine are making Kyiv, making Ukraine a sort of unreliable partner on the negotiation table? Do you think he has a point in saying that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the reality is that Zelenskyy is a complete puppet. He’s an actor, and he plays the script which is being written by British public relations firms who basically tell him what to do, as is the United States. The reality is, if you look at the statements by Biden, Boris Johnson, Stoltenberg, they have no mentioned once, the word “peace negotiations.” They only say, “more weapons, more weapons.” So I think it’s not Zelenskyy, it’s the U.S., NATO and the British.

CRI: Well, I guess from Washington’s perspective, they might argue, “OK, we are returning our diplomats back to Kyiv, we have nominated a new ambassador as the U.S. ambassador to Kyiv”: That is a signal that Americans pay attention, attack greater importance to diplomacy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I wish your words would be right, because I think any reasonable person in the world must agree that we have to have to have an end to this war immediately. The Ukrainian people are being slaughtered, and I think what should be discussed instead, is President Xi Jinping at the Boao Forum made a very important proposal to have a Global Security Initiative. And I think the problems of the world are so big, that you need such a global approach, and in that context, the Ukraine situation can be settled also. Because it’s much more complicated. It has very little to do with Ukraine. The Ukrainians are the cannon fodder in a geostrategic confrontation from the United States against Russia—and China, by the way.

CRI: So we understand Russia has suspended, or is suspending natural gas deliveries to Poland and Bulgaria, after these two particular countries refused to pay for the energy supplies in Russian rubles. Do you expect Moscow to take this kind of action against more European Union countries?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we should remember that the Russian reaction is coming in reaction to the West confiscating $300 billion in Russian assets, after they took $9 billion from the Afghani people. So the dollar system is not regarded as safe any more, and therefore, Russia and many other Asian countries are reorienting and trying to create an alternative financial system based on gold and other commodities. And you have right now, massive agreements between Russia and India, Russia and China, and many others. I think if it would come to such an embargo, or cutoff from oil and gas from the side of Russia, or the other way around, I think Russia in one sense would cope better than Germany! Germany and Europe would go into a real economic crisis. So the people who are pushing Germany and others in this direction are really not acting in the interests of Germany or the European countries.

CRI: Thank you very much for your analysis. That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank.

Listen to the podcast here.


Beijing Review Covers April 9 Schiller Conference, Zepp-LaRouche Initiative

April 24 (EIRNS)–The national, English-language news weekly in China, the Beijing Review, gave prominent coverage to the Schiller Institute conference of April 9, titled, International call for a new security architecture to cope with global issues. The article was datelined April 18, and has appeared in print as well as online.

The article covered several pertinent comments by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Sam Pitroda, Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, Justin Yifu Lin, and Jay Naidoo, clearly identifying all of the speakers.

It noted that, “Despite differences on particular issues, all speakers concurred that only an international security and development architecture totally different from the existing one can make the necessary process tangible.”

It included Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s observation that, “The proposal of China for an alignment of the Belt and Road Initiative, the American Build Back Better World program and the EU’s Global Gateway program can become the actual development underpinning global security architecture. Ukraine, rather than being the cannon fodder in a geopolitical confrontation, can be the bridge between Europe and Eurasian nations.

“Even a multipolar world still implies the danger of geopolitical confrontation. We need a dramatic, sudden change in the way we organize our affairs. It has to start with an honest, explicit insight that a continuation of the present policies risks conflict, in which there would be no winner,” she concluded. The full article can be read here.


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Discusses China-EU Meeting on CGTN ‘Dialogue’

April 1 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche was interviewed on CGTN’s broadcast “The Dialogue” this morning with host Xu Qinduo and a second guest Prof. John Gong, who frequently appears on CGTN’s shows. The discussion was on the EU-China meeting by videoconference today, which included President Xi Jinping (in what Xinhua dubbed “Xiplomacy”) and EU Council President Charles Michel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

XU: That’s a good point, John. Helga, what do you think about this Ukraine issue somehow playing a part in the relationship between China and the European Union? Is there a way they can deal with the issue that will enhance or bring the two sides together? Is that affecting their relationship?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously. The EU had on their website beforehand that they wanted to have the Ukraine issue practically the only issue. They want China to mediate and influence Russia. But I think it is very clear that China did not want to take a side. However, given the fact that EU economy is in free fall; as a matter of fact, the accumulation of COVID, the sanctions, Europe is not in a strong position at all. And I think China has a conception which I think lends itself to a mediation role, and that is President Xi Jinping’s idea of a shared future for a joint humanity. I think that is the most important conception right now, given the fact that we are in a situation strategically which is more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Therefore, what we really need, and I think China would be uniquely in a position to do that, is to propose a new international security architecture which would take into account the interests of every single country on the planet. Because the reason why we have the Ukraine crisis is because NATO expansion to the East for 30 years, which the West does not want to even discuss anymore. But the question is, how do we get out of it? We need a new security architecture, and I have proposed it to be in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 150 years of religious wars in Europe. The situation today in face of the danger of nuclear war is much more dangerous than even then.

I think the Europeans, they totally are ignoring the fact that a new system is emerging, based on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, the Russia-India-China combination. India refused to be drawn into the camp of the United States, but wants to stay neutral, also. I think the only way how we will get out of this is if the Europeans—and finally also the United States—would understand that it is in their best interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, in addressing the real issues which concern all of humanity: Which is, the pandemic is not over, we have a hunger crisis. I think one Chinese economist recently said that as a result of the sanctions against Russia, 1 billion people are in danger of dying of hunger this year. So, I think if China would play a mediating role, and say that all of these issues have to be addressed simultaneously. And then, Ukraine could become a bridge rather than being a geopolitical tool between the EU and Russia, it could become a bridge in the cooperation on the Eurasian continent.

XU: That’s a good point, Helga. China stressed very much cooperation, win-win cooperation. China also takes pride in being the source of peace and stability. When it comes to China-EU cooperation, we know the two sides are great civilizations, they are two of the largest economies. They represent the two largest markets. So, if you look at their cooperation against this background with emerging ascendity, even an emerging Cold War. How important it is, Helga, for the EU and China to further cooperate in multiple fields?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think for the EU it is much more existential than they admit, because there are two possibilities. Either the EU finds a way of cooperating with China, and that way the conflict can be solved; or, there are some people in the West—especially in Great Britain and in the United States—who want a complete decoupling of the West and the so-called authoritarian regimes. In this case, I think the West would suffer, because their values are much more based on monetarist values, as let’s say China and the countries cooperating with the BRI, because they are putting much more focus on physical economy. So, if they would go for a complete decoupling, the West would suffer. Hopefully, the European Union understands that it is not in their own interest to go this way, even if Victoria Nuland was just there and told Europe to side with the U.S. completely.

So, I think that a lot depends on the initiatives proposed by China, because China right now has the only policy which is a way out: And that is the shared community of the one future of humanity. And I think more and more people realize that.

……

XU: Helga, to further cooperation, we know there is a very important trade agreement, a comprehensive investment agreement between China and the EU. So, are we going to see any headway during the summit, or after the summit? Should we probably re-energize that kind of cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think obviously it is an agreement which would benefit both sides, so it should be pushed. But I’m not so hopeful that, given the geopolitical tension right now that that will be accomplished at this summit. However, I think the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is collapsing—look at the hyperinflation; this was there long before the Ukraine crisis erupted. So, the question of a new financial system, a new credit system maybe in the tradition of the New Bretton Woods system, should be put on the agenda; because there is the danger of a repetition of the 2008 crisis, but much larger. The Federal Reserve does not dare to increase the interest rate much to fight the inflation, because of the indebtedness of the whole system. So, a new credit policy should be put on the agenda, and in that context, then you can increase the EU-China trade agreement, and that will all be beneficial. But I think the problem is much more fundamental than it even can be addressed through that agreement.

XU: Well, many thanks to you, Helga.


Schiller Institute Petition Quoted on DataBase Italia TV

MILAN, March 22, 2022 (EIRNS)—Three VIP signers, from Italy, of the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture, Alessia Ruggeri and journalists Luca La Bella and Gianmarco Landi, were on a program of DataBase Italia TV last night, entitled “The End of Globalization.” After describing the present situation in Ukraine as very different from how the mainstream media portray it, including the use of hypersonic missiles by Russia, which can put a quick end to the war and destroy the military potential of the neo-Nazi militias, host Landi quoted Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute petition for a new security architecture as the only alternative to the danger of a general war, and asked Alessia Ruggeri to talk about it, as she had already in a recent interview on the Schiller Institute petition published by DataBase Italia.

Alessia Ruggeri explained that it is a very important petition, which was signed by thousands of citizens and many VIP signers from all over the world, and which calls for the principle of the Peace of Westphalia to put an end to the geopolitical confrontation policy and the failed economic policies which led to this war. She emphasized that what is being shown on TV is not the real situation, and that people are not aware of the severe consequences of the boomerang sanctions which are hitting Italy, and other countries, much worse than the Russian economy. For example, she quoted the shutting down of all McDonalds restaurants in Russia, which was quickly converted into a Russian brand to save jobs.

She also reported many mail messages she receives about hoarding of pasta and oil in Italian supermarkets, noting that people believe that wheat is produced in Italy but is not—it comes from Russia and Ukraine. She reminded viewers (around 3,000 last night) that as a result of the failed economic policies of the West, many businesses are shutting down, but as a mother of two children and a trade unionist she called on small entrepreneurs, like the ones in Southern Italy, “not to give up hope, there is a possibility for a change.” The full program is available here.


Pakistan’s PTV Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on OIC Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Islamabad

March 23 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche was part of a panel interviewed yesterday by Pakistan’s PTV host Faisal Rehman about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) foreign ministers’ meeting in Islamabad on March 22. Here are the exchanges in the interview with Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, who is the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. The entire program is posted to YouTube.

FAISAL REHMAN: Let’s see what the lady has to share regarding this. Helga, let me put a straight question to you: Tell us, being a woman living in Europe what exactly do you think about the religion Islam, your perception? How do you perceive it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s one of three great monotheistic religions. It’s building on Judaism and Christianity, and I think that the ecumenical dialogue among these three religions is very important as a potential peace factor in the world. I think Prime Minister Imran Khan said something very important: He said that the OIC should unite, and together with China and put maximum influence and pressure on both Ukraine and Russia in order to have a ceasefire and come to an agreement. I think that’s a perfect example how Islam can play a very positive role as an instrument peace.

On the negative side, I think one problem, and this was also mentioned that the Islamic world did not correct the narrative which started to build after 9/11. I think that is still a task, because 9/11 was not as it was presented in the official narrative and the war against Afghanistan—if you think about the people in Afghanistan who were involved in this war, it’s very little if any at all. In any case, I think the origin of 9/11 is a big question which would really need to be analyzed much more in depth.

Then naturally, one cannot forget that Samuel Huntington in his book Clash of Civilizations, he said when the East-West conflict was finished after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that basically one needed to replace the East-West conflict with a North-South conflict, and then he started to talk about the so-called “unsurmountable” conflict between Christianity, Islamic, Hinduism, Confucianism. I read this terrible book and I came to the conclusion that Huntington knows very little about all of these religions and cultures. But nevertheless, this was instigated as a tool of the British Empire and in the case of Afghanistan, you can see very clearly … actual terrorist organizations in Afghanistan is all part of the Great Game.

I think it’s important to look behind what is being said. I think Islam as a religion is a very positive thing, and as you may know, and I mentioned this on an earlier show, the reason why I called for Operation Ibn Sina, reviving the image of this great physician who is one of the absolutely great minds of universal history, that would not only help to solve the medical problem in Afghanistan and reconstruct Afghanistan, but I think if Islamic countries would start to discuss the great contributions which were part of the history of Islam, like Ibn Sina, I think you should not just be defensive about saying that the Islamophobia is wrong and unjust, but I think it would be important to reconnect to the proudest periods of Islamic tradition, like the Abbasid dynasty which was in Baghdad at that time, which was the most developed city in the world! There were more libraries, more books, all the great inventions from the previous time were revived; the caliphs would pay everybody in gold who would bring an invention from Egypt or from Spain or from other places, and without the contact between Haroun al Rashid, for example, and Charlemagne—Carl der Grosse—the Europeans would not have rediscovered their own great heritage.

So, I think, rather than being just defense and saying, this is an unjust vilification of one of the great religions, I think it would make a lot of sense to take a more positive, and in one sense, more offensive attitude by reviving the great Islamic contributions to world history. And given the fact that you had the Abbasid dynasty, you had Ibn Sina who was a great metaphysical philosopher, if I would be a Muslim woman, that’s what I would propose.

REHMAN: Helga, if I might put an interesting question—it was just popping in my mind—I can see you wearing a scarf around your neck, right? So if you put that scarf over your head, do you think your government, or your neighbors or anybody else is going to have an issue? Because, I’m not going to do India-bashing, but they’re not allowing the females Muslim to wear a scarf—but the problem is what happened in France, when the girls were not allowed to cover their head. I’m not saying cover your face, but even during the pandemic, everybody was covering their face, except wearing your glasses—I mean nothing was visible, and that is acceptable. But when you use that scarf to cover your head, that becomes a problem for the Western world, and especially for the non-Muslims. Do you think that’s an issue, or a non-issue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s definitely something which should be left to the respective religions to figure out. I’m a strong believer in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the UN Charter; I believe in sovereignty and non-interference in the affairs of other countries; I believe in acceptance of a different social system. I think the Afghanistan disaster has shown, among many, many others, that you cannot impose your values on another culture without causing havoc and terrible conditions.

On the other side, I’m a modern woman, obviously, and I think that the reason why the Europeans, or some Europeans make an issue out of it, is because they see this as a sign of the suppression of the women. And there is something to be done for the liberation of women—there is no question about it—but I think in all of these questions once you understand the reasons why the representative of the other culture is doing something and you explain your own position, I’m sure that you always can come to an understanding and a solution. But for me, this issue is really not one of the pressing issues. It’s important for some people, but….

REHMAN: Do you think that right direction has been followed now as far as the OIC is concerned, or the Muslim countries are related to it? And maybe in another couple of decades things would really change for the betterment of the Muslims? We’re not terrorists, we’re not extremists, I mean in general—yes, there are radicals in every society, in every religion. Let’s keep them apart. But in general, do you think that if we focus, for example, this year they’re talking about unity, justice and development—I mean, there are so many themes every year, but focus, dedication, hard work and commitment, that is what is required: Helga, your take?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to answer that question in the context of the time change which is occurring. You know, in Europe right now, you have a militarization of the EU going on, which I think is very scary, because, with the war in Ukraine, the sanctions against Russia, the effort to try to imply that China is helping Russia, what we are heading towards is the danger of a real bloc building, you know where you have a NATO bloc with the United States and Europe, and maybe Australia and Japan; but then you have a Russia-China bloc. And given the fact that we have right now these sanctions, they’re forcing practically a different financial system. You can already see that trade is occurring in renminbi and rubles; other countries are starting to not trade in dollars anymore.

If this thing goes wrong, you will have two complete blocs which will be hostile to each other. There will be a summit of NATO in June in Spain, where on the agenda is a globalized NATO. If that would go through, and right now, unfortunately it looks like it, the danger that you would have a war between these two blocs is, in my view, a question of time. And that would be a catastrophe for all of humanity. So I was very encouraged when Imran Khan said that the OIC should work with China to try to mediate.

Because we need a new paradigm in international relations: I think that if we go into a geopolitical confrontation in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we could look at the annihilation of civilization. And on the other side, one of the speakers, I think it was [Pakistan’s] Foreign Minister Qureshi also mentioned the need for a new security architecture in the region of the Islamic world; but I’m proposing to have an international security architecture for everybody: Every single country must be taken care of, because security pacts, or security alliances, only function if the interest of everyone is taken into account.

The Schiller Institute will have a very important conference on April 9—and I want to invite all of your viewers to come and look at that: We will try to revive something like the Non-Aligned Movement. We will have an effort to put new principles, overcoming geopolitics on the international agenda. And I think the OIC, if they would really form a bloc and be unified, they are really strong, they could be one of the major forces in the world trying to not have this bloc-building but to move toward a higher principle of coincidence of opposites, of peaceful coexistence, reviving the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. Many of the OIC members used to be very strong members in the Non-Aligned Movement, and I think you need that kind of an intervention. Because right now, what is happening in Europe is really scary: The EU wants to become a military force; Germany turned into a war cabinet. I think this is a very dangerous development.

And I know it’s very difficult for somebody living in one culture to completely understand the importance of what is going on in other parts of the world, but right now, I think this dangerous moving toward a clash has to be avoided by all means.

REHMAN: Thank you very much, Helga, for your comments and your participation in our program. … That’s all we have for this hour.


Page 1 of 31123...Last