Helga Zepp-LaRouche

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

July 26—The strategic situation threatens to spiral completely out of control in the short term due to two escalating regional wars—in Ukraine and the Middle East—potentially resulting in a global economic depression within weeks or, at most, months, or perhaps even leading in the short term to a nuclear Third World War. This existential concern is shared by a large portion of the population in the so-called “collective West,” yet the political establishment of the West—with few exceptions—makes not the slightest attempt to bring the war in Ukraine to an end through diplomacy and negotiation. While such efforts do exist regarding the war against Iran, they currently lack the necessary programmatic approach, and consequently, the requisite impact.

In the so-called Middle East—or more accurately, Southwest Asia—the United States is sinking into a strategic quagmire through its repeated bombing campaigns. These campaigns offer no prospect of a winner but will bring unspeakable suffering to millions of civilians across many countries, further impoverish the world’s poorest, trigger new refugee crises, and—in the worst-case scenario—escalate into a global war. This two-times unprovoked war of aggression against Iran has already fundamentally altered the balance of power in the region: the world’s strongest military power—the United States—and Israel, also an extremely powerful military force, have failed to defeat Iran, a nation of medium strength whose resilience was clearly vastly underestimated. The U.S.’s unilateral withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 17 was likewise unprovoked, given that Article 5 of the MoU had officially granted Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, whether they admit it or not, the U.S. has now lost the war with Iran—adding it to the list that includes Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, alongside various other retreats.

The Gulf Cooperation Council states will have to draw the inevitable conclusion that the presence of U.S. military bases on their soil did not guarantee the promised security, but instead turned them into targets for Iranian retaliatory strikes. Recent mutual attacks on civilian infrastructure—and desalination plants in particular—threaten to potentially depopulate these desert nations. Kuwait relies on desalinated water for approximately 42% of its needs, the UAE for 52%, Bahrain for 68%, and Qatar for 77%. Without these desalination plants, these states are essentially deserts where no one can live.

After 13 nights of merciless American attacks on military and civilian installations in Iran, there is now a pause, likely due less to the allegations of war crimes than to a shortage of the U.S.’s ammunition—something one cannot say without risking imprisonment, according to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz—and probably also protests from Gulf States fearing for their survival. Furthermore, the renewed fighting between Yemen and Saudi Arabia has demonstrated the consequences for the global economy should the Bab el-Mandeb Strait be blocked; such a scenario would force an additional 12-15% of global trade and roughly 30% of container shipping to take the significantly longer detour around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope.

The Sword of Damocles Looms

Despite the daily fluctuations by U.S. President Donald Trump, regarding the likelihood that this arbitrarily instigated war could still be ended by a “deal,” the Sword of Damocles continues to hang over everyone’s heads. Namely, the risk that the advice of certain warmongers to invade Iran with U.S. ground troops might be heeded—leading to massive shipments of “body bags” of dead soldiers back home, and, as a last resort, the use of tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities.

If this inhumane and desperate act of madness were to occur, it would immediately escalate beyond the region. Even though Iran has no formal military assistance pact with any other country, it is hardly conceivable that Russia and China would stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used against Iran. Annie Jacobsen, American author of the 2024 bestselling book Nuclear War: A Scenario, emphasized in an interview this week that anyone at the Pentagon who has considered this scenario knows that a nuclear war, however it begins, can only end in one way: with total, apocalyptic annihilation.

It is an almost macabre speculation about which war is more dangerous: the one against Iran or the one in Ukraine, which is in reality a complete proxy war by NATO against Russia.

General (ret.) Harald Kujat, former Inspector General of the German Armed Forces and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, recently warned in the Swiss newspaper Zeitgeschehen im Fokus (Current Events in Focus), quoting the actuality of quotes of former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, that the situation was worsening day by day, just as it had been in August 1914. He accused Western political leaders of never having attempted to prevent the war through diplomacy, but on the contrary, of having done everything in their power to prolong it and of providing financial, political, and material support.

Kujat ruthlessly criticizes the Western governments, and especially the German government: He criticizes the multiple transgressions of Russia’s absolute red lines, such as Ukraine’s attacks with NATO and/or U.S. support against strategic targets of Russia’s nuclear triad; the German government’s attempts to promote Ukraine’s NATO accession, another absolute red line for Russia; and, more generally, NATO’s de facto participation in Ukraine’s war against Russia, a war that would have ended long ago without massive arms deliveries, financial aid, training, satellite reconnaissance, and real-time target data, etc., and which Russia views as precisely that. Kujat rejects the claim that the coming war with Russia is inevitable, a claim the population is being prepared for daily through propaganda, as he does in many other articles, by pointing to the lack of cui bono and Russia’s insufficient capacity to invade a European country. Conversely, the conventional war for which Europe appears to be preparing, coupled with a delayed and questionable U.S. involvement, threatens to create a situation in which neither side can achieve a swift victory, thus creating the risk of the first use of nuclear weapons by one side or the other to force a resolution. According to Kujat, a nuclear winter would last approximately fifty years.

Even though both wars had ostensibly different triggers, the underlying dynamic in both stems from the same cause: the West as a whole could not resist the temptation, after the end of the Cold War, to succumb to an arrogant triumphalism. And while it was initially the Anglo-American neoconservatives who attempted to establish a unipolar world order, it was later the Europeans who adapted to this attempt, even sabotaging Trump’s initially perhaps earnest peace policy through a “coalition of the willing.” The unspeakable demonization of Russia only flared up again when Russian President Vladimir Putin set about asserting Russia’s role as a world power and sought to halt its containment. And China has done nothing wrong except violate the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which states that no nation or group of nations can ever be allowed to surpass the United States in political, economic, or military strength.

As a result of the boundless overconfidence of leading circles in the West, who accepted Western dominance in the world as their inherent birthright, and a long series of errors and mismanagement, as well as the complete lack of a positive vision for the future, which is now being replaced by aggressive militarism, the world order lies in ruins. We have—hopefully—only a very small window of opportunity left to end these wars through genuine diplomacy and to rebuild the shattered trust.

A New Framework for International Relations

There is only one promising way to save world peace: We must immediately place the establishment of a new global security and development architecture on the international agenda and seriously create a new framework for international relations. This must be based on the UN Charter, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and the lessons of the Peace of Westphalia, which emphasize that a peaceful order can only succeed if it takes into account the interests of “the other.”

In other words, the principle of indivisible security must be reinstated. Besides the Schiller Institute’s proposal for such a new architecture, formulated in the Ten Principles, China, with its four global initiatives, and especially its Global Governance Initiative, has so far made the most comprehensive proposal in this regard.

The month of August must be used intensively to prepare the formalization of the discussion on a new architecture, to initiate initial diplomatic preparations, and to take corresponding steps in parliaments and other relevant institutions. This year’s UN General Assembly—if we make it to September—may be humanity’s last chance to escape annihilation.

Kujat writes in the cited article: “To prevent the worst from happening, Europeans are now more than ever required to correct miscalculations and to act with realism, a sense of responsibility, and reason. In the current situation, negotiations to end the war must be seen not only as preventing a major European war, but also as an opportunity to avert Ukraine’s military defeat and to secure its continued existence as a sovereign, independent, and viable state. Now, individuals with strategic judgment and security policy foresight are needed, individuals who are guided by German interests and the constitutional mandate for peace, in order to find ways out of the danger of a major European war.”

These individuals, who exist in every country, must now step forward and demonstrate their responsibility. At stake is the mandate for peace enshrined in the German Basic Law and the question of whether we, as a human species, are morally capable of survival.

Please contact: helga-zepp@proton.me

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

June 18—The following statement was released today by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and leader of the Schiller Institute.

The signing of a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran is definitely an historic breakthrough, ending hostilities between them, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and hopefully preventing in this way the further collapse of the world economy into a depression. The outcome of this war, which lasted more than three-and-a-half grueling months, is a significantly changed strategic situation, where it is not yet decided whether the truce can be transformed into a lasting peace, or will only have been a pause until the next, and possibly worse, round of fighting erupts.

What is clear, however, is the fact that the largest military power on Earth, the United States, was unable to defeat a medium-sized power, Iran. Neither regime change, nor the neutralization of its ballistic missile system, nor the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program was accomplished, due to the unexpected resilience of the Iranian population which, irrespective of the government’s current policies, united around its identity as the ancient civilizational state of thousands of years—Persia! Iran, while suffering significant losses, nevertheless is the clear winner of this war, not least since it has discovered the significant reach it has with control over the Strait of Hormuz. This control over one of the choke-points of the world economy has now become a factor in the strategic situation, which nobody can afford to ignore. Moreover, the fact that Iran was able to demonstrate the inability of the United States to defend those Gulf states hosting U.S. bases, will have permanent consequences for the security architecture of Southwest Asia.

High praise definitely goes primarily to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who was crucial in the mediation between the United States and Iran, and in defending diplomacy over war as a method of conflict resolution, as well as to many other forces of the region attempting to avoid escalation into a global catastrophe.

Obviously, the big Damocles sword hanging over the situation is the reaction by Israel, the other big loser in the situation. Even with a second war within a year and backed by the strongest military power, Israel was unable to accomplish any of its war aims. Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently under severe attack by opposition leaders, and even members of his own Cabinet, for his failure, while the big sticking point is that part of the new agreement provides for a ceasefire in Lebanon, which Israel totally rejects. But Israel will have to realize the changed international climate, in which the vast majority of world opinion has shifted, and even a growing majority of the American population thinks that the Israeli government has gone entirely too far in respect to the Palestinians and Iran.

President Trump is currently balancing his interests between his financial supporters, who favor an even harder line against Iran, the hawks in the Republican Party who want the whole deal to be decided in Congress so as to be able to block it, and Trump’s old MAGA base, whose support for him is dwindling, because they feel he has betrayed his election promises. With the midterm elections a few months away, Trump has to weigh his gains and losses.

So, what should be done to ensure that the agreement holds and lasting peace can be secured? The answer is, that a real vision of economic development for the entire region of Southwest Asia has to be seriously put on the agenda: the Extended Oasis Plan, proposed by the Schiller Institute. Only if all the populations of the countries of the region, especially the youth, have a perspective of ending the war forever, and building a bright and prosperous future, will there be an incentive for a lasting peace.1

The deeper answer to that question requires one to consider the larger strategic context of the promises to end all wars. Trump faces the deadline of the midterm elections. While the crisis in Southwest Asia has a history dating back thousands of years, and is multi-faceted and very complex, it must be seen, just as the Ukraine war and almost any other current conflict must be, as part of the overall geopolitical situation. That situation is characterized by the failed attempt of the Collective West dominated by the Anglosphere to establish a unipolar world dominance after the end of the Cold War. That attempt turned out to be very short-lived, since the combination of six NATO expansions to the East, breaking all promises not to do so, as well as the policies of regime change, color revolutions, unilateral sanctions, and interventionists wars produced an enormous blowback, especially among the countries of the Global South. They have not accepted the NATO narrative on all these events, but instead have recognized the obvious effort to revive an imperial and neocolonial order. Since the historically unprecedented rise of China enables the countries of the Global South, for the first time, to overcome 500 years of colonialism, they seek to establish a new economic order that will establish a more just and equal system for all.

Part of any conflict, therefore, is the dynamic in the background, whereby the West aims to maintain its dominance in the strategic situation and, as some politicians put it, to “ruin Russia” and to, at a minimum “contain China.” That, however, is only in the interest of the very few in the establishments of some Western countries, and not in the self-interest of the peoples of Europe and the United States.

As the recent war in Southwest Asia has demonstrated with undeniable clarity: The old world order, as it was established after the Second World War, and then again after the end of the Cold War, is disintegrating. It is therefore of the highest strategic importance to put a new international security and development architecture on the table, which must take into account the interest of every single country on the planet. The situation is comparable to the circumstances of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of religious warfare in Europe, after the warring parties realized that, if the war were to continue, no one would be left alive to enjoy a victory. So they arrived at the realization that in order to have peace, one has to respect the interest of the other, and specifically, of All others!

There are several initiatives on the table already, which reflect an understanding that the international order urgently needs to be reorganized, such as the new White Paper of the Chinese State Council, “More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions,” which proposes an improvement of the international order based on the idea of a community of a shared future of mankind.
Coming from a very different background but arriving at essentially the same idea of the necessity of an urgent reform, is Pope Leo XIV. His just-issued new Encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, not only criticizes the present tendencies to create a new “Tower of Babel,” but also provides a very substantive proposal on what principles a new system worthy of the magnificent human species must be established.2 This author has proposed ten principles, to be taken into consideration, on how such a new security and development architecture could be conceptualized.3

Therefore, one should not just comment on the agreement reached between the United States and Iran, speculating on whether the situation in Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to accept its inclusion in the deal, will turn out to be the main factor leading to the failure of the agreement. If the Extended Oasis Plan is put on the agenda by several countries of the region, it can become the first step to bringing the whole world into a new paradigm, in which war is made obsolete as a means of conflict resolution—an existential matter in the era of thermonuclear weapons—and an equitable order is realized, which allows the well-being of all nations.

1. Schiller Institute Oasis Plan webpage, https://schillerinstitute.com/the-oasis-plan-the-larouche-solution-for-southwest-asia/
2. https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2026/06/18/urgent-appeal-from-pope-leo-xiv-stop-repent-before-its-too-late-the-new-name-for-peace-is-development/
3. https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

June 17th 2026

Of all the important and urgent speeches delivered recently by politicians and experts from many countries with the aim of preventing the strategic situation from escalating into a catastrophe that would wipe out the human race, Pope Leo XIV’s intervention—with his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas (1) and the addresses he delivered during his recent trip to Spain (2)—is, in my best judgment, by far the most important. When historians later examine the question of what—hopefully—proved to be the decisive factor in bringing Western civilization, in the midst of a deep spiritual and cultural crisis, to change course, they will come upon the role played by the Pope, and the willingness of a sufficiently large number of believers and people of good will to take his words to heart and bring about a change in policy.

Without ever having to name the guilty parties, Pope Leo XIV defines with absolute clarity the structures of sin that today pose existential threats to humanity—structures whose concrete relevance everyone can recognize, and which must be urgently eliminated. At the same time, he indicates the way out of the crisis, which is within reach—namely, that people summon up the highest ideal of the Christian view of humanity, and put it into practice. Precisely because the mainstream media largely suppress these texts by the Pope, Christians and peace-loving people need to create a political climate in which no politician seeking re-election can afford to admit his or her ignorance of his writings and speeches. For that of course, as many people as possible must first not only read, but also study, this encyclical and these addresses.

At the very moment when the first multi-billionaire on the basis of an AI fiction declares himself the first trillionaire, this encyclical warns against a new Tower of Babel, in which a new form of idolatry pays homage to profit at the expense of the weak, a dehumanization that uses others as means, an age-old yet ever-renewed temptation that today comes cloaked in technology. And coinciding with the entry into force of the EU Migration Pact—which, as of June 12, will accelerate procedures for deporting refugees at the EU’s external borders and thus massively restrict the right to asylum—Pope Leo XIV counters with the Christian principles as to how the migration issue should be addressed.

When one considers the encyclical and the Popeʼs speeches in Spain together, they represent a complete reckoning with the entire political agenda of the liberal West, and do so with a clarity that should compel all politicians who have sworn an oath of office to serve the common good (above all, those whose parties bear the word “Christian” in their names) to completely reverse their policies.

Among the various aspects of these policies, all of which are building blocks of the new Tower of Babel, are the idolatry of profit at the expense of the poorest, the financial interests that fuel tensions and conflicts to keep the war industry up and running, and support for modern forms of slavery, where child labor is routine and the health of adolescents is sacrificed for the profit of an upper class whose consumption habits would once have been considered extravagant, while the poor lack the basic necessities. This also includes a new form of colonialism that enslaves not only people’s bodies, but also data and information about them—ranging from health records to epidemiological profiles, genetic charts, and demographic data.

In the encyclical, the Pope laments the “normalization of war” and recalls Pope Paul VI’s powerful 1965 address to the UN General Assembly: “Never again war! Never again war!” (3) Despite a deep desire for peace, Leo writes, the intervening 60 years have been marked by conflicts of astonishing brutality, claiming the lives of countless civilian and innocent victims, mass displacements, social destabilization, and long-lasting wounds. Today, he notes, we are witnessing an alarming paradigm shift in which rearmament and war are once again publicly promoted as instruments of international politics, while the ethical principles that would previously have opposed war are being systematically undermined. Desires for territorial expansion, which we thought had been overcome, are returning, and a disconcerting loss of historical memory is becoming apparent, as eyewitnesses to the Holocaust and World War II pass away. (No, this is not Russian President Vladimir Putin speaking, or Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but Pope Leo XIV) And so, the Pope argues, war is being prepared for culturally through simplistic narratives and a “friend-or-foe” mindset, disinformation, and the instillation of fear.

Under the heading “Force without limits,” the Pope addresses the growth of the military-industrial complex: “The armaments industry, and countries that supply weapons, profit from a market that thrives precisely on conflicts. In this sense, there are also financial interests that contribute to fueling tensions in various regions of the world.” And further in section 194: “ In the past, recognition of the threat posed by weapons capable of destroying all of humanity had promoted paths toward détente and disarmament negotiations. Unfortunately, this approach has been left behind, and the evolution of nuclear arsenals—including the prospect of its “tactical” use—makes the use of such weapons seem less improbable.”

The encyclical observes that we live in a time of significant intellectual and cultural blindness, and that a form of historical nihilism fosters the illusion “that the atrocities of the 20th century cannot be repeated, that the atrocities of the twentieth century can never happen again. Yet, in reality, the same dynamics are re-emerging under new guises…. In many countries, including those in the Global South, increased military spending is presented as the only response to an uncertain future or perceived threats. Meanwhile, the real cost falls on the poorest, who see resources for healthcare, education and social services being reduced.”

Pope Leo quotes Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, which condemns the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few, and he refers to Pope Paul VI warning of the dangers of extraordinary scientific, technological, and economic progress if it is not does not go together with corresponding ethical and social progress.

This applies in particular to AI, whose assessment and critique is the main focus of the encyclical. Starting from the decades-long debate over whether computers might one day surpass human creativity, he explains the renewed discussion regarding AI:

“99. It is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of AI. “What can be stated, however, is that we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings. These systems merely imitate certain functions of human intelligence. In doing so, they often surpass human intelligence in speed and computational capacity, offering tangible benefits across many fields. Yet this power remains entirely tied to data processing. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. Even when these tools are described as capable of ‘learning’, their way of doing so is different from that of a human person. It is not the experience of those who allow themselves to be shaped by life and grow over time through choices, mistakes, forgiveness and fidelity. Rather, it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth.”

Pope Leo XIV argues from the perspective of the Augustinian tradition, according to which there need be no contradiction between faith and knowledge, and quotes Pope Francis, who “recognizes the importance of listening to scientific research and of encouraging a serious and honest debate among experts while welcoming a diversity of opinions.”

The Right To Not Have To Migrate

Less honest, however, according to the Italian newspaper La Veritá and the French Le Figaro, were the liberal media, which reportedly provided a rather incomplete account of the Pope’s speeches in Spain by only covering his calls to accept and integrate refugees, while omitting the parts where the Pope defended people’s right not to have to emigrate and emphasized the need to address the root causes of their fleeing.

In fact, Pope Leo XIV’s six-day trip to Spain, which took him to Madrid, Barcelona, Gran Canaria, and Tenerife, was an intervention of extraordinary historical significance. For even today, 87 years after the end of the Civil War, the political debate in Spain remains extremely polarized, and issues such as the role of the Church and migration are emotionally charged. In this context, the way in which Pope Leo elevated the migration issue to such a high level was very important in respect to Spain’s internal situation and also set a precedent for all of Europe. There could hardly be a greater contrast between the EU Migration Pact—which came into force on the very last day of the Pope’s trip—and the migration policy advocated by Pope Leo XIV. While the EU wants to get rid of people as quickly as possible and lock them up in so-called “reception camps”—which Pope Francis used to describe as “concentration camps” and which certainly resemble prisons—the Pope has a completely different, humane perspective on the problem. In his address to the Spanish Parliament, he emphasized:

“The affirmation of human dignity cannot remain abstract when so many people are forced to leave everything behind in search of peace, security, and a future. The tragic drama of migration also challenges the conscience of nations and the ethical foundation of the international order today. Numerous men, women, and children are forced, by often dramatic circumstances, to leave their communities and leave behind loved ones, histories, and ties. This reality goes beyond any purely demographic or economic analysis: it constitutes an eminently moral and legal issue. Wherever people are discriminated against because of their national, ethnic, religious or linguistic origin, or because of their economic or social status, the universal principle of the equal dignity of all human beings is seriously violated.” (4)

He then went on to quote from his encyclical Magnifica Humanitas:

“81. A litmus test for social justice today is the treatment of migrants, refugees and those forced to move due to poverty, violence, climate change and environmental disasters. The way a society treats them reveals whether its sense of justice is driven by fear or by the spirit of fraternity. Pope Francis urged us to see migrants not simply as a problem to be managed, but as a living image of the People of God on the move. [109] They are people with dignity, resources and dreams, who have the right to be treated with respect and to ask to become active members of the societies that welcome them. Social justice in this area entails at least two complementary commitments. On the one hand, this means protecting the rightful hopes of those forced to leave by ensuring safe and legal routes, dignified conditions for receiving them, and genuine pathways to integration. On the other hand, it means promoting the right to remain in one’s homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate, including those linked to economic injustices and the climate crisis. When these rights are respected, migration can become an opportunity for encounter and mutual enrichment among peoples.”

A Call to Action

Western governments are hereby called upon to take Pope Leo XIV’s urgent appeal as an opportunity to immediately undo the inhumane and, from an economic standpoint utterly incompetent, migration policy as formulated in the EU Migration Pact. Instead, cooperation on an equal footing with the nations of the Global South must be placed on the agenda, with a serious commitment to eliminating the root causes of migration.

The right “to remain in one’s own homeland in peace and security by addressing the root causes that force people to migrate” is relatively easy to implement if the political will is mustered to do so. What the nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America need is a genuine industrial and agricultural development policy aimed at realizing their full potential for the benefit of their own populations. The Global South, which in reality represents the global majority of approximately 85 percent of humanity, is in the process of leaving behind 500 years of colonialism and implementing, above all in cooperation with China, infrastructure projects and investments in key technologies that will enable these nations to fully establish value chains within their own borders. Instead of clinging to an inhuman neo-colonialist mindset, the governments of Europe and the United States are called upon to immediately commit to international cooperation aimed at completely eradicating poverty and underdevelopment in all nations on this planet.

For example, by the year 2050, Africa will have a population of approximately 2.5 billion people—one billion more than today. This means that it is in the very best interest of both Africa and Europe to create one billion productive jobs on the African continent over the next 25 years. Even though most other regions of the world face negative demographic projections, effective programs to overcome poverty are necessary everywhere if social explosions between the billionaire class and the impoverished billions are to be prevented.

The Schiller Institute has worked out concrete development programs to this end as to how clearly defined investment programs in basic infrastructure, energy production and distribution, and communications can create the conditions necessary to industrialize the nations of the Global South, and how cooperation between the BRICS countries, the industrialized nations of the North, and developing countries with joint ventures can achieve the goal of addressing the root causes of migration. (5) (6)

This would fulfill the call of the encyclical Populorum Progressio, that true peace can only be achieved through social justice and the overcoming of global inequality, “whose injustice cries out to heaven.” This call by Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical—”Development is the new name for peace”—is the urgent imperative of the hour!

In his address to the Spanish Parliament, Pope Leo XIV called for precisely this form of international cooperation:

“No nation can face a challenge of this magnitude on its own. Therefore, a coordinated, supportive, and effective response is indispensable, one capable of guaranteeing protection, welcome, and real opportunities for integration to those who migrate. When the institutional response is accessible, just and coordinated, borders cease to be places of abandonment and can become spaces for the responsible protection of human dignity.” (4)

In his encyclical, which bears the title Magnifica Humanitas—”Magnificent Humanity”—a title that can certainly be regarded as programmatic, the Pope refers quite specifically to the highest ideal of classical Greek thought, thereby following the Augustinian idea that the harmony between that thought and Christian revelation means there need be no contradiction between faith and knowledge. “23. The Church regards all who sincerely seek “truth, goodness and beauty” as companions on the journey, and considers them as “precious allies” in defending the dignity of every person and in caring for creation,” he writes. In accordance with this ideal of “the True, the Good, and the Beautiful,” the encyclical defines art and culture—when they are authentic—as a protective wall against the “normalization of evil.” And how necessary this is for contemporary human society, in which phenomena that can ultimately only be described as satanic seem to dominate nearly the entire so-called entertainment world. Pope Leo attributes an “almost prophetic value” to certain works of art, such as Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, describing them as a “desire for unity.”

Perhaps the most important idea is that Pope Leo, in memory of Pope Paul VI, calls for the creation of a “civilization of love”:

“Today, we must resolutely recover this vision, for the civilization of love is no naïve utopia, but a demanding project, which consists in translating charity into structures of justice, giving institutional form to fraternity and regarding others—whether individuals or peoples—as allies necessary for building the common good. As the Encyclical Letter Fratelli tutti reminded us, only this social love is capable of becoming a culture and a norm, and thereby of bringing about a stable international order, transforming mere armed coexistence into a community with a shared future.” [186]

It should give pause to all people in the nations of the so-called Collective West—that is, people living in a system dominated by liberal values, which has produced both the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the EU Migration Pact as responses to the refugee crisis —that both the head of the Catholic Church and the Chinese government have reached essentially the same conclusion: that the only a conception of the One humanity as a community of shared destiny can be the basis for peace.

The encyclical Magnifica Humanitas is Pope Leo XIV’s urgent call for change. The Schiller Institute’s development programs show a concrete path to overcoming the refugee crisis. What humanity needs now is a movement to promote the idea: “Development is the new name for peace”!

Notes

1. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html

2. Pope in Canary Islands: Remain united through the Cross and the Eucharist—Vatican News

3. https://holyseemission.org/contents/statements/address-of-the-holy-father-paul-vi-to-the-united-nations-organization.php; https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2025-10/never-again-war-pope-paul-vi-s-unheeded-but-ever-relevant-cry.html

4. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2026/giugno/documents/20260608-spagna-parlamento.html

5. https://cloud.schillermeet.de/s/BQZXjgHWf78MJW5?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true;

6. https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2024/11/24/report-development-drive-means-billions-of-new-jobs-no-refugees-no-war/