Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Helga media coverage or interview

Category Archives

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.


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.


Pakistan TV Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on ‘Economic Fallout of the Ukraine Crisis’

March 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—Pakistan’s PTV interviewed Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche and senior Pakistani economist Amer Zafar Durrani with 30 years of expertise in development for fragile and post conflict states, on the topic, “Economic Fallout of the Ukraine Crisis,” by host Faisal Rehman, who has interviewed Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche multiple times. Rehman asked Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche three questions, and at the end Mr. Durrani insisted “I think you should hear what Helga says. I think she’s right,” about why the war started in the first place and how to end it.

{We publish here only the portion of the “Views on News” show containing her remarks. For the full show, go to this link.}

FAISAL REHMAN: Coming to you, Ms. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Interestingly, since you are based in Germany, and Germany is one of those countries which is highly dependent on the Russian energy imports, looking at the current scenario where the Germans were initially pretty reluctant to be a part of this role, but now we have learned they are sending these anti-tank guided missiles to Ukraine, they’re also giving them night-vision goggles, the vests, the equipment and so on—now, that is a problem. And this is not the first time that the major issues have erupted from Europe: First World War, Second World War.

Now, this is the third time that a major power has invaded another country. We’ll keep these issues, the political and geo-economic issues, aside for the moment, but, Ma’am, looking at the current scenario it seems that, uncertainty is going to prevail. That has affected the stock markets, they’ve gone down. When you talk about the commodity prices, they have gone up, they’re surging. Oil prices, God knows where they will end. Today I was listening that the Americans have banned the import of Russian oil.

What if Russia stops exporting it to the European Union? These are the winters, and it is just not possible that they can switch on and switch off from Russia. So, the point is now, where is it leading? What are people thinking? What are you going through? What sort of experience are you people having? Let’s throw light on that.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s important to differentiate between cause and effect: This financial system of the trans-Atlantic sector has been going towards bankruptcy for a very long time, because it’s based on axioms which are favoring the speculators and the money makers, and not the common good.

So, you can maintain that for a while, but it was clear, since the latest 2008, when we had an almost systemic crisis, that this system was bankrupt. And what the central banks did since was to just keep pumping money—they call it “quantitative easing,” negative interest rates—and in that way you have an incredibly indebted system which is hopelessly bankrupt. It has been hopelessly bankrupt for at least 10, 15 years, and the more you keep it going, by pumping more money, the more it becomes unsolvable, unsalvageable.

And now, basically, they have decided to put the blame on Putin. But the reality is, it was not Putin and him declaring military action or war on Ukraine which triggered that, but people have not been listening to Putin. Putin has been saying this since 2007, when he spoke at the Munich Security Conference, where he said the expansion of NATO was not acceptable, because it threatened the security interest of Russia. He has been very patient, as a matter of fact.

Now, naturally, you can say war is horrible, and it’s a terrible thing that it came to that, but the sanctions, in a certain sense, are trying to cover up the fact the Western system has been bankrupt for the whole time; the inflation was there before the Ukrainian crisis erupted; the Federal Reserve promised last year they would increase the interest rate to fight the inflation, but they couldn’t, because they knew that if the Federal Reserve would start to taper, to increase the interest rate, you would have an immediate wave of bankruptcies of the emerging countries, of the large, indebted firms; so they did not taper, and therefore the inflation is there.

Now, naturally, if you impose such hard sanctions, this is now putting into a chain reaction a situation which means this system is hopelessly out of control: You will have a terrible crisis. The food prices will increase. We already had a world famine before this whole thing developed, but now with the fertilizer, which comes from Russia and Ukraine, being blocked, the food prices will go through the ceiling. And we need a radical reform very quickly, because otherwise this thing can completely go out of control.

So, Germany is unfortunately headed by a government which is not standing up to the pressure from the British and United States, and this Chancellor Scholz declared last Sunday that Germany is practically a war economy. It is absolutely terrible, and if the cause is not changed quickly, we are heading toward a real catastrophe and possible World War III.

REHMAN: Now, talking about Germany, one more quick point, because Germany is one of the largest economies in Europe, and even at the global level. You’re talking about the fertilizer issue, Ma’am, around 15% of the global fertilizer manufacturing is taking place in Russia and Ukraine put together. Ma’am, and on top, when you talk about sunflower cooking oil, that is being widely used all over the world, you talk about maize, you talk about corn, you talk about barley, which is a major source of beer production, you talk about wheat, a lot of people, especially in the third world, they’re dependent on that commodity to feed themselves. Now, that is going to have a lot of effect. Though Pakistan had a great wheat production, still the Prime Minister in fact informed that we will be importing a certain amount of wheat from Russia, and they’ve signed a deal, also.

Talking about the food production, Ma’am, it is generally believed that Ukraine, alone, can produce food for about 600 million people—600 million, remember that is 60 crore in our language, whereas about 40 million or around 43 million is the total population of Ukraine, so the export factor is so important.

Now, looking at these figures, Ma’am, let’s suppose this conflict continues, which it seems it will, despite the fact the Russians are having a major fit regarding this particular war, a lot of direct and indirect support is being given to Ukraine. World Bank is preparing an aid package of $3 billion; European Union is talking about more money pouring in, and supplying them with military hardware also. At the same time, today, I was listening to one of the Democratic Senators in United States, and he was saying that he is raising a fund around $10 billion that could be used for the military hardware purchase or otherwise. So if this is the phenomenon, the whole Western world on one side, though the Americans will not get affected much, either they’ll be able to sell their oil and replace the Russian—but that is going to take time—or, they can also have a lot of oil support from Canada. That means that Europe is going to be the major sufferer, and that is something which should not happen. Your take?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the problem, as I said, is the present government in Germany, the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, these are people who unfortunately have completely taken the line of the United States, of the British, of NATO, which means that they’re in a geopolitical confrontation against Russia and China.

The real reason of all of this, is they want to get rid of Putin, they want to have regime change, they want to contain the rise of China—all of these things are potential triggers for World War III. That is why I’m saying—you cannot just discuss it in the context of “they will do this, and then they will do that.” I think we are in a breakdown crisis of the system, the trans-Atlantic forces are determined to have a war if they cannot maintain their system. They see that the Asian countries are rising, especially China is rising, the Belt and Road Initiative is gaining more and more momentum, and they say, rather than allowing these countries to rise when we are collapsing, we will have a war! And there are some very crazy people who think that you can even have a prolonged, protracted nuclear war: If you look at the recent NATO maneuver, Global Lightning, which took place at the end of January and beginning of February, which had this idea that you can have a winnable, regional, protracted nuclear war.

I think this is absolutely insane. And the more reasonable people say, if it comes to that, it will be a global war. It will be a world war. That is why I am saying, we have to have an urgent rethinking, and the Schiller Institute has been promoting the idea of a conference, to have an international security architecture, which must be global. It must include Russia; it must include China; and it must basically address the fact that the Western financial system is absolutely bankrupt, and all the tensions come from that fact. Therefore, you have to have a global Glass-Steagall banking separation, you have to put national banks in each country, and you have to have a new credit system to provide cheap, long-term credit for development.

I think these ideas must be demanding, because you see, there are more and more countries right now that do not want to be pulled into this, because they know it’s deadly! I think it’s very good that Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to take a position for one side or the other and maintains that Pakistan must be neutral. The same thing just happened with India. India abstained in the vote in the UN General Assembly and in any case, they did not want to be put into the “Quad,” which was the whole game. Argentina just decided to be part of the Belt and Road Initiative. And there are more and more countries that realize we need a new system.

And I think what is the most urgent question is that a debate occurs internationally, by as many forces as possible, to have a new paradigm, to have a world order based on the UN Charter, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the whole Non-Aligned Movement conception that went into the Bandung Conference, these ideas have to be revived urgently. And I think it is especially the independent countries, like Pakistan, like India, and on that point I think they are very much similar right now, who take a stand that the system must be changed, because it’s like before World War I: If you continue like this, a catastrophe will happen. And do we have to repeat history? I don’t think so….

REHMAN: Peaceful coexistence, what a beautiful term, but it does not seem that it’s going to happen like this now: Divisions and divisions and then adversities, and God knows what’s happening out there….

And Helga, that is about the short-term economic impact. Now, we do see, there’s going to be a lot of problems. My own brother lives in London, and he said the energy cost has gone up significantly, and we never thought this was going to happen, and this is just multiplying. And a lot of analysts believe that this is just the beginning.

Now, 2022 could be the most interest[ing] year: Global economy was already suffering for the last two years, because of this pandemic. The moment they started recovering and we could see some positive indicators and everything, and now we see this war! And this is not only limited to Europe, this is going to have its impact on Asia, on U.S.A., Canada, even Africa, I would say!

So, let’s suppose if Russia is engaged, which I believe Russia will be, in Ukraine, some sort of [inaud], Afghanistan-like situation is created once again in Ukraine. This time, Pakistan is not the partner, but let’s suppose Poland, Hungary, and other European Union countries, or NATO countries, keep supporting them indirectly, and keep giving them these weapons through which they can attack the tanks, helicopters, even the Russian jets. Let’s suppose if this war continues for another couple of months, what do you see happening to Europe in general? And Germany in particular?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Frankly, I don’t think that that is what’s going to happen, because I think that the Russians have not even used the totality of their troops, they have not used the totality of their weapons systems, and many military men in Germany and elsewhere, but in Germany, say that there is no way how Ukraine can win this war. The people who will suffer the most are the Ukrainians. They will be chopped up and murdered and die, as a result of the West not listening to Putin! And I can only repeat: It was not Putin’s fault: He said it very clearly, he said, I have no place to retreat to. So here are the security guarantees I want from the United States, and from NATO; and then the answer from these two places were not anything, they just answered on some secondary questions, like resuming arms control negotiations, but they did not want to guarantee that NATO would not continue to expand to the East, and that Ukraine would not become a member, and that there would be no offensive weapons at the border with Russia.

So then Putin said, “I have to take care of the fact that there has been a genocide in east Ukraine, in the Donbas”; 14,000 people have been killed, they have produced many documentaries in the meantime showing that there was actually a continuous war by the Ukrainian armed forces against these two republics, and that Nazis have been used! And there is also no question: The Schiller Institute did a documentation in 2014 where we documented the existence of Nazis, the Azov Battalion, the followers of Stepan Bandera, which were kept by the secret services in the postwar period—by MI6, by the CIA, by the BND—and we documented it as the Maidan coup was happening! So the whole discussion that “there are no Nazis,” it’s just simply not true, and the big scandal is that the Western governments have backed a coup in 2014, which brought the Nazis into the government, into the Rada (the Parliament), and into the armed forces. And when Putin now says he insists on a demilitarization and a de-Nazification, because that is crucial to the security interest of Russia, the West must listen to him! And I think that while right now, the European governments are completely crazy—I mean, they’re in a brainwashed condition; if you listen to the media, Goebbels…

REHMAN: I would totally agree with you, on that. This is exactly what is happening, but I’m so sorry to cut you off, Helga. We’ll definitely be having you on other shows and we’ll talk more about it. But since I’m running out of time, I would like to say thank you very much for your contribution and your comments.


Zepp-LaRouche Presents the Need for a New Security Architecture and New Bretton Woods to CGTN World Audience

March 7 (EIRNS)–Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche appeared as a guest on the CGTN Dialogue show on March 7 together with Victor Gao, a regular CGTN commentator and Professor Peter Kuznick from American University. The program aired directly following Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s traditional annual press conference at China’s legislative Two Sessions, so there was no doubt of many viewers. The discussion, as well as Minister Wang’s press conference, centered around the conflict in Ukraine. In her initial comments, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche lauded Wang Yi’s press conference as “the return of sanity” in a world gone crazy over the Ukraine situation, noting that he underlined the importance of adhering to the principles of the UN Charter. “China is taking a leadership role in the world which is badly needed,” she said.

When she was later asked about the impact of the Ukraine crisis on US-European relations, she noted the negative effect on trade, and added that “the “world needs something completely different, similar to a community of shared interests,” and reiterated her call for an international conference to create such an order, comparable to what was done in Europe by the Peace of Westphalia, but which would include Russia and China. “If it comes to nuclear war, there will be no winners,” she warned.

In response to a third question, referring to Wang Yi’s comment that this year would be an “Asian year” with Asian countries hosting the BRICS, the APEC summit, and the G20, she noted that a number of countries in Asia have a 5,000 year history, which is a much different situation than with the United States. “We need a new model of international relations,” she

In response to a third question, referring to Wang Yi’s comment that this year would be an “Asian year” with Asian countries hosting the BRICS, the APEC summit, and the G20, she noted that a number of countries in Asia have a 5,000 year history, which is a much different situation than with the United States. “We need a new model of international relations,” she said, “but it must be filled with content.” She referenced the Non-Aligned Movement and the Bandung Conference as models. “The region must come together to resolve the problems of humanity, including the question of food supply, energy prices, etc. This year one could say that we need a new model of international relations,” she said, and noted that the BRI, the Build Back Better World, and the EU Global Gateway projects could work together instead of at odds. She added, “The present financial system is going out of whack, and it’s worse than 2008. There is therefore an urgent need for a New Bretton Woods System.”

While the perspective introduced by Zepp-LaRouche went quite beyond what the other speakers were expecting, Professor Kuznick, who had the last word in the program, expressed support for the notion of a new security architecture.


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

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”

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….


Helga Zepp-LaRouche Inspires Pakistani Audience With ‘Operation Ibn Sina’

Jan. 18, 2022 (EIRNS)—Participating in a panel discussion on the Views on News program of Pakistan’s public broadcasting channel, PTV World, today, Schiller Institute founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered a concise, hard-hitting, 10-minute briefing on how to win the global fight to defeat the military-industrial-Wall Street/City of London-complex’s unipolar war drive, using the urgency of saving Afghans from death as a fulcrum to build cooperation between the strategic powers, including the United States.

The subjects of the program were Vladimir Putin’s phone call yesterday with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, during which they discussed areas for cooperation, and how PM Khan had thanked Putin for his Dec. 23 remarks rejecting the Islamophobia so prevalent in the Western world today, and Putin’s specifically attacking the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad. Self-satisfied Americans would do well to take note of the deep anger expressed by the moderator Faisal Rehman, and two other Pakistani participants against U.S. “brow-beating” of countries around the world, with sanctions, bans, military invasions, which led one even to argue that Russia, China, and Central Asian and many other nations of the world should have nothing to do with the United States, if they want to survive.

Zepp-LaRouche’s proposal of “Operation Ibn Sina”—to make the name of Ibn Sina (Avicenna, in the West), the great Islamic philosopher and physician, who discovered how quarantines can end epidemics, synonymous with the actions required to save Afghanistan—sparked real excitement in this emotional environment. Former Pakistani Defense Minister, retired Lt. Gen. Naeem Khalid Lodhi, who was another of the speakers on the panel, responded with enthusiasm as she outlined the idea, and then thanked her for refreshing their memories about this great person, and for the proposal to give the name of Ibn Sina to saving the Afghan people.  The entire Views on News program can be found here.


CGTN World Today Podcast Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Lithuania’s Stance Toward the One-China Policy

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, President of the Schiller Institute, was a guest on the CGTN podcast, World Today, on Wednesday, January 5, 2022. This segment was transcribed by EIR.

CGTN: A spokesperson of China’s Foreign Ministry said it is right for Lithuania to acknowledge the mistake it has made regarding Taiwan, and China urges Lithuania to take action and return to the One-China policy. Spokesperson Wang Wenbin made the remarks in response to Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda’s rebuke against his government’s decision of allowing the opening of a Taiwan representative office in his country. President  Nausėda said on Tuesday that it was a mistake to allow China’s Taiwan region to open a representative office in Vilnius using its own name. He told a local radio station that “the name of the office has become the key factor that now strongly affects our relations with China.”

China had expressed a strong protest over Lithuania’s approval of the establishment of the so-called “Taiwan representative office” in Lithuania and downgraded the diplomatic relations with Lithuania in November.

For more on this, we’re now joined on the line by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank.

Thank you, Helga, for talking to us again.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello.

CGTN: First off, do the Lithuanian President’s remarks mean a softening of tensions regarding this issue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s definitely good that he retracted the approval of the name, but this is not a case of nominalism. The question is not the label, the question is the One-China policy which is internationally recognized since 1971, and the question is, can the United States, the British and other countries that use a little country of 3 million people as a pawn in their geopolitical confrontation, and this is an effort by Secretary of State Blinken to push all of these little countries in an “alliance of democracies” so-called. But I think it’s not good for the people of Lithuania. It’s not in their interest. 

CGTN: Right. Well, you pointed out correctly this is not just a matter of the name. Rather it’s the principle of the One-China policy. But how much does the difference between the Lithuanian President’s remarks, and the actions of the Lithuanian government have to do with how the government is run in the country, and the domestic politics in the country? Because remember, I think the prime minister of Lithuania, who has the cabinet, was beaten in the elections in 2019 by the President.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, according to the Lithuanian media, the support for the government is absolutely dropping. Only 17.3% of the people voted in a poll that they trust the government, while 47.8% say they distrust the government. So you can see, now, the effect of how Lithuania has to be seen in the context of the NATO expansion to encircle Russia. I mean, we should look at the documentation which the Schiller Institute just produced: There are now absolutely authentic documents which prove that Secretary of State [James] Baker, on Feb. 9, 1990 promised that NATO would not move one inch to the East. But as we now know, 14 countries have joined NATO, and now President Putin is demanding the signature under two treaties that this stop, because it impinges on the security interests of Russia. Now, Lithuania is a victim of that NATO expansion to the East, and billions of dollars have been spent to finance NGOs to convince the population of the East European nations that they should adopt Western values, but you see right now a big backlash against it, and this is one of the reasons why the support for the Lithuanian government is dropping so quickly.

CGTN: Going again into the question of Taiwan, how bad an example is Lithuania’s decision to allow the opening of this office? How bad is it, in the sense that it kind of internationalizes the Taiwan question, which should be a domestic issue of China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Naturally, it is bad, because Lithuania, also, as a result of this policy, left the 17+1—these are the countries in Central and Eastern Europe which cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative—but it’s really not that significant, because there are many countries in Europe which stick to the One-China policy, and which do see it in their self-interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative. So, it’s bad, but it’s not dramatic.

CGTN: Lithuanian officials once appealed to the European Union for help, regarding their tensions with China. What is the EU’s position on this issue, because we see, recently the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a year end interview with the press that Europe has a “cognitive split” in its policy toward China, by trying to be both a partner and also seeing it as an opponent. Do you agree with Wang Yi? What is the EU’s state, here?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:
I think Wang Yi is a very good diplomat: Because I could easily find much more harsh words for describing a person who has a split mind. So I think he’s very diplomatic.

I mean, the Europeans on one side see—there are many people in Europe who see it as their self-interest to have good relations with China. On the other side, there are also people who are just NATO representatives within the EU so to speak. So I think many do not have the backbone to stand up against U.S. and British pressure, but increasingly, it’s a question of credibility of the West in general. If you look at their policy toward Afghanistan, for example, it’s completely disgusting.

So I think the content of the policies will become increasingly important, and I think Europe will have to make up its mind, to follow its self-interest or not.

CGTN: Indeed, that’s the autonomy that European Union leaders have been talking about for quite a long time. Thank you.

We have been talking to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank.

The full podcast is available here. Ms. LaRouche’s remarks start at min 26.06.


Pakistan TV Special Broadcast on OIC Extraordinary Meeting On Afghanistan Gets Briefing From Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Hussein Askary

Dec. 17 (EIRNS)—What follows are the exchanges with Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Hussein Askary on Pakistan’s PTV panel discussion on the Organization of Islamic Countries’ Extraordinary Meeting on Afghanistan. PTV’s host was Faisal Rehman. The two-part broadcast included in-studio guests, former Ambassador Naila Chuhan, and defense analyst Lt. Gen. Talat Masood (ret.), with Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche online from Germany; and in the second part, defense analyst Lt. Gen. Raza Muhammad Khan (ret.) and former Ambassador Naghmana Hashmi in studio, with Schiller Institute analyst Hussein Askary online from Sweden. Although time did not allow for transcribing the other guests, their remarks reflected important thinking, including our influence and is worth watching at this link

FAISAL REHMAN: Assalamualaikum, you’re watching PTV World, and I’m Faisal Rehman with a special cast mission on this very important OIC conference that has been held in Islamabad. And as we all know, the main reason is about the Afghan crisis. This is in fact the largest gathering after the Aug. 15, when the Taliban took over the regime in Afghanistan. As we all know, winter has approached, there are a lot of crisis, whether we talk about the economic upset that is there, or we talk about the banking collapse; there is lack of flow of money, so the government in Afghanistan currently can’t even pay the salaries of the government employees. And having said that, the crisis is so huge, that it is believed that 60% of the total population of Afghanistan is at the verge of almost starvation. There is no medical facilities as such, and the people are really depending on the neighboring countries, such as Pakistan, and Iran, perhaps; and on the northern side, the Central Asian countries as well.

But having said that, now the issue is so huge that Pakistan in fact took the initiative and called the OIC members to attend this very important summit, so that this particular issue could be taken care of.

And we all know the Western world isn’t supporting as such—the Americans, they have frozen their $9.5 billion U.S. dollars and that was much needed for the revival of their economy. And so the case is, from a lot of European countries as well, in fact, initially, they planned for help, but nothing has arrived so far.

As we will be running this transmission for the next three days, till Sunday, so this is the beginning in fact, and let us show you a report that our production team has prepared, and then I’ll introduce you to our panelists.

NARRATOR: A deepening humanitarian quandary of Afghanistan reflects the flawed approach of international community towards Afghanistan, with tragic consequences. The crumbling healthcare system, economic meltdown of aid-dependent economy, pandemic, food insecurity, access abated by drought, and harsh winter all combine to create a perfect storm for killing more Afghans than bullets. Raising further alarm, the UN envoy for Afghanistan Deborah Lyons said an estimated 60% of Afghanistan’s 38 million people are facing crisis levels of hunger in a food emergency that will likely worsen over the winter.

DEBORAH LYONS: “Now is not the time to turn away from the Afghan people. We must find ways to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe and the terrible loss of life, that could happen over the winter.”

NARRATOR: According to UNICEF around 3.2 million Afghan children are acutely malnourished and 1.4 million children are at risk of dying because of severe acute malnutrition, unless we intervene with treatment. Explaining the country’s worst humanitarian disaster, Abdallah Al Dardari, the resident representative of the UNDP in Afghanistan, some 23 million people are in desperate need of food. The $20 billion economy could shrink by $4 billion or more, and 97% of the 38 million population are at risk of sinking into poverty.

As an emphatic gesture, Pakistan has announced $28 million medical, food, and other humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan, while also authorizing the transport of food aid from India through Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The ensuing catastrophe is preventable as releasing the frozen funds, the Afghan Central Bank’s $9 billion reserves, most of which are held in the U.S. would alleviate the current humanitarian crisis. UNICEF official Samantha Markle noted that “This is no time for political brinksmanship. People in Afghanistan are dying and they need our support. Humanitarian aid is the last expression of human solidarity.” [end video]

REHMAN: And now to talk about it, let me introduce you to our panelists. We have with us in our studio, on my right is Ma’am Naila Chuhan. She is a former ambassador, senior diplomat. Thank you so much for your time. And we also have Lt. Gen. Talat Masood (ret.), who is a senior analyst—thank you also for your time. And on Skype we have with us from Germany, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of Schiller Institute: Thank you so much, Helga Zepp for your time as well. A pleasure to have you on the show….

I still remember, when as a kid, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and there were a lot of people who migrated to Pakistan. And at the Eid time, I remember, during that time period, a lot of planes used to come from Saudi Arabia and they would bring in meat for these people. So these is what we have seen during those crises, but currently it’s worse right now, but nothing is being done.

But let’s see what Miss Helga Zepp has to share with us. Ma’am, looking at the current Afghan crisis and the summit that Pakistan is having in Islamabad, now your take: what sort of hope do you have about the Afghan people, that, yes, there is going to be some sort of help in terms of cash and kind, both.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, I think it’s extremely important what Pakistan is doing right now, by hosting this summit—by Pakistan taking the leadership in a situation where the West has morally completely failed. I mean, this is a moral bankruptcy declaration, because, this is not a crisis which was not foreseeable, because, one week after the withdrawal of the U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan was clear, that the country was in a complete shambles. And now, almost four months have passed since, and it is clear that more than 90% of the people are in danger of dying of hunger, of the cold in the freezing winter, and this has been known in the West for several months. But in the news, Afghanistan has completely disappeared from the Western media.

So I think this conference is a real chance to show who is the moral superior factor in the situation. And I’m so ashamed that the West is not capable of freeing—the money which is being withheld by the U.S. Treasury and the European banks, this money belongs to the Afghan people, and we are in a campaign with the Schiller Institute, both in the United States and in Western Europe to demand that these monies be unfrozen right away.

But I actually would like to mention something which is a little bit more hopeful element: I have called for an Operation Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina was probably the most famous doctor in the history of mankind, the most famous physician. He lived about one thousand years ago. And right now, to build a modern health system in Afghanistan, that would be the beginning of overcoming not only the humanitarian crisis, but also starting a real economic development and to give that the name of Ibn Sina, it would bring forward—and I would actually hope that OIC countries, being the Islamic countries of the would, that they would adopt Operation Ibn Sina. If they all would work together—Ibn Sina, the synonym for not only saving the Afghan people right now, in this incredible humanitarian crisis, but all working together to build up economically this country which has a very proud history. The whole region was once known as the Land of a Thousand Cities. Ibn Sina is not just a physician, but he was one of the great universal thinkers, who contributed a lot to philosophy and many areas of knowledge.

So, I think this is a moment where history can change in a positive way. I think the West has failed and now hopefully the Islamic countries, together with the neighboring countries of Afghanistan can step in. I mean, it’s unbelievable what is happening: that the world would know of such a humanitarian tragedy and not act, I think this is a point where people have to really think about what does that mean about the moral condition of the world? I think Operation Ibn Sina could be a tremendous change in the situation.

REHMAN: Now, a very interesting point, and let me take this debate to the lady in Germany: Mrs. Helga, now a couple of important points. One is when Mr. Hamid Karzai was gotten, nobody knew him. And he was there for two terms, because he was the blue-eyed boy of the Americans, certainly, when he made certain remarks, and he was pretty open. Then there was this, I would say, change, as far as the leadership was concerned, and two terms were given to Mr. Ashraf Ghani, who ended up running away, leaving the Afghan people. And interesting part is in every election, if was believed that they were rigged and they were so close that initially Abdullah Abdullah was made the Foreign Minister, and later on, again, since he was also running for President, he said, well, I’m the President; and he ended up becoming the CEO, and again then in the second term, he was again given another responsibility. Now the point is, if that is acceptable to the Americans, that Mr. John Kerry flies all the way from U.S.A., comes here, creates a new appointment, and settles down things—if that is acceptable, Ma’am, why is the Taliban regime not acceptable to the Americans? Is it because they’re ashamed of their loss in Afghanistan? Or perhaps, they never expected Taliban to take charge so quickly, within days, in fact?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, obviously, it is a shameful experience. I mean, the United States military is the strongest military on the planet, and combined with NATO, there is simply no other military force stronger—and to be defeated by essentially 65,000 Taliban fighters, is not exactly a heroic experience. I think some of the military who were involved are still licking their wounds, and they have a hard time to digest the fact that they really suffered an incredible defeat.

But that doesn’t take away the responsibility—I mean, in the history of military affairs, if you defeat an enemy, you have a certain responsibility for what happens. In the same way, even if you lose, the fact that the West, NATO and the United States, and the German Bundeswehr and many others, were for 20 years fighting in Afghanistan gives them a moral responsibility to deal with the people. And what is happening now, by sanctioning Afghanistan, by withholding the funds, they’re punishing the Afghan people! The Taliban in a certain sense, the argument that the Taliban are not respecting women’s rights, that may be true, but if you starve more than 90% of the population, you are doing much worse to the women. And the pictures of the dying children and dying babies, I would really like that these pictures should haunt the people who are withholding the help! There is no—this is bordering genocide! Because the effects are all known: Withholding the money right now, it’s the biggest crime I can imagine! So I think we have to really arouse the world public much more, because what you do, by doing this, you force the Taliban practically to go back to the drug production and the drug trade. The Taliban do not want to have drug production, it goes against their religious beliefs.

And in 2000, the UN [drug and crime] representative Pino Arlacchi was negotiating with the Taliban, and they gave up the drug production. The explosion of the drugs occurred after NATO came into the country, and now, by withholding the funds, you are forcing the Taliban to get money from somewhere. So this will have an incredible amount of deaths within Europe, in Russia, China, where the drugs will find their way to go.

It also means, if you say you have to have an opposition to the Taliban, well, you’re encouraging terrorism. I mean the refugee crisis. If this is not remedied very quickly, you will have millions of people trying to escape hunger and disease and the cold, and you will have a tremendous refugee crisis which will burden the neighboring countries. But these refugees who then try to get to Turkey or to Europe—there is just no explanation for what is happening right now which would have any rationale and justification.

I think hopefully this conference taking place in Islamabad right now, also would find an appeal to the rest of the world, to open their eyes. Because what’s at stake, these are the kinds of branching points, where you either go in the direction of becoming more human or becoming more barbarian. And right now, the West has clearly decided on the latter. And I think that has to be remedied.

REHMAN: According to our foreign minister, the Afghan interim foreign minister is also going to attend this conference, along with the Chinese delegation and the Russian, as well as the American. Now, since the American presence will be there, ma’am, do you think that the OIC members, if they agree—let’s suppose if they agree that countries like Saudi Arabia can provide fuel for a certain time, let’s say, for a year on deferred payments or something of that sort; a few countries, like Russia can provide wheat, because the wheat consumption is a lot in Afghanistan, so is the case with rice. Certain countries, Pakistan might, let’s suppose end up agreeing that the Indians can bring in food supplies via Pakistan to Afghanistan, there are these decisions—because this is also going to be some sort of a negotiation, that if India wants to help, we will let them help. But there has to be some sort of condition then; this is the way it should be. Because there is a lot trust deficit also.

Similarly, when we talk about this important point, that we’re not saying let’s accept the regime, but at least talk to them! Do you think this is the basic point from where we can start the negotiation?

Since our foreign minister was also throwing light on this very important aspect of humanitarian crisis, and he said, we will try our level best to sort this issue out, and he also said he had a meeting with the Secretary General of the OIC which was very productive.

Now, one quick comment: as far as the media is concerned, because you were saying there is no news about Afghanistan in the Western media, in Europe, is this story regarding this particular moot, where the OIC members are meeting in Islamabad, is that also a story in your television channels, or in the papers, or on the net?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. The coverage of Afghanistan has practically disappeared. There was a big upset in the immediate aftermath, after the troops went out, and for three or four weeks it was the issue, but in the three months, in Italy, in France, in Germany, you don’t find any coverage at all. I think if one follows the media from the region, a lot of very promising signs—for example, I thought the fact that India and Pakistan agreed to use the Pakistan route to transport food from India this was a very important step, and I know for India what happens in Afghanistan is also extremely important. So one could only wish that the regional cooperation is overcoming older geopolitical conflicts. Also naturally the meetings which took place in the Central Asian Republics involving Russia and China. But I think the question of the Extended Troika should also be pushed because I think the involvement of the United States in a constructive effort, that in my view is the breaking issue, because if the United States could be convinced to take a positive attitude it would be an extremely important stepping stone for an otherwise extremely dangerous geopolitical confrontation between the United States, and Russia and China.

So in a certain sense, to get all the forces internationally together to help Afghanistan is in my view one of the absolute, important historical missions. In a certain sense, I think the whole destiny of mankind is in a laser, concentrated on what happens in Afghanistan. So I would really hope that all the participating and affected countries would double and multiply their efforts to make saving Afghanistan an issue of the whole world, because right now it is now. And I think all channels must be used: media, United Nations, conferences: there must be a drumbeat, a drumbeat of awakening the conscience of the world, because I think this is sort of a judgment of our ability as a human species: Are we morally fit to survive or not?

So in one sense, I think the fate of Afghanistan and the fate of humanity are much more closely connected than most people can imagine.

REHMAN: Very well said, Ma’am. Very well said. And I hope, in fact, to close this segment of our transmission on this note. And Ma’am, when we talk about U.S. President Joe Biden, he thinks he is the champion of humanitarian crisis, he always talks about the issues all over the world, doesn’t speak much about Kashmir or Palestine, for that matter. Neither have we heard much from him regarding Afghanistan. I think this is the high time that all human beings are created equal, so I think this is something really important, and the Americans should take a lead, if they consider themselves as the globe leaders or the masters in that matter, they should definitely come up and come up with some sort of solution, proper remedy for this issue. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, thank you so much for your presence and it was a pleasure having you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Thank you….

REHMAN: Welcome back to our transmission. We are talking about this very important OIC moot that is being held in Islamabad, to make sure that the humanitarian issues should be taken care of, that are posing a significant threat to the public of Afghanistan. As we know, they have the social issue, the economic problems, the bank which is at the verge of collapse. The accounts have been frozen, $9.5 billion of the Afghan people’s funds that is being held in the United States of America and other Western countries, that has been frozen and not released. There is acute shortage of food, and it is believed that 60% of the total population is at the verge of an absolute catastrophe. 1.1 million children can die if there is no appropriate help available at the right time; plus about 3.2 children are at the verge of starvation.

So a lot of issues in Afghanistan, and Pakistan has taken the initiative to have this moot in Islamabad, so the issue of Afghanistan should be raised and the Western countries should come forward and help the Afghan people.

Now, in our second portion we are joined by Lt. Gen. Raza Muhammad Khan (ret.) who is a senior analyst…. and former Ambassador Naghmana Hashmi, senior diplomat and former ambassador—Ma’am, a pleasure to have you on the show. And from Stockholm, Sweden, we’ve been joined by Hussein Askary, who’s an expert on international relations. A pleasure to have you, Askary, sir….

Now, coming to you Hussein Askary: $2.2 trillion being spent—wisely or otherwise, that’s a separate question—20 years of war in Afghanistan. And at the end of the day, millions of people got displaced, hundreds of thousands of them got killed. Around 55, 60 countries invaded. Not even one is there to support them, now. So perhaps they were there to liberate, but they couldn’t liberate, so from liberalization to starvation: 20 years, $2.2 trillion: What sort of economic equation is this, sir? Let’s throw light on it.

NAGHMANA HASHMI: It’s more like $6 trillion.

HUSSEIN ASKARY: Also your guests have correctly pointed to some very important things [about the nature of the OIC meeting, including the UNSC P5 countries, and what should be planned]. But I think Pakistan’s efforts to alleviate the situation in Afghanistan are laudable. I read the letter written by Foreign Minister [Shah Mahmood] Qureshi, and he correctly pointed out that the danger is looming, and the urgency of nations, both in the Islamic world, but also internationally to move, quickly, to both release the funds of the Afghan people, these funds, the $9.5 billion have been frozen in the United States and European banks, these belong to the Afghani nation, they don’t belong to the Taliban.

And your Foreign Minister also correctly pointed to the fact that there are millions of people in Afghanistan are now thinking about taking their children and moving outside of Afghanistan, to Iran, Pakistan, wherever they could. And this would be an even greater humanitarian crisis. But the international institutions like the World Food Program and others, have pointed out that there are millions, 20 million at least, of these people are threatened by starvation, and therefore there should be a first step is to unfreeze the funds of the Afghan people, because that would be the quickest way to get food, medicine and other needs for the Afghan people—in addition, of course, to the humanitarian aid. But that’s primary.

Now, the thing is, what we have seen, as you have pointed out, the crisis in Afghanistan is not caused by Taliban takeover. It is caused by 20 years of failures of the trans-Atlantic world, with trillions of dollars spent, only on military operations, security operations. As your guests said, they failed to build the capacity in Afghanistan, to produce food, to have decent healthcare, to have the basics of life produced inside Afghanistan. So this is a massive failures, and now we have this cynical game, where as your foreign minister has clearly pointed out that if you now starve the Afghan people, which is a crime, actually, against humanity—this collective punishment—what you will create is a chaotic security situation which will breed terrorism, it will breed mass emigration—it will breed the same things you claim to what to prevent.

So, this is a clear failure, but we are now mobilizing, that every effort should be made to resolve the situation, to get people in the United States and in Europe back to their senses. The Schiller Institute is involved in an international campaign to push the U.S. congress, to push the European politicians and governments, and humanitarian organizations are also supporting this effort, to unfreeze the funds of Afghanistan people, and start to work with the de facto government in Afghanistan, in Kabul to start humanitarian aid.

Now, the one important thing which your guests also pointed out, is related to the OIC, the Islamic nations have been suppressed, but that is because we had an era of geopolitics which has just ended in Afghanistan. Even President Biden said, the withdrawal from Afghanistan marks the end of an era. Now whatever he means by that, what we mean by that, is there is a new paradigm in international relations: the age of geopolitics, where you can pit one nation against the other, to make geopolitical gains—not really any service to humanity, and in that geopolitical game of divide and conquer, Islamic nations, Muslim nations were pitted against each other, like in Libya, then Syria, in Yemen, and it’s continuing until today! So it is time that we move away from geopolitics, including all the Muslim nations: They should not be involved in this geopolitical game of divide and conquer—and unite the effort to push the new paradigm which is exemplified by the Belt and Road Initiative. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the best vehicle to stretch the New Silk Road, this new strategy for reconstruction and win-win cooperation, into Afghanistan, and all the neighbors of Afghanistan will benefit from this, the world will benefit from this.

So this is the end of an era, and Muslim nations have to unite their efforts, also with other non-Muslim nations, like for example, we have in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This will lead us, as your guests said, into both alleviating the immediate humanitarian crisis, but also pave the wave to a long-term solution based on economic cooperation, building of infrastructure, and building a health platform, which our institute, as the chairwoman of our institute has discussed on your television broadcast: We have Operation Ibn Sina to create, starting with Afghanistan and Yemen, a healthcare platform, which is based on building the necessary infrastructure—water, power, transport, education and so on—to bring modern healthcare to the people. That’s the only way nations in the East and the West can work together, so we can close the chapter, the bloody chapter of geopolitics, which has extended now for 40 years—not only the last 20 years—and cost millions of lives, caused massive misery, mass emigration, as you experienced yourself in Pakistan. So this is an opportunity as well as a crisis time. So we should seize the opportunity to unite the efforts both of the Muslim nations, but also the international community, to bring a more human solution to the situation.

REHMAN: One quick comment before I return to our guests in the studio. Earlier we had a guest from Germany, and she was mentioning the fact that there is no news about Afghanistan in the Western media. And since you live in Scandinavia, and perhaps countries like Norway and even Sweden, or Denmark for that matter, Finland, these are the countries, the champions of humanitarian crises, and the sufferings of the people, they’re always very vocal about it. What is the current scenario? Is this moot also being talked about in the Western media, in particular in Scandinavia?

ASKARY: No, your guest from Germany was obviously correct. Afghanistan has disappeared from the media coverage. The only things that are reported are people shedding crocodile tears over the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan, but they’re ignorant of the fact that these actions, the sanctions against Afghanistan are killing women and girls and children in Afghanistan. We have a few humanitarian organizations that have actually made public calls for relaunching the humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, so we have many Nordic organizations that have been involved in Afghanistan for many years, and now they are making public calls. They get a limited coverage. But remember that now the governments and the elites here in Scandinavia, in Europe generally, and also in the United States they are united now to focus on what they call “stopping China and Russia.” Because those countries, most of them in NATO, they failed in Afghanistan. But they want to shift the attention from their failure and the misery they have created in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on, to saying that the problems of the world are because you have two authoritarian regimes in Russia and China, and we have to stop them. And this is complete madness, because what we will get is a World War III: It will be fought not by regular armies, but by nuclear weapons. And this is a recipe for the extinction of the human race!

So those people in the media are supporting the war machine here, even in Scandinavia, to focus on how to fight and stop Russia and China.

Now, Pakistan gets part of the blame in the situation here in the media, because they say Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, and this is really evil propaganda—

REHMAN: —at the end of the day, the narratives are always set by the Western world. And these are those narratives.

ASKARY: Yes, but there is a reality on the ground. It is reality which will determine the outcome of things, not what people say in the media, not what these intelligence agencies are writing and sending to the media to tell the people. There is a reality: The world has changed. The power of the world, the economic power of the world has moved to the East. We have massive social and economic problems here in Europe. We have an electricity crisis, right here in Europe! We have a healthcare crisis, right here in Europe! So these realities will determine which way nations will go, not what people in the military-industrial complex and their media agents are saying.

REHMAN: Perfectly said, perfectly said….

Last comment from you, closing remarks, Askary, sir.

ASKARY: Thank you very much. It has been a very enriching discussion here, I think. On the question of India, it is ironical that it was on your television, or another program perhaps, I suggested a month before India decided to send wheat through Pakistan, that India and Pakistan should work together on economic cooperation. Forget about all the British geopolitics that have created the Kashmir problems and other problems: that there’s a way for India to come back to its geo-economic and cultural environment. India is not an Atlantic country. There is an identity crisis in India. They want to have one foot in Asia, but the other foot in the Atlantic, and that is creating big problems for India.

There is a reality which India cannot surpass, which is a geographical, cultural, historical situation, and this is a very good case of that geo-economics, is superior geopolitics. And it was a welcome thing when I saw that your Prime Minister Imran Khan even accepted to allow the Indian wheat to go to Afghanistan, as I had suggested a month earlier. But then, due to these, sometimes quite silly geopolitical and other games this did not go through. But this is a very good a case where Pakistan’s position in the region should be reinforced by not by these games—

REHMAN: —absolutely. Very important point, especially this particular action of Pakistan is also opening up so many avenues for both these countries to at least start talking, start negotiating.

ASKARY: And India has everything to gain from working with Pakistan—

REHMAN: All right, thank you so much, Askary, for your discussion. That’s all we have for this hour.


Page 2 of 7123...Last