Helga Zepp-LaRouche was one of the guests on CGTN’s “Dialogue” program’s coverage of the situation in Xinjiang. She focused on the tremendous development of China that he she had seen over the years, and the background to Xinjiang destabilization in Brzezinski’s creating terrorism in the U.S. war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Also appearing on the show was Sultan Hali, speaker at the recent Schiller Institute conference.
Beijing Welcomes Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s ‘Declaration of China Experts from All Over the World’
March 26 (EIRNS)—The Spokesperson’s Office of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released the statement following today:
The French Schiller Institute statement condemned the recent anti-China movement. Chinese Spokesperson Hua Chunying stated: “It reflects the rational and just voice of insightful people in the international community.”
At the regular press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on March 26, a CCTV reporter from the main station asked: “On March 24, the Schiller Institute released on its website a ‘Declaration of China Experts from all Over the World,’ which was jointly signed by 34 dignitaries from 18 countries, including former politicians, diplomats and scholars. The statement condemned the recent international anti-China movement, and called on the West to acknowledge China’s development achievements and splendid culture, have cooperation rather than confrontation with China. What is China’s comment?”
Hua Chunying: “We have taken note of the above-mentioned statement. It represents the rational and just voice of visionary people in the world, condemns and rejects the crazy words and deeds of the western anti-China forces that wantonly attack, smear and even crafted rumors against China in disregard of facts.
“The signatories of the statement have either lived and worked in China, or traveled to China on a regular basis for long stays. They all have first-hand experience and objective observation of China. Many of them have witnessed the remarkable achievement China has scored since reform and opening up. They witnessed the journey where the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese government, with a people-centered approach, led 850 million Chinese people out of extreme poverty. More recently, they have seen how 1.4 billion Chinese people, united as one, defeated the COVID-19 epidemic. Their statement once again proves that seeing is believing.
“As a matter of fact, many foreign friends who have been living in or dealing with China for many years find that the closer they get to China, the more they will see that China in reality is far from, or even completely opposite to the image some Western media and politicians try to portray. I saw a lot of video clips uploaded by foreigners saying that they realized they were fooled by foreign media reports only after arriving in China and seeing the country as it is. China has always been open to the world. We welcome people from across the world to get closer to us and understand China. We hope certain individuals in the west will discard bias, return to rationality, liberate their thinking, seek truth from facts and view China from an objective perspective.”
Spokesperson’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Official release of China’s foreign policy
Authoritative interpretation of China’s position and attitude
July 13 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave the following interview to China Plus radio’s World Today broadcast today. China Plus is the official English website of China Radio International. The interview is the second news story starting at 12:55 minutes
CRI: Welcome back. The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed China’s resolution on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, at the 47th session, which emphasizes the right to development and that the aim of development is to improve the developing of the people. For more, we are now joined on the line by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany based economic and political think tank. Thanks for joining us Dr. LaRouche.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, hello! How are you?
CRI: I’m good, thank you. So, the resolution stresses that development and the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. How do we understand those?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, let me express my congratulation. I think this is an excellent development, because hopefully this will inspire a very productive discussion everywhere around the world, what is the right definition of human rights. And I think the interdependence between development and human rights and freedom, you can see best if you look at the lack of development. Because then you have poverty, and you have still on the planet, 2 billion people who have no access to clean water, more than 800 million are and you have no freedom if you have all day to try to get a little bit of water and a little bit to eat, just to try to stay alive, so you have no freedom under these conditions. So therefore, I think development is very clearly the precondition for both human rights with freedom.
CRI: Yes, but that is very different from the Western explanation for human rights, which all starts with the ballot box and has everything to do with individual freedom. How did it get the different priorities when it comes to the human rights issue?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well first of all, I think one has to see that the label isn’t always consistent with the content. Many things which have the label “democracy” and “human rights” have quite some different content, and in the case of the Western parliamentarian system, or unfortunately even the presidential system in some countries, is more a plutocracy, where the money of the multinationals and the big banks determine who gets a seat. Also, I think if you look at the overemphasis of individual freedom it has degenerated into a notion, everything is allowed, and the common good is regarded as a suppression of these individual freedoms.
Now, if you have a crisis, like in the case of COVID-19, you can see what the consequences of this is. China and some other Asian nations took strict measures for the common good, and it worked well, and then also the individuals profited because they were rid of the pandemic earlier; while in the West you had a back and forth, people were even protesting against having to wear masks, regarding that as an intrusion in their personal freedom, and they had to pay a much, much bigger price.
CRI: Well, representatives from countries including Venezuela, Cuba, and Pakistan also made speeches to appreciate China for delivering those draft resolutions and stressed that development should be the focus of every country, especially developing countries. But why is the resolution getting support from these countries?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s very simple: Because in the entire post-World War II period, the IMF conditionalities prevented real development in the developing sector. They were told, you have to pay your debt first before you can invest in infrastructure or health, and the result was a blatant underdevelopment and incredible poverty. So, China, even before the Belt and Road, invested in railways in Africa and other infrastructure, but especially with the Belt and Road Initiative and the COVID crisis, it became very clear that these countries regarded the help from China—which was denounced as “vaccine diplomacy” by some Western media—but these developing countries regarded the attitude of China as a life-saver for them. So, it’s no surprise that they would support it.
CRI: And I think you earlier mentioned about what should be the right definition of human rights. And another question is who gets to pick what the most basic human rights should be? And have you got a feeling that this has been heavily guided by a small number of mostly Western nations which has led to a general bias in favor of the civil, political liberties over economic, social, and cultural rights?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. You can see that right now very clearly in the case of the so-called “identity policy.” For example, between the EU Commission and countries such as Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, there is a big tension right now, whereas in the East, they have rejected the effort by the EU Commission to impose the values of the Western liberal European countries.
So, I think what needs to be put up front again, is the Five Principles of peaceful coexistence and the idea of non-interference in the different social systems, because they are, due to customs, traditions, cultural heritage and these must be respected.
CRI: In 2019 a study by the Center for New American Security—that is a Washington-based think tank—says that China’s actions in the UN were part of this effort to redefine how such institutions are run and shift away from Western concepts of democracy and human rights. What is your thought on those?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, China has been the leading nation for centuries, and only in the 18th and 19th centuries, because of the colonialist attacks and Opium Wars by the British, you know, that that was diminished. But now, China is again the second largest economy in the world. The lifting of poverty of 850 million people represents a tremendous civilizational contribution, and therefore, I think, it is absolutely correct that China should have a major role in this discussion.
CRI: OK, but do you feel the widespread back and forth surrounding human rights issues around the world currently has been highly politicized? And sometimes it has even been used as a tool for political purposes and sometimes as an excuse to put pressure on other countries or even invade other countries?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. These notions, human rights and democracy, have become like a two by four: You can smash any argument into the ground. So, I think this double standard needs to be corrected. Those people in the West who support sanctions under conditions of the COVID-19 crisis against such countries as Syria, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela—I think altogether 30 countries—I mean, this is a violation of human rights if you ever have seen one. Or, if you look at how Assange is treated, or what happened to Snowden, all these people just did the right thing, and they have been treated in an absolutely horrible way. So, this double standard should be stopped.
CRI: What are the consequences of such double standards or politicizing such human rights issues? Is it like shifting our focus away from the real human rights problems?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, it poisons the atmosphere, and it degenerates the idea of human rights, which is actually a beautiful idea, and makes it a victim to geopolitical reasons.
Now, the Schiller Institute is upholding this concept of the “New Name for Peace Is Development.” This comes originally from Pope Paul VI in 1967 in his Encyclical Populorum Progressio, where he coined that idea that the “new name for peace is development.”
And this is very important right now, concretely in Afghanistan. Look, for example, NATO spent there 20 years for absolutely nothing, and now the question is what’s to come out of Afghanistan? Will you continue the geopolitical war? Or, will you have an agreement among all neighbors, like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, and have real development? The real development would mean to extend the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative into Afghanistan, but also into Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the whole region. And then you can have peace. So this is not an abstract academic notion, this is an extremely actual issue, that the idea that real peace does require development, that that is a precondition without which nothing will function.
CRI: OK, thank you Dr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche was interviewed by Zhong Shi today, the host of the “Asia Today” program on CGTN, as part of its lead coverage on the crisis in Afghanistan.
Zhong Shi: I want to now also bring in Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the president and founder of the Schiller Institute, a German-based political and economic think tank. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche, welcome to the program. It’s a pleasure to have you on today.
The Pentagon says returning Bagram base to Afghan security forces was a key milestone in U.S. military withdrawal. Now, the question is, what type of milestone will this be for Afghanistan? How will this affect the country’s ability to fight against the Taliban?
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think it’s a very serious situation. There is the danger of civil war, not only between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, but according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, who yesterday pointed to the fact that there are now ISIS forces massing in the north of Afghanistan. I think the danger is that the war will continue, this time with Afghans killing Afghans, so I think it does require some other approach. Something completely different than just withdrawing and leaving the place as it is.
Zhong: The world is now watching the situation unfold in Afghanistan. We know the Taliban certainly has been sweeping into districts as foreign troops go home. When the United States watches what is happening right now in Afghanistan, how would you characterize Joe Biden’s policy towards Afghanistan after U.S. forces leave? He certainly has promised continued support.
Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I’m not so sure. Obviously, this is a quagmire. Twenty years of war and lost lives and lost money for nothing. I think that the withdrawal from Afghanistan has similar reasons like the United States reducing logistics in other parts of the Persian Gulf. It’s in part, in my view, this focus on the Pacific, on Russia, on China. So per se, it’s not an Afghanistan policy, but it’s more a policy led by geostrategic considerations. I think this is a path to disaster as well.
Look, Afghanistan in the last year, the opium production increased by 45%. Afghanistan produces 85% of the world’s opium production. If you just leave that, the Taliban will for sure increase that production as a way of financing their military operations. The deaths will be in the streets of the United States and Europe, of the many addicts. In Afghanistan, there are 3.5 million drug addicts, but that just shows that you need to have a completely different approach to solve this problem.
Militarily, Afghanistan cannot be won. That was proven by the Soviet Union trying to win for 10 years, now the United States and NATO for 20 years. I think it’s high time to rethink, that one needs to have a completely different approach than the continuation of the same.
Zhong: As you say, it would be 20 years of a war for nothing, if Afghanistan quickly descended back into chaos; into where it was before the war. Some fear that this is more likely to become a reality once foreign troops are gone. What do you think are the chances that this will happen? That Afghanistan will dive deeper into a civil war?
Zepp-LaRouche: As I said, if nothing is being done, it will be a nightmare. There will be more terrorism, which will spread not only in the region, but beyond. I think there must be a change in the approach. The only way there would be any hope to stabilize the situation is if you bring real economic development to Afghanistan, but also to the entire region, of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, all these countries which have been destroyed by the endless wars. This could be taken as one region, and one should understand that both the problem of terrorism, but also the problem of drugs, is one which should concern all the countries—the United States, Russia, China, Iran, India. They should all work together for an economic development perspective. One could extend the Belt and Road Initiative, the New Silk Road. The previous president, Karzai, saw that he sees the only hope for Afghanistan would be development. And the new name for peace is development, also in Afghanistan. So, my wish would be that this could become a subject of a UN Security Council special conference. President Putin has demanded, in any case, that the Permanent Five of the UN Security Council should meet. That would be one of the urgent items; how to prevent Afghanistan becoming a source of terrorism, drug trafficking, and just a nightmare for everybody. And how can you stop thinking in terms of geopolitical confrontation, and concentrate on the common aims of mankind? I think Afghanistan is one of these absolute crossroads—it is a crossroad—but also a crossroad in the history of mankind.
Zhong: This is more of a pressing issue by the day. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, we appreciate your analysis today; thank you so much for taking the opportunity to talk to us.
Interviews with Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Jacques Cheminade appeared on a newscast by CCTV-13 reporting on U.S. reactions to the just-concluded National People’s Congress. CCTV journalist Wang Guang reported on the reaction of U.S. think tanks to the ideas presented during the Two Sessions with regard to U.S.-China trade and the Belt and Road Initiative.
The broadcast then shifted to an interview done with Helga at the Morristown Schiller Institute conference. Zepp-LaRouche said:
“I personally think it is the most important strategic initiative, because it is a concept with which you can overcome geopolitics. Geopolitics has been the cause of two wars in the 20th Century, and the idea that you can not have blocs of countries or nations against nations, but that you have what Xi Jinping always calls the ‘community of the shared future of humanity,’ that you put the one humanity first, is a strategic concept which allows you to overcome the divisions which existed in previous centuries.”
This was followed by Cheminade, who said,
“The Chinese way is to a world integration through common development, what President Xi Jinping calls a ‘win-win’ system. So that is a future. The Chinese want a world development. They don’t want to impose their model, but they don’t want the other models to impose upon them.”
Helga’s clip was also aired on CCTV Plus, an English-language CCTV site, on a program entitled “Foreign Experts Applaud Development Concepts.”
Sputnik International published an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, identified as head of the Germany’s Civil Rights Movement Solidarity (BüSo) party, warning that if Europe hosts new U.S. missiles it will sign a “suicide pact,” and that the solution to strategic tensions is to expose the real authors of Russiagate. The interview was published in the English (International) and Portuguese-Brazilian editions of Sputnik and picked up by a newswire in Indonesia. The dispatch was headlined: “Europe to Sign Own ‘Suicide Pact’ If Hosts New U.S. Missiles — German Politician.”
“Europe’s possible agreement to host U.S. intermediate and shorter-range ballistic missiles will be tantamount to signing a ‘suicide pact’ in light of Russia’s declared resolve to target these potential security threats, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the leader of Germany’s Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party, told Sputnik.
“`If Europe were to accept the installation of new U.S. missiles on its territory in this strategic environment, it would sign a suicide pact,’ Zepp-LaRouche said.
“According to the politician, amid somewhat war-mongering rhetoric in the West, Putin `just reintroduced a reality principle and clarity’ with his warnings.
“‘Despite President [Donald] Trump’s stated intention to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia, including that he may have one idea of replacing the INF treaty with a new agreement, Putin has to take into account the contrary intention of the neocons in the Trump administration and the British ‘minister of war,’ Gavin Williamson, who threatens to use ‘hard power’ and also claims that the ‘boundaries between peace and war are becoming blurred,’ she clarified, making a reference to Williamson’s 2019 Munich Security Conference speech. [sic—Williamson’s speech was on Feb. 11 at the Royal United Services Institute—ed.]
“Meanwhile, Europe’s ‘fundamental self-interest,’ Zepp-LaRouche believed, lay in removing sanctions on Russia and re-establishing good relations with Moscow by creating ‘an economic zone from the Atlantic to the Pacific on the basis of integrating the Belt and Road Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU.’
“She went on to note that such cooperation would create ‘a new security architecture’ that should become the basis on which Europe builds its cooperation with the United States.
“When asked to suggest ways to overcome the rifts in the global security environment between Russia and the West, Zepp-LaRouche opined that once the ‘real authors’ of ‘Russiagate’ — the scandal around Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which Russia strongly denies — were revealed, ‘most of the strategic tensions would evaporate.'”
As part of the continuing impact of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s October, 2018 address in Moscow at the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a lengthy article, based on her address, was published this week on the official websites of both the BRICS organization and of the Russian National Committee on BRICS Research. The article by Richard A. Black of The Schiller Institute is entitled, “The Trump Presidency: A New Opportunity for the BRICS?”
The Russian National Committee on BRICS Research was set up in coordination with the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It conducts on-going scientific research on strategic policy for Russia, in her role as initiator, in 2006, and as a leading member of the BRICS. The article discusses the surprising potential for US collaboration with the BRICS, beginning, first, with space exploration joint work, and it features Lyndon and Helga LaRouche’s “new ordering principle” for world affairs as proposed by Helga LaRouche at the Institute, in October.
On November 27, Sputnik News published an article covering Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s insights into the British interference in the 2016 US elections. The article starts,
“Washington has accused Russia on multiple occasions of allegedly meddling in the 2016 presidential elections, leading to a special investigation into the matter. Moscow has firmly denied the accusations, pointing out that no evidence has been presented so far to prove them. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, headquartered in Washington, DC, told Sputnik that British intelligence agencies сould have been behind the alleged meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections…”
Read the full article here here: Pundit Suggests UK Could Have Meddled in 2016 US Elections
On November 27 the United News of India and Pakistan’s UrduPoint news republished a Sputnik wire featuring Helga Zepp-LaRouche (speaking on behalf of her position as the head of the German Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party (BusSo). The article begins,
“The main goal of the United Kingdom’s Integrity Initiative project is to keep the UK influence in global affairs, including by countering Russia as a key player in the international arena and deterring China’s geopolitical ambitions, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the leader of the German Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party, told Sputnik…”
Read the full article here here: UK Integrity Initiative Aimed At Keeping UK Influence In Global Affairs- German Politician
Image credit: Jim Bowen (Hope Mills NC, US)
Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave an interview on Dec. 31 to China Radio International’s “World Today” broadcast coverage of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). The interview can be found here: http://chinaplus.cri.cn/podcast/detail/1/2689962, it starts at 29.47, and includes Dr. Qiao Hai [ph] of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
What follows is the exchange between CRI’s moderator and Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
CRI: Let’s begin this second half with the big investment deal between China and the European Union. The negotiations for a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) was first launched in 2014, just before another new year. Both sides say the negotiations are complete. The announcement was made via a video link following a meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping, his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel, and heads of the European Council [Charles Michel] and European Commission [Ursula von der Leyen]. President Xi Jinping said the agreement show China’s determination and confidence in further opening up its economy to the rest of the world. He said, it would help the world’s two major economies make a significant contribution to the world economic recovery in the post-pandemic era.
To talk more about this, we’re joined by Helga Zepp-LaRouche from Germany. She’s the founder of the Schiller Institute, an political and economic think tank; and Dr. Qiao Hai from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Thanks for joining us.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hello.
CRI: Speaking of the importance, Helga, how do you understand the significance of this agreement for both sides?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s extremely beneficial. But if favors so far the larger firms and I think it needs to be more extended, also, for the smaller and medium enterprises. But I think the fact that President Macron from France participated in the signing ceremony is extremely important, because he has no title in that leadership of the EU, but it signals that both Germany and France are in total agreement.
Also I think it is very important that not one ambassador was against it: This is very important, because this agreement still has to be signed by all the national parliaments and EU, so the prospect that it will go through smoothly is actually looking very good. I think this is a major breakthrough for the whole world.
CRI: Helga, according to a transcript of an online meeting between the EU leaders and Chinese President Xi Jinping, French President Emmanuel Macron offered to visit China in the coming months, along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to discuss other areas of cooperation, such as healthcare and the environment. Are we going to see a stronger tie between China and the EU and stronger ties between China and European nations?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I definitely hope so. We are definitely in a world of great challenges, the pandemic is not over, international cooperation, and therefore my hope would be that European leaders would turn to Leibniz, who already in the 17th century said that is so happens that the most advanced cultures are situated at each end of the European continent, and they should join hands and develop the region in between. Now, I would hope that with China having made major concessions in this China-EU Investment, that Europe, in the other side would also be more open to cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative. Because that would really give the framework to address all the many challenges, such as the underdevelopment of the developing sector. In order to overcome the pandemic, it is not enough to throw cash at the crisis when it is there, but I think that China and the EU should work together to industrialize Africa, Southwest Asia, and other regions, because otherwise, the danger of new pandemics will always exist.
I would hope European leaders would turn to Leibniz in their approach, because Leibniz, was an absolute admirer of Chinese culture. And I think Europeans have so much to discover if they study Chinese history and culture and philosophy, poetry, painting—there are so many things to be discovered, and I would hope that this agreement opens the way for a new renaissance in relations between the two.
CRI: Helga, what’s your take? Are those concerns from the U.S. society legitimate?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think The “concerns,” so-called, are purely ideological and motivated by geopolitical thinking. In the recent period there has been an unprecedented anti-China campaign in the United States, which is blaming China for every problem on the planet, which is completely hysterical. But there is no way how the rise of China—which is really the motive for this—can be stopped! China is a country of 1.4 billion people, with a policy based on innovation. And China has been the leader of technological development for many centuries. So if China is now coming back as one of the most important four nations in the world, people should be happy about it, because, from everything I have studied and seen, China is a benign factor and does not do what the U.S. is accusing it of.
So I think it will be beneficial for U.S. firms, as Mr. Qiao just said. The anti-China sentiment, by the way, is not shared by many U.S. firms, by many of the governors, by many of the elected officials. So hopefully the example which is set now by China and the EU will also influence the situation in the United States.
CRI: Helga, many believe the conclusion of the agreement also shows the EU respects its relationship with the United States, but will not wait for the United States any longer. Do you detect a change of the EU-U.S. relations, when it comes to trade?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s a mixed situation, because despite the fact that this ceremony was signed, Michel, from EU Council, still called China a “strategic rival.” But I think there is a general tendency in Europe to assert more sovereignty. Also within the different nations in Europe, there is a growing sense that national sovereignty is important. I hope this will lead to a new paradigm, because I think we need a completely new paradigm in in international relations, where geopolitics must be overcome. Geopolitics led two times to a world war in the 20th century, and the proposal by President Xi Jinping for a “shared future of mankind,” is, I think, a very important expression of this new paradigm. And if people start to study that and realize that in the post-pandemic world, either we find new ways of relating to each other or we will be doomed together. This is a branching point in history, where hopefully people will be open with new visions about the future of humanity.
CRI: Helga, do you think this deal will be a stepping stone to an EU-China free trade agreement?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it will be a stepping stone, hopefully, for an even larger conception, because we need, really, a new world economic order. I think that the most challenging question is the development of the developing countries. We have a famine, which, according to the World Food Program threatens 270 million people’s dying by starvation in 2021. And I think there needs to be a crash program to overcome that. And I think the most important economic powers have to work together, and I really think the combination of pandemic and danger of world famine should be a motivation to really go for a completely different design, where the common good of the people is being put first and not the maximization of profit. This is a very important challenge to humanity that we take this step, and go away from what has been the financial system, where only the maximizing the profit of the speculators was what counted. This is a challenge to the sovereign governments of the world to respond to the need for the common good of their people. That is what people should think about.
