Helga Zepp-LaRouche appeals to religious leaders of the world to join with Pope Francis, who has offered the Vatican as a venue for unconditional negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
Mobilize your community for peace now because this is a crisis that tests our ability to survive.
Jan. 18, 2023 (EIRNS)–CGTN today published on its English-language YouTube channel (which has about 3 million subscribers) a 14-minute video commentary by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on the occasion of the Davos World Economic Forum. CGTN’s introductory blurb asked the question: “How should world leaders work together in a volatile situation? Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to explore these talking points.” The video can be found here.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
The world economic forum has given its annual meeting the title “Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” and shortly before the Forum published their Global Risk Report, in which they present the results of the latest Global Risk Perception Survey. In that, they consider the current crisis, then the expectation of what many experts think will come out in the short term (two years), the most severe in the long term (ten years), in terms of the economy, the environment, society, and those geopolitical and technological risks that could become tomorrow’s crises. Then they consider how these different crises could evolve into a “poly-crisis” by 2030.
Concerning the methodology used to come to their evaluations, they report that they interviewed over 1200 experts from academia, business, government, the international community, and civil society between September 7th and October 5th, 2022. In other words, this Global Risk Report is not based on scientific methods, but rather on an Aristotelian method to arrive at the common denominator of the opinions of selected experts.
While there will also be attendance from countries of the Global South, who may try to set different accents, the World Economic Forum represents a good portion of the top global corporate establishment; and they clearly try to continue to push their agenda, which is an acceleration of the Great Reset, that they have been pushing before. It completely leaves out the optimistic perspective, for example, of the circa 150 countries working with the Belt and Road Initiative and their optimism that through investments in infrastructure, agriculture, industry, and international scientific cooperation, etc., most of the problems they insist will dominate the next years can be overcome.
Instead, there is a lot of talk about “progressive tipping points” and “catastrophic outcomes,” which are all designed to motivate the assembled business leaders and beyond, to adopt the program fitting the financial interests of the main financial players of the neo-liberal system. For example, in the section called “Natural Ecosystems; past the point of no return” they write:
“Human interventions have negatively impacted a complex and delicately balanced global natural ecosystem, triggering a chain of reactions. Over the next ten years, the interplay between biodiversity loss, pollution, natural resource consumption, climate change, and socioeconomic drivers will make for a dangerous mix.
“Given that over half of the world’s economic output is moderately to highly dependent on nature, the collapse of ecosystems will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences. These include increased occurrences of zoonotic diseases, a fall in crop yields and nutritional value, growing water stress exacerbating potentially violent conflict,” etc., etc.
The deep Malthusian pessimism reflected in such a statement makes clear that this report is more a program of their intent than a scientific prognosis. Because of human interventions, the world population has increased from a few millions after the last Ice Age to 8 billion. If there will be a fall in crop yields, then [it will be] only because of the Green demonization of modern agriculture. And if there will be a violent conflict, then only because the necessary development of new fresh water resources will be blocked by the Malthusian environmentalist agenda.
Economic Risks in 2023
Unfortunately, I think that 2023 will see an escalation of the financial and economic crises. The central banks have tried to curb inflation by raising the interest rates rather rapidly. Then, as we could see for example in Great Britain, they had to suddenly go from quantitative tightening to quantitative easing again, because of the danger of a chain reaction of over-indebted firms; thus going back to the inflationary money pumping. Since the tendency towards hyperinflation is the result of ever more monetarist policies going for profit maximization at the expense of physical economy and the reckless liquidity injections following the systemic crisis of 2008 by the trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds, only an end to the casino economy could solve the problem.
What should be put on the international agenda is the reintroduction of a Glass-Steagall banking separation, which puts the commercial banks under state protection, but forces the investment banks to straighten out their balance sheets on their own without taxpayer money. Then, each country must create their own national bank, because credit creation must be under the sovereign control of the governments. These national banks must then cooperate to create a new credit system, which is only devoted to investments in projects serving the common good of the people. There are already efforts going on in this direction among many countries of the Global South — also, to create a new international currency.
While it is very difficult to predict the exact time when the systemic crisis of the neo-liberal system will come to a head, it cannot be excluded that the decision to have a complete reorganization of the international financial system could force itself on the agenda in this year of 2023.
Geopolitical Conflict Triggering a Chain of Reactions
Right now, unfortunately, the crisis over Ukraine — which is not a crisis between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and Russia — is accelerating in a dangerous way. I think it is extremely urgent that a diplomatic solution is found quickly to end the war. There are various efforts, like Pope Francis has offered the Vatican as a venue for negotiations, and I and a group of Latin American legislators have written an open letter to the Pope to mobilize people around the world to support this idea. We are also asking people to sign that letter. Also, President Lula from Brazil has been asked to mediate by several countries from the Global South; and also President Erdogan from Turkiye has made some efforts.
I think all of these proposals should be merged, because too much is at stake. But, I think because the crisis around Ukraine is so dangerous, the initiatives made by President Xi Jinping with the Global Security Initiative, together with the Global Development Initiative are probably the most important angle to solve the crisis. The Global Security Initiative is really a proposal for a new international security architecture, and obviously that must take into account the security interests of every single country on the planet for it to work.
I am aware that right now it does not look very likely that the countries of the so-called West would be willing to discuss such a new international security architecture, given the fact that NATO is trying to become Global NATO, and Japan and Great Britain have just signed the so-called “Reciprocal Access Agreement,” and the US, the UK, and Australia have signed the AUKUS pact. But the BRICS countries already have a higher GDP than the G-7; and 17 countries of the Global South are applying for membership in the BRICS. So, they are in the process of representing the vast majority of the human species. And the countries of the Global South have made it quite clear that they don’t want to be drawn into a geopolitical conflict between the West on the one side, and the China and Russia on the other side.
I think it is therefore quite possible that in the course of 2023, the financial crisis erupts even more dramatically, and that that will be the right moment to put the combination of the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative on the international agenda. I think President Xi is very right that security can only exist if there is development. So, I am sure that the vast majority of the countries who are striving to overcome the relics of colonialism, and who really want to develop into become modern and prosperous countries, would support such an intervention.
And then hopefully, the countries of the West can see that it would be in their best interest to cooperate with the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Global Risks in the Next Two Years
There are policy initiatives which can overcome the inflation by reorganizing the financial system, by addressing the root causes for the crisis. The excessive profit orientation at the expense of the physical economy clearly did not work. And what the World Economic Forum calls the geo-economic confrontation can be stopped the moment these CEOs recognize that win-win cooperation with the majority of the countries in the world would also be in their best interest; since to cooperate with growing markets with billions of people with growing buying power is for sure better than to go bankrupt in a crash. And the best way to cope with natural disasters and extreme weather events is to invest in basic infrastructure, water management, and scientific and technological progress in order to develop the technologies to have early warning systems, secure housing construction, and other means of adaptation.
Disagreements on Cybersecurity in Major Countries
There have been various attempts to have agreement between major countries on cybersecurity. There was an agreement for example in 2013 between Russia and the United States to establish a secure phone connection, and a working group to mitigate cybersecurity threats. In 2017, in light of the allegation of election interference made against Russia, Trump and Putin agreed to create a cybersecurity unit to prevent election interference and other cyber threats. Trump praised it as a big step forward, but was forced to backtrack only 12 hours later, due to massive pressure from Congress and the mainstream media. Then, in preparation work for the 2018 meeting in Helsinki between Trump and Putin, Russia offered the United States cooperation in the field of preventing cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — power plants, water supply and transport management systems, hospitals, banks, and so on. The corresponding provision was included in the joint statement of the Presidents of the two countries prepared by the Russian side for adoption at the summit in Helsinki. While the summit between the two Presidents worked well, all hell was unleashed against Trump afterwards by the same forces, and the agreement was not signed.
At this point, the trust between the West and Russia and China is at an historic low point. Under these circumstances, an isolated agreement on cybersecurity seems very unlikely. Therefore, a great vision is required on how a solution can be put on the table which addresses all the major problems together, such as a new, just world economic order based on such concepts as the Global Security Initiative in combination with the Global Development Initiative.
I think that we have reached a point in the history of mankind where we really must get serious about the international order of relations among nations, and how we can organize them in such a way that we can self-govern as a species which is gifted with creative reason. In an existential crisis, [such] as the one we are experiencing right now, and which is very likely going to get much worse, it is not the amount of money one owns that counts; but it is the quality of political leadership of exceptionally wise and moral men and women who have the ability to shape the future for the benefit of all humanity.
In Davos, there will be a great number of billionaires, millionaires, and hangers-on to power. It will be very interesting to watch if they are also up for the larger job required.
Dec. 7, 2022 (EIRNS)–Wednesday Dec. 7, 2022—Vladimir Soloviev aired a 21-minute interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Dec. 7. {Video version of this interview is here: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/6gNnbGKzVoMQLA }
VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV: Well, unfortunately, that’s about my German, so if you don’t have anything against it, we’ll try English. I’m sorry for being late a couple of minutes. You know, those Russians, they’re never good on time. There’s always a problem with Russians being good on time! [laughter]
I have to say: I was quite impressed with your very tough point of view, (should I say that?) very revolutionary. Definitely not mainstream of current European political ideas. How come? It looks like the Dawn of Europe, the book that was written more than a 100 years ago, suddenly comes true. What are we facing right now? And what should be done, in order to save the world?
HELGA ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Well, I think the problem is that we are, as some of the Russian officials have stated recently, we are already at a state of war between NATO and Russia, and many people in many countries are extremely worried that this may lead to nuclear war. And if it would come to that, I don’t think it would be a limited nuclear war. I think regional war, the use of only tactical nuclear weapons, I think this is all ruled out. And if it comes to the use of only one single nuclear weapon, it would have the danger of a global nuclear and that would mean the annihilation of civilization.
And for me, I think you have to start with that: This is why I have suggested principles, 10 principles for a new international security and development architecture, which is drawing very much on the example of the Peace of Westphalia which ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. And I’m really fighting very hard to put this on the agenda before it is too late.
SOLOVIEV: So, what are those 10 principles? And what makes you think that current political power in Germany, but basically in U.S.A.—we realize that; whatever is there right now in Germany, it’s just a reflection, it’s just another projection of American point of view—that they will hear you? That you won’t be punished severely for your point view. Because now it’s not—it’s impossible to talk about the freedom of speech and the freedom of philosophical ideas in Europe.
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: I know it’s not allowed, and you are being ostracized immediately, and worse. But I think we are in a situation—I mean, this is not a tenable situation. Germany, for example, has lost all of its sovereignty with the present government, at least concerning certain ministers. We are running against a collapse in Germany: The economic situation is absolutely devastating. The result of the sanctions, which Germany imposed against Russia, on orders practically of the United States, is boomeranging, and the blowback is threatening the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. So this will become apparent in the next weeks and months.
And I think we are in an epochal change: It’s not just a war between the West and Russia, but the result of the policies imposed against Russia in particular, have led to a counterreaction: The entire Global South is in a revolutionary spirit to establish a just new economic order, and this is a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was already on that course in the 1970s, and now I think it is unstoppable. You have the emergence of a completely new system, which is the BRICS, the SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the Eurasian Economic Union, all of these countries are reacting to the policies coming especially from the British and the United States, and they’re forming a new world economic order.
Some people may think it is enough if you have a multipolar world; the unipolar world is definitely over. But I am of the opinion that even multipolarity is not sufficient, because it still has the potential of a geopolitical confrontation. So this is why I think the most advanced proposal to overcome that in the present world comes from President Xi Jinping, who is talking about the “shared community of the future of mankind.” My 10 principles are basically an effort to elaborate principles how we can get people to understand what the new paradigm is, in which we have to move. That is a very deep philosophical conception: I’ve been working together with my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on that for the better part of the last 50 years. So I’m convinced that this is resonating with what the world right now urgently needs, which is a new conception—the question, really, is can we as a human civilization give ourselves an order which allows the long-term survivability of our species? So this is the biggest challenge to our intelligence you can have. And since I’m—and that’s the 10th point of my 10 principles—I’m convince that man is fundamentally good, and that the evil in the world is the result of a lack of development.
So I’m confident. I think the danger is incredibly big, but on the same time, I’m also extremely optimistic that a solution to this present calamity can be found.
SOLOVIEV: So what are those 10 principles? What are they? How dare you bring those 10 principles to the world of Schwab! Who is saying that humanity is a disease, and it’s better to be without humanity for the world! So how come that, nowadays, you’re coming with basically, let’s say “humanitarian tradition” of understanding humanity? Instead of modern liberal, Nazi view, where basically humanity should be destroyed?
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Well, I think the present world order, in large part suffers from the problem of oligarchism: That is not a new phenomenon. You had empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian Empire, the British Empire, which in one sense still exists, and these forms of government were based on the idea that you have a small, powerful elite, sometimes the aristocrats, sometimes the financial elite, and that they have all the privileges and rule over backward masses of people. That system is the origin of what a former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, calls the “green delirium,” which is the idea that we are living in a world of finite resources, that you have to have management of scarcity, and all of this.
But that’s not the real universe. The good thing is that man is different from animals, because we are capable of discovering universal principles about the physical universe. This is called scientific and technological progress, and when we apply that progress in the production process, then it leaves to an increase in the living standard, the longevity of people. So, I think we have reached the point now where the evolution of mankind is at a point where we have to adjust the political and economic order to the actual lawfulness of the physical universe, if we want to survive. That is not a new idea: That was actually a philosophical conception in Europe, it was called “natural law.” You have the same idea in other cultures. In India, for example, it’s called “cosmology,” where basically politics is supposed to implement the lawfulness of the cosmos. You have the same idea in Chinese philosophy, with the “Mandate of Heaven.” So in all great cultures, you have the idea that there is a higher lawfulness which we have to respect, or bring about destruction.
So I think we are in a very optimistic change of an epoch. I would call it that mankind is about to reach the age of adulthood.
SOLOVIEV: [laughs] That is very optimistic, should I say! But by reaching the age of adult, we have to face quite new challenges. One of them is that Europe is basically put in an Iron Curtain, by trying to recognize Russia as a “sponsor of terrorism” state, they are just cutting all possible ties that have been left, and it’s leading us to a completely new scenario. Europe without Russia is basically a very small place!
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Right now, the mainstream media and the major political parties, as they are represented in the European Parliament, which made this resolution about Russian being a terrorist state, that is the surface. And if you only look at the mass media, you get the impression that that is everything there is. But we are organizing people: Look, there are demonstrations in all European countries, to end the war, to have a peaceful negotiation, use diplomacy already, and many people are demonstrating in east Germany, in Belgium, in France, in Italy, even in Great Britain. So I think, this is a very dangerous moment, obviously, but I think that as the crisis will become bigger, and you have hyperinflation, the energy prices, the food prices, I think we are heading towards a very big moment of decision. And what the Schiller Institute is trying to do, is we are organizing international conferences, which have to be virtual because of the still existing pandemic conditions, and we are trying to bring together people from all over the world.
I have initiated something which is called—I should explain—Friedrich Schiller, after whom the Schiller Institute is named, had the idea that there must not be contradiction between patriots and world citizens. So, given the fact that the danger of nuclear war makes everybody, instantly a world citizen, because the whole world is challenged, so I’ve called for a world citizens’ movement. And since I was born in Trier—which some people may recognize the importance of that—I have called for “World Citizens of All Countries, Unite!” [laughs] in which I find a certain irony.
But many people have responded. We’ve had three conferences already with many sitting and former parliamentarians, and former ministers and Presidents from Latin America, who have issued a call to all parliamentarians and elected officials of the world to join this movement, and fight essentially for these 10 principles, and a new security and development architecture.
SOLOVIEV: So you are still an optimist? Do you still think that humanity is going to survive?
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Oh, yes! You know, obviously, the danger is enormous, because if it comes to nuclear war, there will not be even an historian left to investigate the reasons why it came to this point. So I’m not unaware of the incredible danger. But I believe that the majority of the world is already creating a new system: The BRICS countries already have a GDP which is higher than that of the G7. And you saw at the recent G20 meeting, despite incredible pressure, the majority of the countries of the Global South do not want to change sides! Even the Trilateral Commission, which is really—not exactly my kind of organization—the Japanese representative of the Trilateral Commission just recently said, telling the United States and Great Britain, do not force us to choose sides between China and the United States, because if we are forced, we will choose China. This came from Japanese Trilateral Commission members!
So the spirit is really not—people do not want this geopolitical confrontation any longer. And I think there is a tremendous chance—look, Modi, who will chair the G20 in the coming year, just wrote a very beautiful statement, where he echoed essentially what I’m saying, that there are people who say that man is evil, but he says, no, the fact that there are so many aspirations in religion and philosophy that man is fundamentally good. And I think that with the leadership of India in the G20, you will see that the Global South will have a much great voice.
And we are trying to convince people in the United States and in Europe to join with that new system, rather than trying to oppose it. And, OK, maybe that will not function, but I’m optimistic that it’s the only choice: Because we have to get the United States and Europe to cooperate with the countries of the Global South and China. If the United States and China, which are the two largest economies of the world, are not working together, then no problem of the world can be solved. On the other side, if we succeed in showing that there is an advantage for everybody, to solve poverty—I mean poverty should be eliminated! It is the biggest violation of human rights you can imagine. So, all I want to say, is that what we are proposing is actually in cohesion with the wishes and desires of the world population.
SOLOVIEV: Well! But how can you imagine those guys in U.S., in U.K., in Germany, giving up the complex of superiority, where they still consider the other part of humanity, according to Kipling, half-beast, half-humans, as in the burden of the white man? So how can you imagine Americans suddenly recognizing that they’re not the chosen nation? They won’t count it! They don’t want to do it! No one ever gave up the complex of superiority before being defeated. There is no brain to apply to: Look at Biden! There is no {brain} to apply to! There is a number of stereotypes! And that’s about it.
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Yeah, but look, Josep Borrell from the EU made this incredible statement that the EU is a beautiful garden…
SOLOVIEV: Yes, surrounded by jungle.
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: And that made him the laughingstock of the whole world!
SOLOVIEV: But he is an idiot! And he represents the diplomacy of the EU! What kind of idiot right now represents the EU as the top diplomat? That’s annoying!
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Yes. But, in a certain sense, you have to laugh about it, as many countries of the Global South are doing.
The countries of the developing sector are right now in a mood where they recognize that this is the effort to keep the colonial order. But that is not—Look, all of these countries have a different tradition. The United States, for example, made their independence in the War of Independence against the British Empire. And the Constitution of the United States was the first real republic in the history of mankind, and if you look at the principles of Benjamin Franklin, of George Washington, of John Quincy Adams—John Quincy Adams said exactly what we are saying today, that you need a partnership of perfectly sovereign republics and the United States should not go out and look for foreign monsters. And then, Lincoln had the same idea. Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he designed the Bretton Woods system, it was meant as the first priority to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries. Even Kennedy had a beautiful idea about the role of technology would solve all the poverty in the Third World. So there {is} a tradition in the United States which is completely different. The problem with the United States right now is that they have adopted the model of the British Empire as the basis to rule the world in a unipolar world, in a unipolar style. But that is not the whole United States! The people of the United States are essentially good. It is what some people call the “MICIMATT”—you know, Ray McGovern—
SOLOVIEV: Right.
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: It’s the military-industrial complex, plus the Congress, plus the media, plus Silicon Valley, but that is a small minority. They look like the all-powerful force right now, but I think this other tradition of America is there, and we are trying very hard to make a revival of the best traditions of the United States.
SOLOVIEV: I hope that you succeed. I hope you succeed! Unfortunately, our time is running out. And excuse my smile: The reason is that my wife’s name is Olga Sepp [ph], so when I see Helga Zepp, I feel like I’m talking to a relative, should I say! [laughter]
ZEPP-LaROUCHE: That’s funny!
SOLOVIEV: Yes, that’s quite unusual. And, I love what you’re saying! And I love your very sweet, idealistic, but very thought-through, based on the belief that human are better than they are.
The only minor thing is: The Founding Fathers of the United States, after all about democracy and “human rights,” shall we say, so they all owned slaves. So, their definition of free men, were only for WASPs, and that’s what makes us Russians being so careful when we’re dealing with the West—the definition of every word. You have to be sure that you understand words in the same way. In any other case, we’re running into problems all the time.
It was a pleasure, and I to continue our discussions in the coming future.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche issued a direct challenge to viewers today, that they join the discussion process underway around what she presented as 10 Principles of a new security and development architecture as a matter of utmost urgency. There is a “daily escalation” of the war danger, she said, citing Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zakharova, who said the war in Ukraine is now a war “between NATO and Russia.”
Most people are not getting that this is the real picture. The process around our mobilization is “exploding”, she said, as increasing numbers of officials have become fearful that world war looms, unless there is a serious effort to end the NATO escalation against Russia. In her presentation in the November 22 SI conference, she showed why “pragmatic solutions” cannot work, and that it is necessary to go to a higher level, exemplified by Nicholas of Cusa’s “Coincidence of Opposites”. This means returning to the ideas of the Peace of Westphalia, in which sovereign nations act on the basis of recognition of the legitimate interests of the other — which means not just the absence of war, but the eradication of poverty.
In her concluding remarks, she said, the issue is defining principles under which we can “govern ourselves” — let’s debate this,” insisting that it is not only necessary to approach the problem on this higher level, but possible.
The transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s participation in the panel interview, ‘What’s the Outlook for China’s Foreign Policy in the Next Five Years?’ on Nov. 4, 2022 follows:
China’s diplomatic efforts are in full swing, with the first round of visits by foreign leaders since the conclusion of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s visit to China, as the first EU leader since the start of the pandemic, follows that of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan. What does it say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress? Host Ge Anna is joined by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder of the Schiller Institute; Dr. Rong Ying, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow, China Institute of International Studies; Hamzah Rifaat Hussain, News Anchor, Indus News, Islamabad, Pakistan.
GE ANNA: China’s diplomatic efforts are in full swing with the first round of visits of foreign leaders since the conclusion of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. What does it say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress? Welcome to World Today, the panel discussion with Ge Anna. We come to you from our studio in Beijing with a different perspective.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Beijing, noting the complex international landscape, the Chinese President underscored the need for China and Germany—two major countries with significant influence—to work together in times of change and instability and contribute more to global peace and development. Scholz’s visit to China as the first European leader after the 20th CPC National Congress follows that of General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan.
So, what does China’s intensive diplomatic efforts say about the outlook of China’s foreign policy after the Party Congress, as China strives to translate its visions into reality? What can the rest of the world’s developed countries and developing ones alike expect from the rapid growth in the country?
To delve into this and more, let’s have: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based political and economic think tank; Dr. Rong Ying, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow, China Institute of International Studies; Hamzah Rifaat Hussain, News Anchor from Indus News, Islamabad, Pakistan. Thanks for joining us today.
Zepp-LaRouche, the just-concluded 20th National Congress of the CPC has laid out a new blueprint for China’s future development, including shaping the trajectory of its engagement with the world. So, with such a background, what messages are being sent by China’s active diplomacy this week, shortly following the Party Congress?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this constitutes a major new initiative towards harmonic development in the world. I think this is a very important step, because the world is in deep trouble. We have incredible challenges as President Xi Jinping has always emphasized; challenges which have not been seen since 100 years. We face the danger of nuclear war; we have out-of-control inflation in many of the countries of the trans-Atlantic sector. I think what China is bringing into this world is a completely different approach. I think the potential of the combination of the Belt and Road Initiative, the global development initiative, and the global security initiative, are all conceptions which can bring a completely different paradigm into the world situation.
[Ge asks other guests questions.]
GE ANNA: Speaking of the purpose and objectives of China’s foreign policy, that is, to maintain world peace, promote common development, and a view to a community with a shared future for mankind, Helga, how do you read these objectives of China’s foreign policy? Especially when many believe we are living in a world where forces are keen to draw ideological lines and provoke confrontation between camps?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think this idea of a community with a shared future of mankind is very important, because it should remind people that we are sitting in one boat. And especially in times when the danger of a global nuclear war is on the horizon, I think it is a very useful concept to remind people that if it ever would come to that, nobody would survive such a war. And at the same time, it’s also a forward looking conception for the New Paradigm, because I think we have reached an epochal change in the history of mankind where we have to overcome geopolitical thinking. Geopolitical thinking was the cause for two world wars in the 20th Century, and if we continue to think in terms of blocs, this can go awfully wrong. So, the idea of the shared community of the future of mankind is the idea that we have to think about the one humanity first; that there can be no national interest, or the interest of a group of nations which would be in contradiction to the one humanity. I think this is a very important concept, and I think it would be very good if the Western countries would not just push it aside, but recognize that this is a philosophical idea which does give a concept for how we can build a future where all of humanity can prosper and survive.
[Ge asks other guests questions.]
GE ANNA: Helga, what’s your take? How do you look at the centrality accusation against China?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think if you go away from the words and actually look at the substance, behind all of this is the fact that the Western countries have pursued the neo-liberal model of economy and that is collapsing right now. I would even say that we are in the final phase of a hyperinflationary blow-out of the trans-Atlantic system. Because of that, they look at the rise of China as a systemic threat.
China is doing nothing to give a reason to be regarded as a threat, but I think it’s the idea that only if you contain the rise of China, if you decouple from Russia, from China, that you can somehow maintain what they call the “rules-based order.” Now, what this rules-based order is, nobody knows exactly. It’s also not so clear who is making these rules. We have the UN Charter, which should be the standard for international law, but I think the idea that China should be a systemic rival is not what the majority of the world population thinks. I think more than 150 countries that are cooperating with China in the Belt and Road Initiative do not see China as a systemic rival, but they see China as the country which helps them to overcome the relics of colonialism and poverty and under-development.
So, I think it’s really a tragedy that the Western media are so absolutely unified—the German word is Gleichschaltung—that they don’t allow anymore any truthful coverage. Because if the people of Europe and the United States would know the reality of what enormous progress China has made, they would not believe the story about systemic rivalry, because China has said many times that there is absolute room for everybody. Xi Jinping has made many times offers, especially to the United States, saying that there is a new concept of great power relationships; that the two strongest economies of the world must cooperate. I think the idea of finding a win-win cooperation remains the only way how we will get out of these many calamities in which the world is right now.
GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, another question based on what you were just talking about, because China has repeatedly stated that it will never accept any zero-sum game, or the law of the jungle. But many experts believe this is a challenge to Western values. How do you look at such accusations?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: What is behind that, is that since about 2017, especially the British, but also the U.S. National Security papers, the National Security doctrines, started to characterize China as a systemic rival, as a competitor, and even harsher words. In a certain sense, China pursues a policy of harmonious development. I have not found—and I’m really a critical observer of politics—I have not seen any country of the developing sector, of the Global South, that would complain that they have been coerced by China. These accusations only come from the Western media. I think China has, on the other side, learned the lesson from its long history; from the century of humiliation, the enormous struggles of the 20th century. Now that China is finally strong enough to not have to put … [show goes to break while Zepp-LaRouche is still speaking].
GE ANNA: Let’s move on to the most recent visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This is the first visit by a leader of a European Union country since the start of the pandemic, and the first visit by Scholz since he took office as Chancellor of Germany. This trip also attracted much attention from the media. Zepp-LaRouche, what do you think makes this meeting so significant to China and Germany in particular?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is extremely important, because it brings together the second- and fourth-largest economies of the world. Obviously, their collaboration is extremely important to solve any problem in the world. It is also very noteworthy because Scholz did this trip despite enormous pressure to not have a good relationship with China. He’s being pressured enormously from the U.S., from the British, and the Atlanticists inside Germany. As a matter of fact, the German Foreign Minister Baerbock, she is completely unreasonable in relationship to China. Therefore, I think it’s very important that Scholz does this, especially as the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between China and Germany has just occurred last month. Obviously, with the enormous rise of China, Germany has profited enormously, a lot of the living standard in Germany was also supported by the strong integration of the two economies. So, I think it is extremely important, and I’m actually happy, because I hope that this will be a signal for all the other European countries, and it will be a sign of at least a little demonstration of sovereignty on the side of Germany.
GE ANNA: But the German-based media has been bombarded for days with commentary on whether Scholz’s visit to China is showing weakness to Beijing, or is buying time for Germany to wean itself off its dependence on China. What’s your reflection on their perspective? What’s the meaning, in your opinion, of Scholz’s trip to China?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Scholz just wrote a longer piece in the German newspaper FAZ, where he says he wants to reduce the dependencies on certain supply chains. That makes sense, because as we have seen in the pandemic, if you don’t have a certain security in terms of essential goods, this can be devastating in times of crisis. But that is different than to say that Germany should decouple. If Germany would decouple right now, because of Atlanticist pressure the relationship with Russia has already been completely ended. Right now, there is no relationship between Russia and Germany anymore. These are the words of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think if Germany would give in to this pressure, and also decouple from China, that would be the end of Germany as an industrial nation. We will look for an enormously difficult period in the coming fall and winter. The energy prices, the food prices, the inflation; we are looking at the potential de-industrialization of Germany. Many leaders of German industry have said that very clearly.
So, I think for Germany, the relationship with China must absolutely be a cornerstone of the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. But I’m optimistic that the industry leaders who are accompanying Scholz on this trip have said very clearly that they see the future of the German economy being very closely tied to that of China.
But it will be a battle, because I expect that the pressure is coming from the U.S. and Great Britain, so it will be a question of whether Germany can assert its sovereignty and its own interests. Hopefully that will happen, and then the future is bright. I have said many times that the fact that there is now a new economic system developing between the countries of the Global South, the BRICS, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union—these countries are all building a new economic system. It would be in the fundamental interest for Germany, which is an export nation, to cooperate. Hopefully if Germany goes in this direction, many other European countries will see the benefit for themselves as well.
[Ge asks other guests questions.]
GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, besides differences between China and Germany, both China and Germany are actually the beneficiaries of globalization, and are striving for a more just international order with less political gains, sanctions, and confrontations. Do you think both sides do have the same vision in these turbulent times, as Dr. Rong suggested? In what areas can China’s and Germany’s cooperation and communication better insure multilateralism in the world?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously, when you think small-minded, then you think that the world is only made up of competitors. But if you think creatively, and you think that scientific and technological progress are what make the economy progress, which was the philosophy of Germany for a very long time, and it is now the philosophy of China with the continuous application of innovation. If those two countries would join their creative efforts in discovery of new fundamental physical principles, scientific and technological progress, and they would cooperate, they could become so strong as a locomotive of the world economy.
For example, if Germany and China would cooperate in the area of artificial intelligence, digitalization, manned space flight, it would open up a whole array of new technologies; real fundamental breakthroughs as they go along with space science and space travel. It would really be a complete science driver for the whole world. So, hopefully, those elements of the German economy which are still in the traditional German sense and have not been infected by the Green delirium as Vaclav Klaus, the former President of Czechia, was calling it, then these two countries could cooperate tremendously to the benefit of the whole world. Because the industrial capacity of the entire world economy presently is below that which is needed to create enough food and development for all countries. That is the reason we have world famine and lack of clean water and all of these problems.
I think philosophically we must go back to the spirit of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was a philosopher in the 17th and 18th centuries, who in 1697 wrote the beautiful Novissima Sinica, What Is New from China. He was at that time advertising that Germany and all of Europe should cooperate with China, to reach out and touch their hands and develop all the countries on the planet. I think that would be the joint mission for China and Germany to adopt in the best tradition of the Leibnizian outlook, which was the most advanced philosophical conception Germany had.
[Ge asks other guests questions.]
GE ANNA: Zepp-LaRouche, what’s your reflection on China’s emphasis on neighboring diplomacy as a top priority of these foreign relations?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the success of that outlook is pretty obvious, because, for example, when you look at the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) which was founded in the beginning of this year, this has now become the largest free-trade zone in the world. In ASEAN you have a similar very good cooperation. And all the other economic and political alliances, partnerships China has, the BRICS, for example—that’s not all neighbors, but nevertheless—the SCO, all of these are examples of extremely well-functioning relationships among China and its neighbors. I think the success of that is seen by the fact that the economic dynamics in the world have clearly shifted to Asia. I think the Asian economic cooperation, not only China, but many other Asian countries, has become really the motor of the world economy. I think this is very important for the future, because we are in a transition form. It’s very clear that the old system of geopolitical control and bloc-building, this will not be suitable for the future, and a new model for cooperation has to be found. And I think what China has done in making these new kinds of diplomatic relations, that can actually be a role model for many parts of the world based on sovereignty, non-interference, acceptance of a different social model. All of these are ideas which would be very useful for other countries to study.
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.
In a statement issued yesterday, in commenting on the turn-around by the German government on delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine, Schiller Institute chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked, “Has the Bundestag Lost Its Mind?” In discussing this and other indications that U.S.-NATO escalation against Russia is moving close to crossing the red lines which define Russian security concerns, she said that it is urgent to drop the present dangerous course, and return to diplomacy. By becoming “co-belligerents”, as defined by international law, former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein said Putin would have a right to strike those countries.
She used the example of German Foreign Minister Baerbock’s comments that there is “no way back” to the pre-war period as a prime example of this insanity. Can’t nations acknowledge that the present course is wrong? At a time when starvation threatens nearly one-fifth of the world’s population, why are western nations escalating their attacks on Russia and China? It’s not surprising that many former colonial nations are refusing to back the U.S. and NATO. She said that China’s emphasis on experimental projects of seed development to fight hunger resonates with the former colonial nations. Why have western nations done nothing to address this?
She concluded with a brief summary of her late husband’s commitment to creating a new financial system as the basis for peace, which underlies her call, and the Schiller Institute’s mobilization, for a new strategic and financial architecture. She urged viewers to join us, to make this happen.
Helga Zepp LaRouche was interviewed on CGTN’s The Hub broadcast this morning by host Wang Guan.
WANG GUAN: And now we’re joined also by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Wiesbaden, Germany, founder and President of the Schiller Institute. Madame LaRouche welcome back to CGTN. I’m glad to have you with us again. First of all, I want to get your sense of the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict: Do you think it could have been avoided?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: President Putin had made very clear that red lines had been crossed. He said at one point, there is no place for me to retreat to, and the West did not listen to that. Then, on Dec. 17, he asked from NATO and the United States legally binding security guarantees, that NATO would not expand further to the east, that no offensive weapons would be put on the Russian border, and that Ukraine would never become a member of NATO. And he did not get an answer. He didn’t get an answer to the core question, only to secondary aspects.
So, I think that the West made a big mistake by not listening to legitimate, expressed security concerns of Russia, and now we are on the verge of something which could go completely out of control.
WANG: Madame LaRouche, the U.S. and NATO announced the latest rounds of sanctions against Russia, that target President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov and others. Do you think that will deter Russia from its current plans, its operations in Ukraine?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t think so, because I think President Putin has discounted this. He has said, some years ago already, that if the West would not have found Ukraine to contain, and to use to dismantle Russia, they would have found another issue. Recently, he said the real aim of all of this is to prevent the economic development of Russia. On Jan. 25 there were two unnamed White House officials who said that the sanctions have the aim to prevent Russia from diversifying from oil and gas, meaning they deny Russia the right to development! [https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/25/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-russia-ukraine-economic-deterrence-measures/] This is an act of war. Sanctions are an act of war, and I think that Putin has discounted it. It will be painful for Russia, but I think the West is inflicting much more damage on themselves. And it has to be condemned completely.
WANG: And also, let’s talk about the United Nations, the role of the UN resolutions failed to pass earlier. Does that surprise you at all? That once again, we saw a divided Security Council at the United Nations, when the stakes are all too high?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the UN Security Council has been made practically obsolete by NATO already in 2011, when they lied, in the case of Libya. They got the agreement of Russia and China for a limited action in Libya, which then turned out to be a full-fledged military attack. From that time, the role that lies play has been a big factor, and it does not surprise me at all that now the aim of all of this is to keep the unipolar world. And obviously, Russia and China cannot agree to that, so it’s not a surprise at all.
WANG: Madame LaRouche, for years and decades, you’ve been calling for a new security architecture, and now you’re calling for a new security architecture in Europe. What does that new security architecture entail?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I’m calling for an international security architecture, which involves the security interests of all nations on this planet, including Russia and China. I think the historical precedent is the Peace of Westphalia, because, after 150 years of religious warfare in Europe, and the tremendous destruction, all the participating powers came to the conclusion that a continuation of the war would not be to the benefit of anybody, because nobody would live to enjoy it. And we are in a similar situation: If you really look hard at the situation, the danger is the nuclear annihilation of the entire human species. And I think it is that which has to sink into the consciousness of everybody, and then there has to be a process like the Peace of Westphalia, where the principle is that a solution has to take into account the interest of the other, the interest of every other. And that means the security interest of Russia, the security interest of China, of the United States, of the Europeans and all other nations. The second principle of the Peace of Westphalia was that, for the sake of peace, all crimes which were committed by one or the other side have to be forgotten; and thirdly, that the role of the state is important in the economic reconstruction after the war.
Now, the equivalent of that today, means that all powers have to address the real, crucial issue that the reason why we have the conflict in the first place, is the fact that the neoliberal system of the West is collapsing, and therefore, the first act of such a new architecture has to be a global Glass-Steagall banking separation, where the casino economy, which has been the reason why the West is getting so desperate, has to be put to and end. Then, we have to have a national banking system for every single country, and a new credit system in the tradition of the Bretton Woods system, which provides cheap credit for the development of the developing countries. If these measures would be agreed upon, a durable peace would be possible.
WANG: Madame LaRouche, [name 6:23] a renowned political scientist in Asia earlier today said that Russia’s end-game could be to create a “mini-Soviet Union of sorts.” Do you look at it that way, too?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I don’t think so. I think the only people who are pushing geopolitical blocs right now are those behind President Biden, who tried to create this “alliance of democracies” against the so-called autocratic governments. I think that the agreement between President Xi Jinping and Putin on Feb. 4, where they made a strategic alliance between Russia and China, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, is open to everybody. And I think any new order which is meant to lead to peace must be inclusive, must overcome geopolitics and basically go to a principle where peace is only possible through development, that has to be accessible for all.
WANG: Finally, Madame LaRouche, do you think the U.S. and the West are somehow declining, if you compare their posturing position, in for example, Yugoslavia 20 years ago, when they decisively intervened militarily, and now, with Ukraine, with their equally decisive “no boots on the ground” principle and attitude?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we have seen in Afghanistan that NATO and the United States, which are the supposedly most powerful military machine on the planet, were not able to defeat what finally turned out to be 65,000 Taliban fighters. So the military power of the West is in question.
The problem is, that leaves only nuclear weapons, and if you look at the nuclear doctrines—the Prompt Global Strike doctrine, or the recent maneuver Global Lightning, which had this idea of a protracted nuclear war—I think that is the real danger. And therefore, the question of nuclear brinkmanship which we see right now is what has to be avoided and has to be urgently replaced. People have to be aware of the fact that if it comes to the use of one single nuclear weapon, it is the logic of nuclear warfare, as compared to conventional warfare, that all nuclear weapons would be used, and that would mean the complete annihilation of civilization. And that’s what the game is here.
I think the more people understand that, and demand a different world order, a new security architecture, which could be based on the cooperation for a world health system, for example. We still have a pandemic. We have famine, which is called by David Beasley a famine of “biblical dimensions,” threatening the lives of 300 million people who could die. And these things have to be addressed. And that is the only chance for humanity—can we unite all of these… [crosstalk]
WANG: Indeed, a lot of challenges over there. That is all the time we have, I’m afraid—sorry to interrupt. Come back to our show, please, next time. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the Schiller Institute, thank you so much for joining us in this hour.
Sergei Lavrov expressed the Russian disappointment with the written response from the U.S. to President Putin’s demand for new treaties which guarantee Russia’s security interests. While agreeing to further discussion of secondary issues, the Biden administration appears to have refused to meet Putin’s demands. At the same time, the U.S. is escalating its plans for sanctions against Russia, and the media — led by CNN — is running false reports about Biden’s discussion with Zelensky, to stoke tensions.
Despite Blinken’s claim of complete unity among NATO allies, fault lines continue to become visible. In Italy and Germany, businessmen and manufacturers want to speak with Putin, as they recognize that a war, or escalation of sanctions, would have disastrous consequences for western economies, which are already weak. The desperation in the west is also visible, in reports of a likely wave of debt defaults of highly-indebted poor nations, if interest rates are raised in the U.S.
Helga took note of the positive potential which emerged from the meetings in Oslo with a Taliban delegation, and motion in support of her Operation Ibn Sina. She appealed to viewers to join with us to break out from under the war drive of the geopoliticians, and bring about her husband’s perspective of a New Bretton Woods, which would uniquely address the common interests of all nations.
In the last days, and in the next days ahead, decisions are being made which will determine whether mankind has the moral capacity to survive. In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented a dramatic tour d’horizon, weaving together an analysis of summit meetings, troop deployments, and positive economic developments around the Belt-and-Road Initiative, communicating both the tremendous danger of the present, and, importantly, a pathway out of that danger.
She emphasized that the bluster of Blinken in Ukraine is not completely in step with the pronouncements of Biden. She also emphasized that Putin has been clear on why Russia requires strategic guarantees, and that some in the West, such as David Pyne, Gilbert Doctorow and Gen. Kujat, are openly discussing that. You have the delegation of seven knucklehead Senators blustering after a trip to Kiev, demanding that Biden toughen up, with one — whom she referred to as Sen. Wicked — saying that Putin must be given a bloody nose. At the same time, the Iranian President was in Moscow, signing a 20-year deal, and the Chinese and Syrians finalized a Memo of Understanding for collaboration on the BRI. Finally, she spoke movingly of the Schiller Institute conference on January 15 on Afghanistan, which contrasted the present threat of millions starving, with the axiom-busting decision by India to ship wheat to Afghanistan, traveling through Pakistan.
