While there are still questions about where the Biden administration is heading in strategic policy, there are some very real reasons for concern. There is the threat of mass starvation in Yemen, and the growing danger of food shortages in Syria, due to sanctions; last week’s U.S. military strike on a base in northeast Syria; new sanctions against Russia over the fake human rights issue of Navalny; and the intent to expand NATO into the “Indo-Pacific region”, as part of a plan to “encircle and contain” China.
In discussing these concerns, Mrs. LaRouche emphasized that these crises could be addressed through cooperation. Instead of starving children in Yemen and Syria, a program of immediate food relief could be done, with a longer-term plan for reconstruction. As for the response from China to the threats from the West, “Global Times” called these measures “evil”, describing the attacks on China as part of an obvious overall plan to prevent development in all poorer nations.
Instead of tactics leading to heightened confrontation, the U.S. should begin to address the collapse of its platforms of infrastructure. A modest plan from the American Society of Civil Engineers calls for $2.5 trillion in investment over the next ten years. In reality, a much greater amount is needed — why not fund major infrastructure projects in the U.S., she asked, rather than pouring hundreds of billions into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex, for wars and destruction around the world?
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.
In reviewing the just-concluded conference of the Schiller Institute, its founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed to the ongoing provocations of London-based imperial interests as a dynamic for war. With the explicit intent of NATO’s Global 2030 policy to encircle Russia and China, to ensure that the Great Reset and Green New Deal can be successfully consolidated, we brought together leaders from all parts of the world to build an effective anti-Malthusian resistance to defeat this imperial design.
She emphasized the special importance of a change in the method of thinking, by adopting the concept introduced by Nicholas of Cusa of the “Coincidence of Opposites” — which was demonstrated in each of the four conference panels — as necessary to win this fight. As the crises facing humanity escalate, she pointed to the fact that many more people are looking at Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas, as a hopeful sign that the New Paradigm can be brought into existence.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote address to the first panel of the June 26-27 Schiller Institute conference. The opening session, “War with Russia and China Is Worse than MAD,” which included representatives from Russia, China, India and the United States, intensified the Schiller Institute’s 18-month drive for a summit of leaders of those four, genuinely to substitute collaboration in development in place of war.
As the Texas Deep Freeze has exposed the deadly consequences of mixing the low energy-flux-density policies of the Green New Deal with the neoliberal policies to deregulate and privatize electricity production, to increase the profits of private corporations, the “air space” surrounding Mars is full of inspirational promise for scientific discoveries to define the future.
We are also seeing the first hints that the Biden administration may move away from the British geopolitics of Pompeo and his allies, who undermined the potential of the Trump administration for friendly cooperation with Russia and China. In her weekly dialogue, Zepp LaRouche said that it is still too early to determine if the new administration may act to end the endless wars of the Bush and Obama years, but there were signs from Biden’s talk to the Munich Security Conference that change is possible. It is also becoming more evident that the insistence of the Schiller Institute that the fight to overcome the COVID pandemic requires a global commitment for a new standard of health care for all countries is being taken seriously, though the commitment to provide vaccines to poor countries is still lagging among the relatively rich nations.
Reviewing events since the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp LaRouche pointed to the history lesson Putin gave, which was published in Die Zeit, as a further example of his commitment to make sure that the lessons of World War II are learned. That the war hawk faction in the U.S. is proceeding with more sanctions against Russia and attacks on China — including the hilarious threat to “isolate China!” — shows that these lessons are still badly needed. This weekend’s online Schiller Institute conference comes at just the right moment, to give citizens an opportunity to intervene in shaping history. With new waves of COVID threatening, electricity flickering in Milan and bridges collapsing in Germany, what kind of idiocy is it to spend more money on wars, instead of building new platforms of infrastructure?
In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp LaRouche warned that the totally unnecessary deaths and suffering in Texas and other U.S. states, due to a polar cold front, offer a sign of what will happen if the Great Reset and its Green New Deal are not stopped. These deaths are not the result of a “natural catastrophe”, but a warning for the future if the takedown of coal and nuclear power electricity production is not reversed. The new EIR Report, “The Great Leap Backwards” provides both an analysis of the dangers explicit from adopting a Green Agenda, and an alternative based on the scientific ideas of her late husband, Lyndon LaRouche.
She also discussed how the drive for confrontation with Russia and China exposes humanity to the threat of nuclear war, at a time when cooperation is not just imperative, but also achievable. If NATO insists on sanctions against Russia over the much-hyped Navalny affair, nations such as Germany, France and Italy should leave NATO. Similarly, the failure of the European Union to protect its citizens from the COVID pandemic, by botching the delivery of vaccines, demonstrates again that this kind of supranational institution is incapable of providing for the needs of the citizens — a failure seen also in the likely devastating effects of its drive for a European Green New Deal, which could lead to a breakdown of the European energy grid.
She contrasted the unfolding tragedies of economic and strategic policies of the Trans-Atlantic nations with the optimistic potential of the three concurrent missions to Mars. That the United Arab Emirates initiated its space program only six years ago offers hope that, with international scientific cooperation, nations can move toward the peaceful exploration of our universe, with enormous benefits for all.
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.
“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.”
The ongoing battle between two paradigms was center stage in Italy this week, as the conference cosponsored by Movisol and the Lombard Region, demonstrated the potential for the Belt-and-Road Initiative (BRI) to break the power of the London-run geopoliticians in Europe. Helga Zepp LaRouche’s report on the conference, at which she spoke, and was joined by Michele Geracci, an Undersecretary of the Italian Finance Ministry and head of the government’s China Task Force, highlighted the significance of the upcoming trip of Xi Jinping to Italy, and the signing on an MOU for Italy to join the BRI. If Italy and fifteen other EU member nations can participate, for mutual benefit, with the BRI, what of France and Germany? Why are the EU bureaucrats and the London neo-liberals so distressed by this development?
Contrast this potential to the hysteria coming from EU bureaucrats, from NATO officials such as Gen. Scaparroti, and from U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo, which is part of a neocon contingent trying to rein Trump in. Helga presents a clear picture of how the neocons are moving, aiming at sabotaging the trade talks with China, denuclearization of North Korea, and pushing for regime change in Venezuela, to force Trump to move away from his campaign promises.
She appealed to viewers to use the mobilization to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche as a means of bringing down the war party, which is continuing its efforts to destroy the potential of the Trump presidency.
The conference “Italy on the New Silk Road” organized byMovisol (LaRouche’s movement in Italy) and the Lombardy Region(state legislature) in Milan Wednesday, was a success, withUndersecretary Michele Geraci (of the Task Force China in theItalian government) opening it and emphasizing the importance ofthe MOU which Italy will sign with President Xi Jinping on March22 in Rome, of the benefits for Italy of this cooperation withChina, including for the development of the Italian Mezzogiorno.
Undersecretary of the Task Force China in the Italian government, Michele Geraci and EIR’s Claudio Celani.
Geraci was followed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who explainedthe more profound meaning of this important development for therest of the world, the realization of the New Paradigm for whichLyndon LaRouche and the Schiller Institute have been working forthe last 30 years. See a full text of Helga’s remarks below.
There was a short message from Sen. Tony Iwobi, the firstNigerian parliamentarian elected for the Lega, about thehistorical significance on the Transaqua project, which was thendescribed in detail by Engineer Bocchetto of Bonifica, which isworking on the feasibility study with China.
Geraci, Celani, Zepp-LaRouche and Movisol leader, Liliana Gorini.
Liliana Gorini, chairwoman of Movisol, concluded theconference by thanking the Lombardy Region, which had helped toorganize it, and dedicating it to Lyndon LaRouche, who is knownin Italy not only as the “visionary” of the New Silk Road, asformer Economics Minister Giulio Tremonti defined him Tuesday in Corriere della Sera, but also as the main promoter ofGlass-Steagall and LaRouche’s Four Laws, and reminding people howmany parliamentarians who had heard him speak at the ItalianFinance Committee at the Parliament in Rome in 1998, admittedyears later that he was completely right.
TRANSCRIPT OF HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE’S REMARKS
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is in one sense quite amusing to seewhat high waves the possibility of Italy signing the MOU withChina is causing right now. Because, when Xi Jinping announcedthe New Silk Road in 2013 and then proceeded to make treaties inthe meantime, I think it’s with 112 countries, an enormous growthdeveloped, six major industrial corridors, the Belt and RoadInitiative became very quickly the largest infrastructure projectin history, ever. And the strange thing was that for about fouryears, in the mainstream media in the United States and Europe,there was practically no reporting about this.
And then, all of a sudden, in an obviously coordinated way,the major think tanks of Europe and the United States started aseries of attacks, studies, that China is causing countries tofall into a debt trap, that it’s just an effort to replace theUnited States as the dominant force in the world, to becomeChinese imperialists, that the Belt and Road projects are notviable, that China is an authoritarian system and Xi Jinping is adictator. So all of a sudden, you had a barrage of attacks onthis concept.
The funny thing is, if you would ask and listen to theleaders of the countries cooperating with the Belt and Road, likethe Africans, the Asian countries, the Latin American countries,they would be full of praise and say that with the Chinesecooperation, they have for the first time, the opportunity toovercome the underdevelopment and poverty they had suffered as aresult of Western colonialism, and 70 years of IMFconditionalities, which prevented them from having exactly thatkind of development. And they were full of praise, calling Chinaa friend — so you get a completely opposite view.
I have come to the conclusion that everything in the Westernmainstream media are saying about China is fake news, and just alie. And it comes from the fact that many people in the Westsimply have lost the ability to imagine that any country, letalone China, could promote something which is, indeed, for thecommon good of all of humanity. When Xi Jinping talks about the“shared community of the common future of mankind,” or the“community of destiny,” he means it! And isn’t it obvious thatin the time of thermonuclear weapons, in international spacetravel, of conquering all the problems of the world, that we haveto think about the one humanity first, before we talk aboutnational interests? As a matter of fact, the concept of a win-wincooperation for the Belt and Road Initiative, it has all theeconomic aspects which are beneficial to all the countries thathave participated.
But it is much more than that: Because from the standpointof the evolution of mankind, if you take a step back, and don’ttake a look at the conflict between Marseille and Trieste, whichI understand is obviously very important for the Italians, but ifyou look at the larger point of view, isn’t it natural thatinfrastructure development would eventually open up allcontinents and connect them?
So now, all of a sudden, you have this eruption ofanti-China propaganda, but it comes from the fact that we are nowat a point where something is happening, which has alreadyhappened 16 times in history, namely, that the up-to-now dominantpower is being surpassed by the up-to-now second largest power.And in history this has led 12 times to war, between those twocompeting power, and 4 times it was just that the second powersurpassed the dominant power without war. China has emphasizedmany times, they don’t want, obviously, to follow the 12 exampleswhere this conflict would lead to war, but they also don’t wantto simply replace the United States in the role of the leader ofan unipolar world, but that they want to build a completely newsystem of international relations based on sovereignty, onrespect for the different social system, on non-interference, andactually proposing a completely new system of internationalrelations.
So, the big question strategically is you have the conflictbetween the United States and Russia, which is obvious, becauseof the cancellation of the ABM Treaty, then the Russian reactionto that, and now the cancellation of the INF Treaty — so thereare many who think that we are actually close, in worse strategiccrisis than during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis,because of the relations between the United States and Russia.But if you talk to some strategic insiders on both sides of theAtlantic, they easily admit that the much more dangerous conflictis actually the one between the United States and China: Willthe United States accept the rise of Asia, and the Belt and RoadInitiative is just the obvious expression of that? Or, is whatwas said by the RAND Corporation a couple of months ago, thatit’s better to have the war with China now, than in 10 years,because the casualties will be less?
Well, obviously, this is something we have to change, and Ithink that the best way to change it is, indeed, to bring in thisreality of a new paradigm of thinking altogether: We have toleave geopolitics. We have to leave the idea that there can be alegitimate interest of one country, or a group of country,against another bloc of countries, because this was what ledtwice to world war in the 20th century. As a matter of fact, Ithink the potential to overcome this conflict is absolutelythere. I know in Europe, many people are fainting when youmention the name of President Donald Trump, but President Trumpis not seeking confrontation with Russia — as a matter of fact,he wants to have an improved relation with Russia, which heproved in the summit with Putin in Helsinki. And despite thepresent trade tension, President Trump always talks aboutPresident Xi Jinping as his very good friend, and China being agreat country and that he wants to actually have a goodrelationship between the United States and China.
So the attacks on Italy, coming from the White House — the[i]Financial Times[/i] mentioned this Garrett Marquis — is notrepresenting the same view as Trump. It comes from a faction ofthe neo-con which are unfortunately also in the TrumpAdministration, but the factional situation in the United Statesis very divided. You have the Democrats and the neo-cons tryingto get Trump out of office with Russiagate, but on the otherside, I think President Trump has proven a tremendoussustainability against the efforts to drive him out of office,and his supporters are absolutely backing him, and the chancesthat there will be a second Trump Administration are actuallyvery, very high.
Now one of the accusations against China and the Belt andRoad Initiative is that it would divide Europe. I thinkeverybody knows Europe is divided already, without China: Youhave the North-South conflict because of the EU austerity policy,which impoverished, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, gave nodevelopment to the East European countries, so they are now happyto cooperate with the Belt and Road initiative, because the EUdid not provide these things. Now, the second area of divisionis obviously the migrant issue, where you have the divisionbetween East and West — the East European countries do not wantto have any part of the proposed quota system of the EU.
Now, what Italy is actually doing in this context is reallya role model, because the kind of cooperation between Italianfirms and Chinese firms in the development of Africa is actuallythe only human way to address the refugee question.
So you have right now 13 countries which have already signedthe MOU with China; you have, now with Italy, the first G7country (which is really overrated, because the G7 is no longerthat important as compared to the G20, for example). And youhave many ports — Mr. Geraci said, if actually all the ports ofEurope which are already wanting to be a hub between not only theNew Silk Road over the land route, but also hubs to the MaritimeSilk Road, Portugal and Spain becoming the hub for all theSpanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries around the world. Sothere is a completely changed attitude developing very quickly.
Now, also even in Germany and France, the two countrieswhich are now trying to put the brakes on the most, apart fromthe EU Commission, there are many cities which are absolutelyrecognizing their self-interest to cooperate with the Belt andRoad Initiative. You have three states in Germany —Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, and Brandenburg — which all thetime have huge delegations back and forth; you have many citieswhose mayors are complete fans of cooperation with China, and itis an increasing dynamic, which is growing more rapidly than youwould think.
So, if you would ask my prognosis, I think the perspectiveof unifying Europe, not necessarily under the EU bureaucracy, butin the conception of de Gaulle, more like a “Europe of theFatherlands” uniting with China, with Russia, with the Belt andRoad Initiative, the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU], and Europeancountries, to cooperate fully in this new paradigm is absolutelythere.
Well, I think that that is also the only way how Europe canimpact the strategic situation: Because if you had a unitedEurope of the Fatherlands cooperating with the Belt and RoadInitiative, including Germany and France, that would be the bestway to get the United States to also give up their opposition —which I said, is not Trump himself, but these other forces — andget the United States to join the new paradigm. And I think thisis the [i]only[/i] hope we have to avoid a catastrophe where we wouldend in World War III with nuclear weapons, meaning the extinctionof civilization. So in that sense, what Italy is doing right now,is of the greatest historical importance, because Italy, withwhat you are doing, with the MOU but also with the joint ventureswith China in Africa, can become the role model for all the otherEuropean countries.
But the New Silk Road is not just an economic concept.Obviously, infrastructure, investment, all of this is extremelyimportant, as the backbone, but it has a much more, and not sowell-known cultural/moral dimension, which I think is bestexpressed in the fact that the Chinese thinking is actually basedon the Confucian theory, namely, that you absolutely must haveharmony among all the nations, developing all in a harmoniousway. And when some think tanks say that there is now acompetition of systems between the Western liberal model and thestate-guided model of the Chinese state economy, well, what theyreally mean is, China has developed its whole policy based on aConfucian orientation, which means that the state is also incharge of the moral improvement of its population through theaesthetical education. As a matter of fact, Xi Jinping has saidrepeatedly, that he puts the highest emphasis on the aestheticaleducation, because the result of this is the “beauty of the mind”and the “beauty of the soul.”
So the problem is, the reason why some people in the Westregard that as a competition, is because Western neo-liberal andliberal philosophy has moved away from that conception: We areno longer humanists. We are no longer thinking as during theItalian Renaissance or the German Classical period, but we havereplaced that with a liberal thinking of “everything is allowed,”every degenerate form of culture is allowed, everything goes — Idon’t want to elaborate that, but if you look at the violence,the pornography in the entertainment, we don’t have to worry. Wewill lose that competition of the systems, simply because we arenot taking care of our future generations, but allowing them tocompletely morally decay.
And that is why I think that we have to understand that theonly way how Europe can persist in the coming future is notthrough military power — what Mr. Macron is proposing isridiculous — but we will preserve our European culture [i]only[/i] ifwe return to the greatest tradition of our own history, meaningreviving the spirit and the ideas and principles of the ItalianRenaissance, of the Ecole Polytechnique of France, of the GermanClassical music, literature, and poetry. Only if we rise againto our best traditions can we persist in the coming world.
So I think that the cultural dimension of the New Silk Roadis as important, if not more important, than the question ofeconomics.
I would be happy to take any questions. Thank you.