Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Category Archives

Webcast: Trump-Kim Meeting Revives ‘Singapore Spirit’

Helga Zepp LaRouche said in her webcast on July 1 that the Trump-Kim meeting in the DMZ “revived the ‘Singapore Spirit'”, and demonstrated the potential when presidents of leading nations act together. The meeting, following discussions at the sidelines of the G20 summit involving Trump, Putin, Xi, Abe, and Moon, gets back to the idea of policy making on the level of presidents. Trump outflanked the British-oriented neocon warhawks in his own administration to set up the meeting and, from the ridiculously hostile reaction of Democrats, outflanked them as well.

While the G20 summit failed to address the burgeoning economic/financial crisis — she said it is not really designed to do so — the latest BIS report on the dangers of debt, especially corporate debt, and the effect defaults on such debt will have on banks, the potential still exists for applying Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, to stop the danger of a crash. The positive signs from the Trump-Xi meeting, and the Trump-Putin meeting, point to the importance of taking up LaRouche’s Four Power agreement to set up a new financial system.

She called on Americans to take advantage of the July 4 holiday to reflect on the importance of restoring the spirit of the American republic, which was created in opposition to the British Empire.

TRANSCRIPT

Harley SCHLANGER: Hello! I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s July 1, 2019. There’s been a lot of developments on the strategic side of things, and Helga, why don’t we start with the Trump-Kim meeting in Panmunjom at the DMZ. What’s your assessment of this meeting?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that is definitely going back to what I called the “Singapore Spirit,” referring to the first summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, and I think this is potentially, the real thing. Because, as we had observed, the summit in Hanoi was sabotaged essentially by, I think, Pompeo and Bolton. But this time, I think the fact that in Osaka, on the sidelines of the G20 meetings, there were these meetings between Trump and Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping, Trump and Abe, which is in the background, also, and also with South Korean President Moon Jae-in — I think this is all back to the idea that policy is being made on the level of the presidents. There was this summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping, but they also had a dinner about which very little is being reported; but Trump’s spontaneous decision was that he would go to the DMZ, meet with Kim, which was sort of a surprise; then he went earlier than even announced, and he stepped symbolically over this very important border [into North Korea].

Now, the interesting thing about it, is that it is very unusual is that the North Korean media, all, instantly, very broadly reported about this, calling it a “historic meeting,” “bold,” and “efficient” and that the two leaders will stay in person close contact from now on. And this is all really a sign that the chickenhawks in the Trump cabinet were outflanked. And the policy is back to being made by Trump. I think especially for the viewers outside of the United States, who generally, at least in the West, only have an extremely negative picture of Trump from the media, it’s really important to see this difference: When President Trump has the freedom to act, he tends to do very important things, and I think this is very, very promising.

Unlike with the previous summit follow-up, this time it will not just be Pompeo who will do the follow-up, but there are supposed to be working groups, entire teams from the State Department and the North Koreans, and they’re supposed to follow this up.

The Italian politician Michele Geraci made a very important characterization which I tend to agree with, where he said this event is probably the event of the year and it may be [i]the[/i] event of the first term of the Trump Presidency. So I think there is all reason to be really optimistic, because, with Russia and China in the background, and it seems to be that also South Korean President Moon was in the environment; he was on the video together at the press conference with these other two leaders, that all means that a potential for the solution for the North Korean denuclearization is shaping up on the horizon: Because only if there are security guarantees for North Korea, whereby they could denuclearize, and not fear that Kim Jong Un would face the same fate as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi — which is the main reason why North Korea insisted on their nuclear program — but with Russia and China being in the picture, maybe an entire Asian security architecture which could solve the North Korea situation can be made possible. And if that would come together, and all signs right now speak for it, naturally, with the Belt and Road Initiative, the New Silk Road as the economic dimension of this whole program, I think this is a very hopeful sign, and it would mean that one of the most dangerous crisis spots in the world strategic picture could be resolved.

So, I think this is very, very promising, and it really shows that on the level of the Presidents Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, solutions can be found. And in this case, also, the Japanese government is in a supportive role. There are many Japanese and Chinese scholars who want to improve the relationship between China and Japan. Naturally, South Korea has all the interest that this problem should get resolved. So, I think this shows you the incredible potential of the New Silk Road to be the inspiration for peaceful solutions and a durable peace.

SCHLANGER: Helga, you mentioned the outflanking of the chickenhawks within the administration: It appears from the hysterical reaction of the Democrats that they were also caught off-guard by this meeting.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes. The Democratic reaction just, absolutely, they lost it. Tim Ryan, for example, compared the meeting between Trump and Kim with the meeting between Neville Chamberlain meeting with Hitler in Munich in 1938. That shows you that they really have fallen off the deep-end, so to speak. I don’t see Kim Jong Un taking over all of Asia. But it just shows you that the Democrats are really the war party, and the only very good exception in this chorus of insanity, was in the first Democratic debate, where Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard spent the entire seven minutes she had to participate in the debate in denouncing the danger of nuclear war, saying it’s closer than at any time since the end of the Cold War. She denounced the endless regime-change wars, [i]and[/i] she also attacked Trump that he had let the conflict with Iran get as close as 10 minutes to war. So, Tulsi Gabbard, at least on the war issue, she is a very good exception in the chorus of Democrats, and it’s quite good that the population have increased their support for her after this debate, in the polls. That shows you that once you have leaders who speak to the issue of war and peace, the American people are not for war and that is a very important lesson in this Presidential campaign.

SCHLANGER: Let’s look briefly at the G20 summit, because it itself seemed to be a waste of time, although there were all the side meetings that were quite significant.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. The important fact is that the meeting between Trump and Putin did take place. Remember, that previous such summits there were last minute sabotage actions. This did not happen. The Trump-Xi Jinping meeting was also very important, and naturally, many other bilateral meetings. But essentially all around Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, while the EU was completely irrelevant.

Now, as a criticism, I must say that the G20 [i]should[/i] have addressed the danger of a coming financial crash, and they did not do that. But that has probably to do with the fact that the G20 is not a format which is capable of addressing this issue.

On the more positive side was a definite improvement in the relationship between the United States and China. Trump and Xi Jinping got the trade war at least stalled, so that there is room for new negotiations. The Huawei ban was lifted, at least for the time being, so that American products can be sold to Huawei, and also China agreed to import a large quantity of U.S. agricultural products, so, that hopefully now this can get now get on a better track. I’m not giving de-warning sign yet, but I think this was definitely a step in the right direction.

But I said that the big one, that the G20 should have addressed the pending danger of a financial collapse did not take place, and that shows you that our proposal, that you need a different combination, preferably the combination of Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi of India, to address these issues is a viable idea, because the G20 failed again to do what really would be their responsibility to the world population.

SCHLANGER: There was a report that came out from the Bank for International Settlements which said that we are, as a result of overleveraged corporate debt, heading for a potential crash. What do you make of this report?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, that’s not the only voice which is warning of that, but the BIS, after all, is the so-called “central bank of central banks.” They have basically reiterated that the corporate debt crisis and their engagement in derivatives is the equivalent of what the subprime mortgage crisis was in 2008.

Now, that obviously has been building up for a while, and now, all the data for the first and second quarter of this year show that the world economy, with very few exceptions, mainly of countries which are working with the Belt and Road Initiative, but all the European countries, most of the Asian countries and the United States, have actually all signs of a recession or zero growth, all the figures are negative; so I think we are in for a very big crisis.

Our related [i]EIR[/i] publications or that of our colleagues in the United States, they basically just published a new study, “The Bitter Truth about the Economic Recovery,” referring to the supposed recovery in the United States. We have there analyzed the different segments of the U.S. economy, everything from collapse of infrastructure, unemployment, homelessness, the drug epidemic, the negative life expectancy in the United States — and the U.K., one should add — so all these parameters of the physical economy show that there is no recovery. We have warned all the time that the increase in the price of shares on the stock market is rather an alarming sign, rather than an indicator of the real economy. For example, Deutsche Bank just announced, or is rumored to be having major layoffs and the stocks went up significantly.

So I think we are in an urgent situation, where the economic package which was designed by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, some years ago, the Four Laws — Glass-Steagall banking separation; a National Bank in every country; a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, and the United States and Europe joining with the New Silk Road — [i]is[/i] an urgent, urgent question. We need to have a mobilization: So, I’m asking you our viewers and listeners to help us. Contact us, because this crisis is coming on fast, and it would be almost a miracle if it wouldn’t take place very soon this year.

SCHLANGER: One of the important developments was the meeting of Trump and Putin, coming as it did, especially after the danger that we saw over the weekend before last, over Iran. What’s your assessment of where things stand now between the United States and Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s not yet a situation where one could be satisfied with, but, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, there were some inspections involving what they call the New START agreement, Russian and U.S. military talking in this context, and Russian specialists doing investigations in Turkey and in Romania, according to the OSCE document. So, I think that there are clearly signs in the aftermath of the Putin-Trump meeting, that a normalization could occur. There was also an agreement between Russia and NATO: They agreed on some non-escalation agreement, and that is not much, yet, but it means that for the time being that there will not be not an increase of troops into the East on the borders of Russia, and no increase of equipment. So that is not yet a solution, but at least these are very tiny, baby steps which show some hope. And also the fact that President Trump accepted the invitation by President Putin to attend the 75th anniversary next year in Moscow, celebrating the end of World War II, which is a good sign.

And also Macron obviously, after it’s not going so well for him, in general, accepted such an invitation from Moscow which is a good step in the right direction — unlike, unfortunately, I have to say, the new head of the CDU in Germany, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (or AKK, as she is called) who made another one of her really mindless, Cold War speeches, defending the sanctions at a family-entrepreneur conference in Germany.

So the dividing line is really those people who try to get in a very dangerous strategic situation, some new discussion, dialogue, rapprochement with Russia, with China, and the West; and those who are in the old paradigm and are backward oriented. I think that that is an important difference.

SCHLANGER: Many Americans are wanting to know what actually is going on with the European Union. They seemed to play almost no role in Osaka, at the G20, and they couldn’t even elect a new leadership. Where is this headed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the EU is essentially finished: This organization which basically is a large bureaucracy, modeled on the principles of the British Empire, have completely moved away from the interest of their member-states, of the populations they’re supposed to be representing, and I think it’s falling apart. I mean, the fact that they couldn’t agree on the successor of Jean-Claude Juncker for European Commission President; Manfred Weber, the candidate of Germany was completely rejected, and Macron made intrigues against him. Then, for the time being, the Dutch social democrat Frans Timmermans was mooted — he was opposed by the Visegrad Group [Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland] and Ireland, and I think Bulgaria. Naturally, then there is wheeling and dealing that we will give that post to this one, and then the other one gets this post — this is all very much without any dignity, and that becomes visible to the public eye, so they had to break off the EU summit because they couldn’t find a solution as a joint leadership. Now, that, in my view is a reflection of the fact that there is no unity in the EU, and naturally, the EU policies overall are completely unfit for any of the crises which exist.

So it’s high time to replace the EU with something different, and again, I have to quote Michele Geraci, who also commented on the fact that the EU has completely become superfluous, and will vanish in a larger Eurasian kind of combination. And that actually makes a lot of sense, because you already have the integration of the Belt and Road Initiative, Eurasian Economic Union, and if European countries would start to associate with that, in the context of the joint building of the New Silk Road, then all of these problems could be addressed.

And since I’m quoting Geraci, let me just mention one other important, interesting thing he said, namely, that the West has completely underestimated the rapid growth of China, and that China is now a leader, not only in 5G technology with Huawei, but also e-cars, e-batteries, DNA mapping, quantum particles, one could add fast train systems, fusion energy research, Moon exploration. So I think China is on a very good trajectory, and countries who really want to solve their problems should cooperate. Xi Jinping offered again, at the G20 in his speech, that the BRI is an open concept for international cooperation. And I think the countries of the West would be well-advised to take up this offer.

SCHLANGER: One exception to the dysfunction of the European Union seems to be Italy. There’s a very significant statement issued by prominent Italian scientists, from the Italian Association of Research Scientists and Technologists (ASTRI), attacking this climate hoax. What do you know about that, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s very important. This is a group of extremely well-known and prestigious scientists who made an appeal to the Italian President, the Italian government, and the parliament, not to adopt policies of reducing CO2 emissions, with the argument that CO2 is not a pollutant, that to the contrary, CO2 is extremely important for life on the planet. And that in any case, all of these claims about control of the climate by reducing this CO2 emissions is a complete hoax, that there is not one, single fact for that, and that in science, facts cannot be replaced by the number of people who claim to have the same opinion. And basically, that all of these predictions are based on computer simulation models and not on any true physical science.

So, I think this is very important. There were about 70 original signers, and then one signer, who is very famous, Prof. Antonino Zichichi, who was the leader for many decades of the famous Erice center in Sicily. And I think this is something which deserves support by many people in other countries as well, so we are planning to publish this appeal. And actually, if people are interested to have an honest debate, they should sign this appeal, so that reason is being brought back into the debate.

They also note in this resolution, by the way, that the consensus among the scientists on this issue, does not exist at all, but that there is a growing number and a large number of scientists who are absolutely opposing the findings of these models, and naturally, also say it’s a complete illusion to think that you can control climate by CO2 reduction. Climate change is obviously taking place, but it’s almost a fakery to claim that you can influence the climate by such measures, because it’s not anthropogenic, it has to do with quite different phenomena in our Milky Way, in the galaxy, on the Sun — all things which man cannot influence as such.

Now, talking about fakery, just to mention, that we will probably pick this up in the next program next week, a group of journalists has just documented that the OPCW completely faked their report on the supposed chemical weapons attack on Douma, Syria in 2018, and the initial report which the OPCW had, actually said it was staged event! So this is all now coming out, and the role of the British in that fakery, as well. But that we will deal with more next week.

SCHLANGER: We are coming up to the moment where the British Empire is increasing exposed as not just corrupt, but is the continuing dominant force in the old paradigm. This week is the week of July Fourth, the founding of the American republic. How should people think about this situation, by reflecting both on what the American Founding Fathers did, and the upgrading of the American Revolutionary ideal by your husband, Lyndon LaRouche?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the July Fourth celebration is not just for barbecues: People should remember the proud history of the American War of Independence against the British Empire, the Declaration of Independence, and the principles declared there. The idea of Benjamin Franklin, of Alexander Hamilton, and the Founding Fathers in general, to declare a republic, to give the United States a Constitution devoted to the common good, not only of the present generation, but of posterity, is an extremely important inflection point in all of human history. And if the United States could go back, and with the present policies of Trump, at least in the first steps, there is the hope that America can become a republic again.

Now, I’ve said this many times: If the United States would remind itself of the ideals of its origins, and actually start to implement that and go away from being the junior partner of the British Empire, then America would have all the friends in the world. And this [i]is[/i] the crucial step which will decide over world war or world peace: So, I hope that people on this Fourth of July reflect on that, and make a step in this direction — especially, because shortly after the Fourth of July will be the 50th anniversary celebration of the Apollo Moon landing. There will be many events, and the Schiller Institute will also have major events on that day, especially focusing not on the last 50 years, but on the next 50 years, and what kind of economic crash programs are needed to make possible what President Trump had promised, when he said that by 2024 there will be again a man, and this time hopefully also a woman, on the Moon: But that requires to go into the kind of economic crash mobilization as it was defined by the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche. And it’s actually the absolute mandate to be implemented in the near future.

So, I think we have an incredibly — what Friedrich Schiller would call “a pregnant moment” in history. I think a great catastrophe has been barely avoided with the situation with Iran. And now with talks again between the U.S. and China and Russia, there is actually hope, but that is just the first baby step. And we need the full New Paradigm, a new system of international relations, and especially a new economic system based on the physical principles developed by Lyndon LaRouche. So therefore, I can only appeal to you, as I have done in the past: Help us with the exoneration, and the “Case of Lyndon LaRouche” which describes exactly what was done against him and why, and why it is so absolutely crucial to exonerate him, to make the way free for his solutions.

So, please watch these two videos, help us to circulate them as widely as possible, and join the Schiller Institute.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, thank you for joining us, and we’ll see you maybe even later this week, as events are happening so rapidly.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till soon.


Webcast — LaRouche’s Exoneration is Crucial to Stopping the British Empire’s Drive Towards WWIII

The central theme of Helga Zepp LaRouche’s webcast this week is that the release of the two documentaries on the life and works of Lyndon LaRouche provides essential weapons to defeat the apparatus that brought us within ten minutes of the launch of World War III Thursday. The international mobilization to exonerate LaRouche, she said, is the only way to stop World War III. She repeatedly appealed to viewers to join us in getting the widest possible audience for these two videos.

The decision by President Trump to call off an attack on Iran, ten minutes before it was launched, is an incredible story! The question raised by people all over the world, following his tweet that he called off the strike at the last minute, coming just after the New York Times reported on the “dual power” situation in the U.S. government regarding the decision to escalate cyber warfare against Russia, is, “Just who is making decisions in Washington?

Those British imperial geopolitical networks who were behind the launching of the Get LaRouche Task Force are the same as those behind today’s war drive. The ideas of LaRouche, which shine through the two documentaries released today, were the target of those who prosecuted him. Those ideas can be realized, beginning with the summits between Trump and President Xi, and with President Putin, at the G20 summit next week. As the documentaries demonstrate, the apparatus pushing for war, following its efforts to remove Trump, is the same which unjustly targeted LaRouche. While war was narrowly avoided this time, there will be more incidents which could lead to war, if this apparatus is not brought to justice.

There is no issue more important today, than to bring an understanding of this to the broadest segment of the population worldwide.


Now Available—The LaRouche Case: Mueller’s First Hit Job

With LaRouche’s jailing, America and the world were deprived of their most illustrious statesman and economist.

Because LaRouche’s policies for replacing the deadly looting of Wall Street and the City of London with a just New World Economic Order of universal, high-tech development were not implemented, hundreds of millions of people around the world remained in poverty and tens of millions perished unnecessarily. It has only been with China’s recent adoption of policies very similar to those proposed by LaRouche up to 50 years ago, that the genocide has stopped in at least large parts of the planet.

It is time that the damage done by LaRouche’s incarceration three decades ago be repaired—not only because such a terrible injustice was done to LaRouche, but because that injustice has emboldened the British Empire to use the same methods against a sitting President of the United States, which endangers all of humanity. What better way to defend the United States of America and all of humanity than to exonerate LaRouche, ensure that his policies are at last adopted, and recognize his ideas for what they are, the acts of one of history’s greatest geniuses, affording him his rightful place in history?

Feature Documentary — The LaRouche Case: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job

 


Add your name to the petition for the exoneration of LaRouche.


CGTN’s Yang Rui Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche & Bill Jones on His ‘Dialogue’ Broadcast

CGTN anchor Yang Rui interviewed Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Bill Jones during their recent China trip, which was aired on June 13 for the “Yang Rui Dialogue” program, headlined “BRI Incentives and Risk Assessment.” A transcript is provided below.

Transcript

YANG RUI:  The Belt and Road Initiative has been thrust into the media limelight for several years.  With more and more countries onboard now, China will not be the party that dictates where the cooperation is heading.  For all parties’ common interests, China will inevitably undergo a range of policy adjustments along the way, to ensure the Initiative delivers win-win results that are long-lasting and sustainable.  But, what is behind some of the criticisms against the Initiative, and what can the BRI us?  Unilateralism undermines world economic patterns.  To discuss this issue and more, I’m happy to be joined in the studio by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the Schiller Institute, and Bill Jones, Washington bureau chief of Executive Intelligence Review.

That’s our topic. This is “Dialogue.”  I’m Wang Rui.

Welcome to our show.  Do you think the rest of the world has developed a better understanding about the Belt and Road Initiative after so many years of debates, discussions and media fanfare since 2013?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I would think that the people of Asia, for sure.  I just attended the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, and the reaction to Xi Jinping’s speech was really extraordinary, because people realized that they are participating in the evolution of a completely new system of international relations, which is overcoming geopolitics.  I think people are sick and tired of confrontation and war as a way of solving problems, and they appreciate very much that every conflict on the planet can be solved through dialogue.  So, I think this is very well understood in Asia, in Africa, even some of the Europeans are becoming very enthusiastic.  As matter of fact 22 of 28 EU nations are already cooperating.  So I think the rest will be a question of time.

YANG :  But it seems the top concern of the EU about the BRI has been the issue of transparency.  Bill, what do you make of their concerns?

WILLIAM JONES:  I think a lot of it is a tempest in a teapot.  The Belt and Road Initiative has been transparent to the people who are receiving the investment, who are benefitting from it.  There is also an issue that people can see what’s happening on the ground, with the improvement of the general conditions of life of the people who are recipients of the Belt and Road Initiative.  The reason that there’s this objective is, however, that people are concerned, on the one hand, that it has been a Chinese initiative, not an initiative taken by the European Union.  It is also breaking with the policies of the EU and of the West generally, of demanding conditionalities for any investment that’s made in places like Africa, India, and Asia. China has been intent on building infrastructure:  They don’t demand certain conditions which are not necessary, and they’re not concerned about the different political systems that exist in those countries:  The goal is to improve the lives of the people, and people can see that on the ground.  And the objections that are raised to the so-called “transparency” issues, I think are just an attempt to stop the momentum that has been created.

YANG :  Helga, it seems, some of the member states of the European Union are starting to break the silence, by standing up to the BRI memorandum, such as Italy, which indeed surprised their American friends.  Do you think what Italy has done, is likely to trigger a similar domino reactions that the British authorities had done before the rest of the European Union had followed suit, regarding the AIIB?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the Italian memorandum of understanding with China can be the model for the relations of all European countries with China, not only in the bilateral agreement, but to have a joint mission, for example, to develop the continent of Africa.  Africa will have 2.5 billion by the year 2050, and either the Europeans join hands with China and other nations to industrialize the African continent, or you will have the biggest refugee crisis ever in history.  And the Italian government, especially Prime Minister [Giuseppe] Conte has already advocated that Italy intends to take the lead to bring the Europeans into cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative. And the good thing is that, contrary to what some people think, Conte also has a good relationship with President Trump.

So I think the strategic question, number one, is how do we get development among many nations in the world, but finally, the United States must be brought into the Belt and Road Initiative, because if you don’t do that, there is the danger of the Thucydides Trap.  But I think the Italian government is play a very constructive role in all of these questions.

YANG : Secretary Pompeo has been selling the idea, wherever he goes, that China will be a threat.  Why are we so bad?

Now, when we look at, say, our investment in the infrastructure building in Africa, it seems to amount to a project, a mega one, of industrialization, a massive project of industrialization.  What about the consequences arising from, for example, the trade war that is just started between the United States and China?  What do you think of the impact of this trade dispute between Washington and Beijing upon Africa, and our business presence there?

JONES: It’ll be absolutely disastrous, because it will hinder, it will place an obstacle in the free development of the Belt and Road Initiative; it’ll raise suspicions that really have no basis whatsoever.  And it’s disastrous for the United States, itself: President Trump is not going to be able to create a strong economy in the United States through trade embargoes or trade tariffs.  He has to invest in infrastructure, he has to invest in science and technology.  And there are certain attempts to do that now, over the last couple of weeks, in terms of the space program in the United States and the attempt to have a discussion with the Democrats over infrastructure.  But if he doesn’t bring down these tariffs, if he doesn’t create a good relationship with China, this is not going to work.

China, in fact, can help in building infrastructure:  They could invest in an infrastructure bank in the United States with much of the money that is now held in Treasury bills, in order to build high-speed rail in the United States.  The U.S. economy is going down, not because of trade, and not because of China, but because of a failure of governments over decades, in investing in industry and technology.

YANG: The idea of a China threat covers many things, such as ideology.  Well, many say that the Cold War is making a comeback. So, does it mean, Helga, that many African countries have to take sides?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The Chinese model is very attractive to the Africa countries, because it shows a way of how to overcome poverty, the miracle which China has undergone in the last 40 years is admired by many Africans, and they are now demanding to be treated more equally by the Europeans.  They don’t want to hear Sunday sermons and words about human rights and good governance, and no investment.  They demand from the Europeans, direct investment and not development aid which disappears into the pockets of the NGOs.

So, I think we are in a period of transformation, where either the West finds its way back to better traditions, like the humanist periods of the Classical period of 200 years ago, where there was actually a much larger affinity between the moral values of the European classics and China.  For example, if you look at the similarity between Confucius and Friedrich Schiller, after whom the Schiller institute is named, they have the same idea of the moral improvement of the population.  Confucius talks about the aesthetical education of man; Xi Jinping has put a lot of emphasis recently on the aesthetic education of the students, because the goal of this is the beauty of the mind, and this is the ideal which used to be the case for Europe, and for the early American republic!  The problem with the West is that, as you can see in the United States, they have turned away to a very large degree, from the ideas of their early historical period.  But they’re going down: The West is in a moral collapse, the economy is far from being in such a great shape as they say, and the statistics would say.  So it’s really a question for the West to change.

And I think there are many countries, you mentioned some in Europe already, which absolutely are willing to find a new model. I think it’s not so much a question of choosing; I think we are witnessing the creation of new paradigm of international relations, where the best of all countries and traditions must come into it.

YANG: Increasingly, there’s no question that much of the strength that China can project into a continent like Africa would largely depend on the construction of “soft power.” What do you know about Confucius schools in Africa?  Why do you think the United States considered things we teach Confucius schools in the United States a threat, whilst it seems these schools are very popular in the African continent?

JONES:  Well, you see in the United States, there is a group of people, some of whom are in the Trump Administration of a neoconservative bent, who have never come to terms with the fact that China will become a major industrial power.  And they have initiated a major campaign similar to what was done during the McCarthy era, to blacken China’s name on all levels — in the area of economy, in the area of culture, in the area of social governance.  And so you have this situation where major scholars, who are most knowledgeable about the United States are now being restricted from coming to the United States!  And this is a very serious thing, because, it’s not only that we agree to disagree, but we must also find the common interests:  We’re all on the same globe, we have major problems that we have to resolve, not least of which is population alleviation not only in China, but population alleviation in the world.  And we need population alleviation in the United States:  We haven’t talked about that for 40 years.  That should be on the agenda.  And China’s initiative, to try to educate Americans about the ideas of Confucius and to learn the Chinese language, which is a basic element in learning another culture is learning their language, the Confucius Institutes have been very important in providing a means of learning the Chinese language.  Chinese right now, still, is one of the most important second languages in which schoolchildren are trying to learn, because they realize this is going to become the most important language.

YANG:  Language learning is fast becoming an instrument in building interconnectivity, a very critical idea for our understanding of the BRI.  During the Cold War, the former Soviet Union was accused of spreading its ideology of communism.  Today, one major factor that has prevented United States from undertaking an all-out Cold War against China, the rising power, is that China is not as aggressive as the Soviet ideology:  We want to build a community of shared future.

So, do you think what the United States is concerned with, holds any water?  Where do you stand about the issue of ideology, of course, in the context of how to build a soft power, and the establishment of Confucius Institutes?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that what China is doing is a moral model of improving the livelihood for people, but also demanding that the people improve.  Xi Jinping has talked about the role of the artists, that they have to uphold the morality of the population.  I think that one of the reasons why certain geopolitical factions in the West are so negative, is because the liberal system has reached a point of degeneration, where everything is allowed, every perversion, every new pornography, every new violence, the entertainment “industry” in the West has really become terrible!  And I think that the people who are making their profit with these kinds of things, they don’t like the idea that somebody says, you should be morally a better person.

But I think we have reached a point in history, where, you know, we are at the end of an epoch.  I don’t think that the changes we are experiencing are just the Chinese model versus the liberal model.  But I think that we are experiencing a change as big, or bigger than the difference between the Middle Ages in Europe and modern times, which will mean completely different axioms.  And I think what Xi Jinping discusses in terms of the “shared community for the one future of humanity” it is really the idea of how you can put the interest of the one mankind ahead of any national interest.  So, I think the way to look at the present situation is, where do we want to be in a 100 years from now?  We will have fusion power.  We will have the ability to have limitless energy; we can create new raw materials out of waste by separation of the isotopes.  We will have space travel. We will have villages on the Moon.

So, I think that at that time, humanity has to be one, or else we will not exist!  Take the recent imaging of the black hole:  This was only possible — first of all, it proved the general relativity theory of Einstein, which is a wonderful thing all by itself, because it will mean new breakthroughs in science, at all levels.  But, this was only possible, because you had eight radio telescopes at different points in the world, in Spain, in Chile, in the United States, in the Antarctic, which together could make this image!  You could not have done such a proof of a physical principle of the universe by only one country alone.   And I think that that particular incident of imaging the black hole, gives you a taste of the kind of cooperation mankind will have in the future.  And the key question is, do we get enough people to understand that in time, to make this jump?

YANG:  Thank you so much.  You’re watching “Dialogue,” with Mme. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the Schiller Institute, and Bill Jones, Washington bureau chief of Executive Intelligence Review.

Welcome back:  The BRI would not only cover the Sub-Sahara region.  Most countries in the South — I’m talking about South-South cooperation — would benefit from infrastructure building.  Let’s do a case study:  Hambatota Port in Sri Lanka has caused many debates as to whether China has developed a conspiracy theory, whether the Western media concerns about the “debt trap” would hold any water?  I would like to have your thoughts very quickly.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this is turning the truth upside down.  Because if you look, why is Africa underdeveloped?  Five hundred years of colonialism, and then about 70 years of IMF conditionalities.  If you look at the 17 poorest countries in Africa, which are in danger of defaulting, only in 3 of them is China involved, but all the rest are indebted to the Paris Club. So the debt trap was created by the IMF before, and China is actually giving many grants and —

YANG:  Do you agree, Bill?

JONES:  I do agree with that.  I think we’ve seen the debt situation spin out of control, long before the BRI.  We have needed international financial reform that we have been talking about, that Helga’s husband, Lyndon LaRouche has pointed out for decades, prior to his recent death, of trying to change the financial system, in order to create credits for infrastructure, instead of credit for repayment of old debt.  These countries in Africa have been saddled with debt by the IMF, not by China.  As a matter of fact, most of the countries that are in the biggest danger of their debt being a problem, are those which are not involved in the BRI — countries in Africa.  And therefore, what has to be done, is really a reform of the international financial system, in order to perhaps even write off some of this debt, and to insist, as we go forward, that any debt that’s given out will go to increase the physical production capabilities of these countries, because if it does that, then it’s debt that’s going to be repaid.  But if it goes to repay old debt, or if it’s the casino society that we’ve known over the last 20 years, it’s going to become a bubble, and we’ve got to change the way we do business in that respect.

YANG:  What about financing vehicles, Bill?  Is that a major issue for the beneficiary countries?

JONES:  What we actually need is the creation of something like an infrastructure bank in the United States, which would allow China to help invest in infrastructure there.  Foreign direct investment by China now becomes something of a problem, because of the atmosphere that has been created by the neo-cons; but otherwise, China could help with this.  China has a different orientation toward finance. Chinese finances to the Belt and Road go to transportation infrastructure.  It brings the countries together, it creates a greater production capacities, and it has become, I think, a template for how a functioning, how a healthy financial system has to operate.  We’ve got to get away from what used to be called the “bankers’ arithmetic,” in which money chased after more money.  The money has got to be used to finance physical economy, and then it becomes a means of growth for the population, and is no problem in terms of repayment, because the population becomes richer.

YANG:  I wonder if you have followed very closely the development between Malaysia and China, on the construction of the east coast railway link, that has a lot to do with how we do risk assessment, political and legal; and this helps us go back to one of the earlier questions on the issue of transparency.  So do you think this poses a serious challenge to the prospects of the BRI in developing countries, some of which are young democracies, according to Western standards?

JONES:  Well, I think a lot of this is a matter of a learning curve that the BRI has been through over the last five years.  The Malaysia situation was unfortunate, but it has largely been resolved, and it’s been resolved because China has been very flexible in dealing with the countries on the BRI, and I think they have a clear indication, a clear orientation for improving the situation in the countries in which they are involved.  And if problems arise, or if discrepancies occur, I think they have shown a willingness to diplomatically resolve the problem to the benefit of the countries that are involved.  And they have to do that.

Look, a lot of mistakes were made by the Western countries in terms of initial attempts to industrialize Africa, and as a result of that, they left.  They left Africa in the dust.  China is there, there may be some mistakes in individual cases, but China learns the lessons and does not leave, and this is the important thing:  Because the fortitude of continuing with the project, which is the most important project for mankind today is absolutely necessary, and I think the Chinese government has shown the fortitude necessary to move forward on this.

So, yes, problems may occur.  They have occurred in the past.  They have been resolved, and I think they will be resolved in the future, if they would occur again.

YANG: The last two remaining questions will be about, first of all, the alleged westward expansion of the BRI through the Eurasian continent.  The other, of course, is the Maritime Silk Road: Do you think this idea of a Maritime Silk Road, Helga, will help ease tensions further between China and other countries that have competing claims on the maritime stakes in southeast Asia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the combined concept of the BRI and the Maritime Silk Road is really a program for the reconstruction of the world economy.  And in the beginning, people said, “this this railway from east or west or north or south, more beneficial for China or for Russia?”  And I kept saying, “don’t worry about it, take it a couple of years from now and all of these networks will grow into one.”  This is why we published this report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” Because, if you look at it from the standpoint of the evolution of mankind, it is very natural that eventually the infrastructure will reach all continents, will open up all interiors, will connect the maritime connections.  And for example, Portugal and Spain and Greece and Italy, these are countries that want to be not only the hub for the Eurasian Land-Bridge on the land line, but they also want to be hubs for the maritime connection, connecting to all the Portuguese-speaking, Spanish-speaking countries.  So, I think this will also grow into a World Land-Bridge connection.

YANG:  Bill, what do you think of the connection, between China’s BRI and President Putin’s vision for the Eurasian Economic Union?

JONES:  I think they will tend to converge, not on all points, but in the basic orientation, because what President Putin wants to do, is to take those countries which have been traditionally associated with Russia and create some kind of common economic entity.  But, the Belt and Road is providing the investment for all of these countries, including Russia, which benefits tremendously from it.  And therefore, there is a means of really bringing together the two most important countries in Eurasia around a common goal of developing infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and improving the conditions of life in all these countries.  So I think there is this convergence going on that will become greater with time.

YANG:  I’ll see you next time.  Good-bye.

 


A Silk Road for the 21st Century – CCTV Interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Founder and president of the international Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, was interviewed by Chinese host Yang Rui at the CCTV studio in Beijing, China on April 15, 2014.


Webcast: As Global War Danger Grows, Lyndon LaRouche’s Ideas are Needed More Than Ever

The Memorial event commemorating the creative life of Lyndon LaRouche had a stunning effect on most participants, as the full extent of the incredible contributions made by Lyn came across clearly. Helga Zepp LaRouche emphasized that, while most people are trapped in a day-to-day struggle to make ends meet, Lyn challenged them to think 50 or 100 years ahead. The New Paradigm which is emerging was envisioned by Lyn decades ago, and he dedicated his life to realizing that beautiful vision he had.

Today, Putin correctly identified the crisis, that U.S.-Russian relations are deteriorating by the hour, even though the potential for the U.S., under President Trump, to have a “great relationship” with Russian and China, is still possible. This was made clear, she said, in the series of conferences recently, in St. Petersburg and Biskek. But the British empire continues to push for war, with Iran as a serious, immediate potential trigger.

She called upon listeners to watch the video of the Memorial, and to act to make sure that the upcoming documentary on the LaRouche case receives the widest circulation as possible. The solutions to the crisis exist, provided that people take up the mission of Lyndon LaRouche, and make it their own.


Schiller Institute Celebrates 30th Anniversary!

This new 36 page booklet about the Schiller Institute movement provides the history of our three decades long fight against the prevailing trend toward cultural and political barbarism, and it  will help you organize others to participate in creating the urgently needed Paradigm Shift. We can and must pull mankind from the abyss and make a new Golden Renaissance!

PDF Booklet for Download

 


In Memoriam: The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

A memorial event celebrating the life and legacy of American statesman, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. was held in Manhattan, June 8th, 2019 with simultaneous satellite events watching across the country. See the full program below.


PDF of the program

Introduction – Dennis Speed

Prologue – Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche in His Own Words
Dennis Speed, narrator

Hall Johnson (arr.): “When I Was Sinkin’ Down”

Hall Johnson (arr.): “I Don’t Feel No-Ways Tired”
Reginald Bouknight, tenor soloist
Schiller Institute Festival Chorus
Diane Sare, director

J.S. Bach: “Jesu, meine Freude,” BWV 227
Schiller Institute Festival Chorus
Andrés Vera, violoncello
Bruce Director, contrabass
John Sigerson, director

INTERMISSION

The Third Trial of Socrates
Dennis Speed, narrator

Roland Hayes: “They Led My Lord Away”
Elvira Green, alto

Roland Hayes: “Crucifixion”
Frank Mathis, baritone

Johannes Brahms: “Dem dunkeln Schoß der heil’gen Erde”
Schiller Institute Festival Chorus
John Sigerson, director

Ludwig van Beethoven: Sonata for Violonello and Piano, Op. 69
I. Allegro ma non tanto
II. Scherzo
III. Adagio cantabile
IV. Allegro vivace
Andrés Vera, violoncello
My-Hoa Steger, piano

Ludwig van Beethoven: “Adelaide,” Op. 46
John Sigerson, tenor
Margaret Greenspan, piano

Johannes Brahms: “Immer leiser wird mein Schlummer,” Op. 105, No. 4
Elvira Green, alto
My-Hoa Steger, piano

The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche
Dennis Speed, narrator

Epilogue

Robert Schumann:
“Mit Myrthen und Rosen”, Op. 24, No. 9
John Sigerson, tenor
Margaret Greenspan, piano

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart: “Ave verum corpus,” K. 618
To be sung by everyone

J.S. Bach: Chorale
“Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden” from St. Matthew Passion
Schiller Institute Festival Chorus

“Taps” for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.


Webcast—Helga Zepp-LaRouche in China: East/West Cooperation Is The Only Way Forward

Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche discusses her recent trip to China where she participated in the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, May 15-16 in Beijing, keynoted by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Zepp-LaRouche and host Bill Jones discuss what’s actually at stake in the so-called US-China trade war, and how it’s possible to be resolved in a win-win manner for both nations. She warns that there is no benefit for the West to try to contain a nation like China, who has made so many contributions to human civilization. The only path forward that will be mutually beneficial for both countries, and their populations, is one of cooperation and overcoming the “Clash of Civilization” strategy of the western neo-cons.

 


Zepp-LaRouche Covered on US-China Ties on World’s Largest Urdu Website

Under the title: “U.S.-China Ties Key to World Economy Growth,” UrduPoint in Pakistan on May 24 covered Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s interview with Sputnik. The interview was also covered in a Pakistani community newspaper, the Jago Times based in northwest Texas, May 25th.

“The state of relations between Washington and Beijing will determine the path of the global economic output in the next decade,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the leader of the German Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, or Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party, told Sputnik. “The key to the future of the world economy is the relation between the U.S. and China, which already has more than 300 million middle class consumers, a number that will double in a decade,” Zepp-LaRouche said.

The upward trend of Chinese imports presents a chance for the United States to reduce trade deficit between the two nations.

“China will import $40 trillion worth of imports in the next few years. All of this will offer excellent opportunities for the U.S. to reduce the trade deficit with China by exporting into that growing market and will very likely be subject of a deal between Trump and Xi Jinping,” the politician added.  


Page 26 of 28First...252627...Last