Sept. 13, 2024 (EIRNS)—Today’s 67th consecutive weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) hosted over 1,000 people from nearly 40 countries, warning of the dire crisis facing mankind. Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the discussion by stating that we are at “a point of no return,” that the decision to grant Ukraine the “permission” to use U.S. and NATO long-range missiles to target Russia, and Putin’s clear declaration that if this is done Russia will know that this is not Ukraine, but the U.S. and NATO that are attacking Russia, and will “respond appropriately,” demonstrates that we are in the most dangerous moment in history, possibly days or weeks away from thermonuclear warfare.
Dr. Ted Postol, MIT professor emeritus and one of the world’s foremost experts on nuclear weapons, said that the fact that Secretary of State Antony Blinken would even suggest considering “the use of tactical nuclear weapons,” means he doesn’t know what this is. Blinken’s “cavalier” attitude towards the “overwhelming likelihood of the destruction of modern civilization as we know it,” shows his ignorance and almost unbelievable recklessness. “I realize it’s very strong language, but it’s just hard to comprehend that anybody could be so reckless, especially someone who is in a position where decisions he makes have serious consequences for the security of—really of the modern world. It’s that bad.”
Ukraine’s war on Russia has been lost, Postol said, and the invasion of Kursk, which has failed, has made it worse for Ukraine. Pulling their elite troops and air defenses off the front line in Donbas to invade Kursk has resulted in Russian forces moving forward at will, as the Ukraine forces left behind are “mostly unwilling and untrained,” many of whom are “running or surrendering, and near collapse.”
Dr. Postol then showed a series of maps and graphs which he stated he “prepared at the urging of Helga Zepp-LaRouche,” showing the size of the radioactive mushroom clouds from nuclear weapons which get blown by the wind, dropping their radioactive waste along the way. He displayed a map of Germany showing the impact of 10 (a number chosen at random) 75-kiloton Russian nuclear weapons and their potential effect, should Germany proceed with the insane U.S. policy of deploying long-range nuclear missiles in Germany in 2026, as currently planned. This submission to the U.S. plan is a “disservice to the German people and the German economy,” said Dr. Postol, which is already collapsing due primarily to the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines. The German people “have a right to prevent this,” he concluded, and called on them to show the leadership what they think of these insane policies.
Dr. Ted Postol’s presentation during the 67th meeting of the International Peace Coalition
Larry Johnson, a retired CIA official and a co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), said that two positive steps in this extremely dangerous time were, first, that Putin’s clear statement had removed any doubt about the Russian position, and that it has gotten through to at least some in the West. A second development was the fake call on Sept. 12 from two Russian pranksters Vovan and Lexus, who impersonated former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in a call to the rabid war-hawk Radoslaw Sikorski, the Foreign Minister of Poland, who admitted that all his bravado about defeating Russia and saber rattling for war were for show, that Europe does not really want a war with Russia, let alone a nuclear war. Johnson added that the West is miscalculating when they “read Putin’s patience for weakness.”
Dr. Mubarak Awad, the founder of Nonviolence International and an adjunct professor at American University, said that the people who are talking casually about nuclear weapons “have no knowledge of the impact of these weapons.” He said that many people argue that democracy is a superior form of government, but reminded that it was the U.S. who dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations in Japan, and who have undermined every arms control agreement. In addition to the billions of dollars wasted building the nuclear arsenals, Dr. Awad noted the weaknesses displayed in our health systems during the pandemic, and that the health disaster which would result from a nuclear exchange would find the world totally unprepared. He denounced the U.S. refusal to consider any arms control agreements, calling for churches and other institutions to not be silent, and for people to mobilize and act so that the war madness is stopped.
Ray McGovern, a former CIA official and also a co-founder of the VIPS, agreed with Putin that the U.S. granting “permission” to Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to attack Russia is a fraud, since such delivery systems would be run by NATO forces, and would be, in effect, a NATO war with Russia. On whether Blinken and Sullivan would actually use nuclear weapons, he said that their primary concern was to “not lose”—not lose the war, not lose the election, and not lose their own freedom. They are clearly guilty of serious crimes, and if they lose the war and the election, they could well lose their freedom as well. He reviewed the lies by the U.S. and the U.K. which were used to start the war on Iraq in 2002, and warned of the possibility of a “false flag” attack now, even before the November election.
Tony Chaitkin, an historian and author of the book Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress, reviewed the historic battle in the U.S. between advocates of industrial and scientific development on the one hand, against the financier classes, going back to the slave runners and Tory bankers who tried to crush the American Revolution. He pointed to John F. Kennedy as having had the courage to stand up to Wall Street and to the war parties, defending development and science for the U.S. and for the world. He said “Wall Street built no industries,” and still today opposes the rise of other nations while poisoning our own development. These are America’s age-old enemies, he stated, who now would stop the rise of Russia, China and the Global Majority.
Carl Osgood, an EIR analyst and military historian, presented the history and development of the 1958 Military Defense Agreement (MDA) between the U.S. and the U.K., which Biden and Prime Minister Starmer are now attempting to amend so that it does not need to be renewed every ten years. Osgood warned that this would prevent any future President or political movement from changing it—known as “Trump-proofing” by some in British intelligence—but more accurately described as “nation-state proofing,” putting everything under supranational control.
The discussion period included various ideas on how the UN General Assembly, which begins its 2024 debate session next week, can intervene on the nuclear war danger and on the genocide in Palestine. One participant said that we must address emotion, since many people do not respond to reason, and warned that social unrest leads to war. Zepp-LaRouche countered that there is “no contradiction between reason and emotion,” and that Friedrich Schiller showed that the emotions can be elevated to the level of reason. She also noted that wars are created by the oligarchy, not by tensions in the population, who are driven to fight wars usually against their own best intentions.
Zepp-LaRouche thanked all the speakers, “especially Ted Postol,” adding that if Germany survives, it would have a great impact on the global crisis, and that Postol’s intervention, with reason and emotion, would deserve significant credit for that. [eir]
The 66th consecutive online weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) today featured a uniquely high-powered senior group of scientific, military and political experts in dialogue, all addressing different facets of the insanity of those leaders in the U.S. and Europe who have committed themselves to what Col. Larry Wilkerson aptly described as the suicidal policy of “Cry Havoc, and Letting Slip the Dogs of War.”
Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche opened the session, warning that “the goal is to inflict strategic defeat on Russia,” which, given Russia’s status as a nuclear superpower, is impossible without initiating nuclear war. She emphasized the role of the British, citing recent statements by Russian government spokeswoman Maria Zakharova that London is behind the drone attacks and the constant escalation in the Ukraine war. President Biden submitted to Congress an amendment to the U.S.-British mutual defense agreement of 1958, to make it permanent, ending the requirement for renewal every ten years, to make the arrangement “Trump-proof.”
She reminded participants of Biden’s new nuclear weapons doctrine, which is so secret that apparently no electronic version exists. In discussions with military experts, we have learned that the decision to station missiles in Germany was actually worked out in 2021. Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS) of 2017 proclaimed for the first time that Russia and China are geopolitical rivals and was followed in 2018 by a National Defense Strategy (NDS) to modernize nuclear weapons. In response, Russia announced the introduction of new weapons systems, including hypersonic missiles. In 2022, the U.S. Nuclear Policy Review stated that the U.S. can use nuclear weapons to “defend its vital interests.” British Defense Secretary Mark Lancaster proclaimed the same for the British government. Germany, in typical anticipatory obedience, embraced recent U.S. policy changes.
In August 2019 the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Zepp-LaRouche proposed that both sides must reinstitute the verification regime.
Dr. Ted Postol, MIT Professor Emeritus and one of the world’s leading experts on nuclear weapons, then characterized recent U.S. upgrading of nuclear weapons systems as “prompt preemptive strike forces.” The U.S. has, at great cost, produced “super fuse” weapons, designed to preemptively destroy silo-based missiles. One would only pursue this approach if planning to fight and win a nuclear war, an extraordinarily delusional mindset. A Russian military officer would be forced to conclude that the U.S. intends to attack.
Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, followed, recalling discussions with Powell about the 2002 National Security Strategy, about which Wilkerson warned, “We’re at the peak of the mountain, and if we see anyone stirring at the bottom … we will kill it…. We are going to get sucked into something that is initially conventional … once we start losing—which we will,” we will resort to nuclear weapons.
He is now hearing high-ranking military officers talk about the utility of nuclear weapons for the first time since the Cold War, which are very lucrative for defense contractors. In 1991-92, when both the U.S. and Russia were destroying nuclear weapons, he saw that it “scared the bejesus” out of the leaders of the military-industrial complex.
Colonel Prof. Dr. Wilfried Schreiber (ret.), Senior Research Fellow at the WeltTrends Institute for International Politics in Potsdam, who was born in Dresden, reported that according to military historians, Dresden was intended to be one of the first targets for a U.S. nuclear bomb. The war ended before that could happen. The threat of nuclear war has now re-emerged, hotter than ever before. Germany is taking on greater risk than any other country by stationing missile systems. If you follow military logic, the places where these advanced systems are stationed are the most important targets. The unilateral decision by the Chancellor to accept these missiles means that German democracy has failed.
Lt. Col. Ralph Bosshard (ret.) of the Swiss Armed Forces, a consultant on military-strategic affairs, contrasted the decision by Biden and Scholz to station missiles in Germany to what Chancellor Helmut Schmidt did in 1979, agreeing to station Pershing II missiles—but also pursuing negotiations which led to the INF Treaty. Biden and Scholz will station without negotiating. Bosshard said that what he calls “decapitation strikes,” like the “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq, have weakened the UN Charter. “NATO is nothing more than a safe harbor, behind which Western powers pursue their geopolitical ambitions…. Europe should learn its lesson and not chain its destiny unconditionally to the global players.”
Zepp-LaRouche was moved by the remarks of her countryman, Professor Schreiber, saying that he “touched what is in the hearts of many people in Germany,” and that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, war has become so barbaric that it must be outlawed.
New York Congressional candidate Jose Vega asked Colonel Wilkerson whether someone in the State Department or other agencies could play the same role as Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed plans to use nuclear weapons against China. Wilkerson responded that Ellsberg “was a hero par excellence.” He added that the U.S. is “the only country in the world that divides the world in fiefdoms, and puts a four-star general in charge of each fiefdom.” We had plans to invade countries throughout the Levant, if Iraq had been a pushover. Secretary of State Blinken’s remarks about the sanctity of borders are the height of hypocrisy.
Postol added that nuclear war planning is done in a ritualized way, by people who have no real knowledge of the actual physical effects of nuclear weapons. The side effects, such as massive firestorms, are not included in planning. “They don’t even get the basic physical effects right,” he said. In response, Wilkerson said, “My experience from 31 years of military service is that I am more frightened of the civilian leaders than the military,” to which Postol replied, “Me, too!”
Ambassador Jack Matlock, a scholar of Russian history and culture, who was President Reagan’s choice in 1987 for the crucial post of ambassador to the Soviet Union, reviewed what followed the demise of the U.S.S.R. Secretary of State James Baker and his counterparts gave assurances to Gorbachev that there would be no expansion of NATO—not one inch. But for Russia, the problem is not NATO expansion, but the stationing of American or NATO bases in these countries. The decision of Western powers to interfere in the politics of Ukraine was also particularly provocative.
Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana, professed his admiration for Matlock, and asked: How much of this situation would you attribute to the deterioration of leadership in the West? Matlock replied that a big problem has been the preference for military solutions to all problems. Ramotar went on to say that the world is presently divided into two blocs: the former colonial powers trying to maintain their domination, and the Global South. He endorsed Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s proposed Council of Reason to break out of this trap.
In conclusion, Zepp-LaRouche asked participants to widely share what had been discussed at the meeting, and to take to the streets in the upcoming demonstrations. She urged the U.S. to “stop the geopolitical nonsense,” and collaborate with the Global South. “Move toward solutions, because if we only protest the negative, it will not be sufficient.”
Aug. 30, 2024 (EIRNS)—Today’s 65th weekly meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) placed a major focus on the fact that the world is poised at the very edge of a U.S./NATO-initiated nuclear war, and that this threat must be met by both mass demonstrations around the world to stop the madness, and a drive to lift the quality of thinking by the population and its leaders to adopt solutions which are clearly possible.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, initiator of the IPC and founder/chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, opened the meeting with what she described as an “extremely disturbing report” that, even though the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council have reiterated that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” there is now a drive for just such a war coming from the U.S. and NATO. She urged listeners to read an article by nuclear weapons expert Ted Postol, reporting on the (still not publicly released) new nuclear posture document adopted by President Biden in March 2024, according to David Sanger’s story in the New York Times on Aug. 20. The U.S is preparing to fight a three-front nuclear war, against Russia, China and North Korea, by taking out all the ICBMs in silos in Russia and China with the use of “super fuse” improvements in the accuracy of the U.S.’s existing nuclear warheads.
Postol characterizes this as total insanity, especially given the fact that Russia has Poseidon drone submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons from harbors of major U.S. and European cities. Zepp-LaRouche concurred that the concept of fighting and winning a nuclear war is both false and clinically insane, as it could end civilization. She added that Germany’s acceptance of the U.S. decision to deploy long-range ICBMs in Germany starting in 2026, a decision made without any consultation, even with other NATO countries, is a virtual submission to the total loss of sovereignty. She stressed that the historic example of Germany acting unilaterally will cause profound concern across Europe, and urged an immediate and broad public debate on this decision.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and one of the co-founders of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), pointed to the myth that the deployment of F-16s to Ukraine would be the new Wunderwaffen which would win the war for Ukraine. One F-16 was just destroyed, and the pilot killed. That shows, he said, that “Regardless of the plans, the chance for the unexpected to happen is very high.” This is equally true with nuclear weapons.
Glenn Diesen, a well-known Norwegian analyst of strategic affairs, described the current crisis as “the most dangerous moment in history.” The unipolar world under Anglo-American domination has collapsed, he said, but they have no “Plan B.” There are no negotiations. This is a problem 30 years in the making, after the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when the West declared itself to be the unipolar rulers of the world, believing that military force could maintain the peace. The decision to expand NATO was opposed by wiser minds, such as former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry and former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, but it went ahead anyway, with the belief that Russia could be forced to submit. But Russia will not be broken, and there is no alternative in the minds of these Western leaders other than escalation.
Mossi Raz, a former member of the Israeli Knesset and former secretary general of Peace Now, said that the crisis between Israel and the Palestine did not begin on Oct. 7, but has been around for a long time. If there is conflict, there must be negotiations, not escalation, and it must be international. He asserted that the Arab League peace plan is the best one on the table, and said it is conferences like this one of the IPC that are necessary to achieve peace. He said it is very difficult to get Israelis and Palestinians to work together, “but it is possible.”
Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and co-founder of the VIPS, addressed the fact that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has been in China for three days, fruitlessly trying to break China away from Russia. Chinese officials told Sullivan his demands were “absurd.” Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, McGovern said, are panicked that if the war in Ukraine is not won before the November 5 U.S. presidential election, that they will be out of office, and perhaps also “could lose their freedom.” The danger is that they want to box in Russian President Vladimir Putin, in order to provoke a response, to which the Biden Administration will then respond possibly with a “mini-nuclear weapon.” He said he thought there was a “50-50” chance that they will do so, but that Putin will not “go for the bait.”
Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter provided a video message warning that Ukraine Kursk invasion was failing. The Ukrainians will eventually all be killed or driven out. The even greater problem for Ukraine is that the winter will be pure hell, without adequate power as a result of the war. The imminent danger of escalation to a nuclear exchange is the greatest threat.
Irene Mavrakakis, a medical doctor and leading organizer of the Rage Against the War Machine (RAWM) rallies, reported on the upcoming RAWM demonstration at the Washington Memorial on Sept. 28, followed the next day by a second demonstration sponsored by Rescue the Republic. Sept. 28 will also be an international day of action against nuclear war. IPC moderator Anastasia Battle encouraged participants to organize parallel demonstrations everywhere. Scott Ritter is organizing anti-war demonstrations in New York State and elsewhere on Sept. 28.
A professor in Geneva, a former UN official, said that the world’s leading media are all on the same line, the one narrative. He added that NATO is not a defense institution. It has long since become an enforcer of the unipolar domination by the Western leaders and fits the Nuremberg Code’s definition of a criminal organization, citing the atrocities against the populations of Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and more. NATO’s existence is inconsistent with the UN Charter.
An African IPC participant from Mali noted the horrendous continuing wars in several African nations, and that the Ukrainian Ambassador in Senegal admitted active Ukrainian support for the insurgency in Mali. We are all human, he underscored. We cannot let this war spread all over the globe.
An Argentine participant, disturbed by the implications of the Postol article that Zepp-LaRouche had cited, called for a large international meeting to address the mounting danger of nuclear war.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded the meeting looking to the importance of the upcoming BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, and the revival of the “Spirit of Bandung” and the Non-Aligned Movement. The West must give up confrontation, and cooperate with the Global South. Instead of complaining about migrants, the solution is to create 4 billion new productive jobs across the Global South. People will want to remain in their own countries. Pessimism can be countered, she said. Her proposed Ten Principles for a New International Security and Development Architecture are intended to spark optimism and open a broader policy discussion on real solutions. The growing censorship of dissenting voices should make clear to all that we are in a “pre-war” situation. The IPC’s strength is the understanding that Man, as the creative species, can resolve these problems. [eir]
Aug. 25, 2024 (EIRNS)—This emergency statement is issued by the International Peace Coalition.
Whatever the Doomsday Clock may now say—at last check, it was 90 seconds to midnight—the truth is, that we have now “crossed the red line” to World War Three. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, and convener of the International Peace Coalition, has said that “the next six months may be the most dangerous in all human history.” In fact, we don’t immediately come to our senses, history—if there is any—may well record that Thermonuclear World War Three started, and the Doomsday Clock stopped, on August 6, 2024, the day that “Ukraine launched a surprise attack on Russia.”
But it was NATO—not Ukraine—that invaded Russia, under the guise of the “Ukrainian Kursk offensive.” NATO personnel from Great Britain, France, Poland, the United States, etc., are in this “up to their eyeballs.” More media, like the New York Times, have recently reported that this “surprise” attack was devised at least a year ago, with the full knowledge of British and American intelligence. This means that the United States and the nations of NATO are no longer at the doorstep of war with Russia, but have opened the door—and in that war, thermonuclear weapons can, in fact, be used. This means that we, you, must act in the next few days to prevent that from happening, even if you don’t think you know how.
Russian Akhmat Special Forces Commander Major General Apti Alaudinov stated from the battlefield that the invasion of Kursk “was prepared directly under the American leadership. These forces invaded the territory of the Kursk region…. The initial task was to take control of the nuclear power plant, as well as the Kursk and possibly Belgorod regions. We have quite credible information about these intentions. After this, they intended to put Russia to the negotiation table with ultimatum conditions.”
Commander Alaudinov then issued a direct appeal to the people of America and Europe: “You probably do not see or hear that your leadership is doing all it can to launch a nuclear war … as you’ve been trying with all means to make Russia cross the red line and start protecting itself using all these nuclear weapons. I don’t think this is something you really want. If you don’t want this to happen, speak out! Go to the streets and stop your government!”
Then, ominously, he concluded: “In any case, if you want Russia to lose the war, you have to understand: the Russian nuclear state will not lose the war. After all, why do we need the world if there is no Russia? That’s why I’m saying: you either wake up and go to the streets to stop your government, or you all (will) appear … in the Third World War zone. This is the issue of the nearest future!”
There are sane voices from the United States and elsewhere that have spoken out about the ugly truth about this war. Former Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich (also an Independent candidate for Congress in 2024), responding to Joe Biden’s crazed remarks at the Democratic Convention, has said that “NATO is an anachronism that should have been disbanded years ago. It has outlived its usefulness. NATO has no purpose, other than as an arms bazaar. And NATO’s purpose right now, is to keep growing to rattle the sabers with Russia.” Diane Sare, LaRouche Independent New York candidate for United States Senate, has campaigned for years to shut down NATO. Both Presidential candidates Kennedy and Trump have called for an immediate end to the Ukraine conflict.
This, however, is not enough—far from it. The people have to be heard and seen. Demonstrations and rallies, yes—but also interventions at public meetings, banners on highways and other public displays, petitions and letters are needed. Hundreds of public officials, clergy, doctors, etc. must make statements and call for no more funding of the war; denunciation of NATO’s war with Russia; admission of the truth of the Nord Stream bombing; and negotiations for a new security and development architecture worldwide. Out of these actions can come a Council of Reason that can move the world away from the precipice of self-destruction.
There is still time to act, but this is no time to run, to flinch, or to “choke.” All of human civilization that has been, and will be, may hinge on what we—what you—choose to do in these next hours, days and weeks.
Aug. 23, 2024 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, opened the proceedings of today’s 64th consecutive Friday meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) saying that her earlier view of the danger facing all of us in the next six months has been confirmed by developments of the last week. She described as “eye-opening” a report in the Financial Times of Aug. 13, on the recent discussion of a nuclear demonstration strike by Russia on an uninhabited area, to show that they mean business if NATO provocations continue.
The Kursk invasion, which she described in great detail, has increased the danger of nuclear war. It has been timed to exploit the “hot phase” of the U.S. presidential campaign, when candidates make a public show of military “resolve” in order to win votes. The fact that Russia has thus far refrained from using nuclear weapons is being used by British think-tanks and media to dangerously argue that there are no “red lines” that we should hesitate to cross.
She characterized Secretary of State Blinken’s recent trip to Southwest Asia as “caving in to everything that Netanyahu is demanding.” “It is a nightmare that the whole world is watching this and not intervening,” she said. She reported that Ronen Bar, chief of domestic Israeli security agency Shin Bet, just issued a warning, made public on Aug. 23, that settler terrorism in the West Bank is leading to a global delegitimization of Israel.
In the U.S., the secret “Nuclear Employment Guidance” of President Biden, written in March but leaked to the New York Times this week, puts the recent NATO summit in a completely new light; we now know that preparations are underway for nuclear war with Russia, China and North Korea. Regarding the Democratic National Convention, Zepp-LaRouche observed that “an amazing Hollywood performance was conducted,” where there was no debate, no discussion, and everything was orchestrated. “Can we expect anything different from Kamala Harris?” she asked, and then presented a ghastly excerpt from Harris’ convention speech, in which she promises that the U.S. military will be the “strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” to roars of approval from the assembled minions.
The meeting concluded with pointed proposals, which emerged from an intense discussion among participants from across the world. Zepp-LaRouche asked participants to find ways to circulate and promote the Chandra Muzaffar resolution to invoke UN Resolution 377(V) and put the issue of the genocide in Gaza before the UN General Assembly, since the UN Security Council has been paralyzed by U.S. vetoes. On the urgency of retooling the military-industrial complex for peaceful purposes (including independent Congressional candidate Jose Vega’s proposed “Space Civilian Construction Corps”), she recommended that we review all the many such proposals, and issue a fresh, comprehensive plan. And in an answer to a comment by one of her countrywomen from Germany about unifying the peace movement, she said we should wake up our fellow citizens to the fact that the implications of the Ukraine/NATO invasion of the Kursk region in Russia should make us put aside our ideological differences and fight to ensure the survival of us all. To do this, she concluded, “We have to jump over our shadow, as we say in Germany.”
Stopping the Terror from the Billionaires
Dr. Marino Elsevyf, professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law at the University of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, thanked Zepp-LaRouche for remaining faithful to the principles of her late husband, “the great American leader, Lyndon LaRouche,” principles which he shares as well. He had attended the September, 1995 Independent Commission hearings on the LaRouche trials. Concocting criminal charges against a political adversary, to avoid the appearance of a political prosecution, is a well-known tactic. He added that in Latin America, “we call this ‘prevarication.’”
Dr. Elsevyf’s remarks were followed by brief video excerpts from the 1995 hearings. Helga Zepp-LaRouche was shown saying that the biggest crime committed by the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department was not the unjust imprisonment of Lyndon LaRouche, but rather the denial to the world of access to his ideas, which were so badly needed. LaRouche himself was shown discussing what led to the prosecutions, including his back-channel discussions during the Reagan administration with officials of the U.S.S.R., which were “somewhat fruitful but ultimately aborted.” Henry Kissinger’s faction felt that “I was getting too big for my britches.” When President Reagan endorsed LaRouche’s proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative, “there were a lot of people out for my scalp.”
Col. Richard H. Black (ret.), former chief of the Army Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General at the Pentagon, elaborated on the March “Nuclear Employment Guidance” of President Biden, which envisions a nuclear war simultaneously or sequentially against Russia, China, and North Korea. Colonel Black emphasized that this is not framed as a response to an attack, but rather as “employment.” He pointed out that this was supposedly prepared to counter China, whose nuclear arsenal is only slightly larger than Israel’s, not in the same category as the U.S. Black insisted that the saber-rattling increases talk of nuclear war “and is designed to move us inexorably in that direction.” The U.S. has a first use doctrine, and “the President is not constrained by law.” U.S. policy toward China “has become mercilessly provocative,” he said. He concluded by reporting on the appalling comments of USAF Gen. Mike Minihan, who said that “when you can kill your enemy, every part of your life is better. Your food tastes better. Your marriage is stronger.”
For All of Humanity
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) in Malaysia, reviewed the history of the Zionist project in Palestine, calling it “one challenge which stains our conscience.” “Zionism is a racist ideology, which has nothing to do with Judaism … it is actually a betrayal of the Jewish religion,” he said, adding that “in principle, I support this notion of linking peace to development,” as promoted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute. “Most of all, anchoring this development in the goodness of the human being.”
Steven Starr, former director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, provided a timeline of Ukrainian attacks on Russian bases where nuclear weapons are stationed, as well as attacks on strategic radar systems. He stressed that these attacks cannot be carried out without technical assistance from the U.S. Russian nuclear plants are also under attack. “Basically, NATO has invaded Russia.”
Jack Gilroy of Veterans for Peace read the “Peace Pledge,” which is being initiated at New York’s Binghamton University, asking students to reject recruitment to any job that feeds the war machine. The Pledge reads as follows: “I renounce and reject all allegiance to any firm that produces, sells, or gives weapons or weapons systems or hardware or software to any entity. I shall never interview for or accept any offer to work for any such firm.”
At the end of the discussion, Zepp-LaRouche elaborated on the idea of transforming our militaries into a cadre for development. She had once forced herself to read all 800 pages of Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State, and he promoted having the soldier being “an adjunct of the weapons systems.” Rather than militarization of Europe, she said, we should retool and rebuild. China has 40,000 km of high-speed rail, whereas the U.S. has a grand total of zero, and Europe is in comparable bad shape. Instead of squandering the remaining industrial and technological capabilities on senseless neocon wars, we must be careful to transform the planet for the better.
On the International Peace Coalition #60, it was decided to endorse and publish a special appeal from Romanian Peace Activists the termination of any agreements in the Romanian Parliament, and other nations, the support of Military Aide to Ukraine. Below is the petition that is currently in circulation.
STOP THE MADNESS TOGETHER! STOP THE WAR! Make peace!
To the citizens of: Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom, United States of America, Czech Republic, Japan
READ YOUR COUNTRY’S AGREEMENT WITH UKRAINE AND ANALYZE THE IMPLICATIONS!
In the year 2024, Ukraine signed bilateral treaties at the state level with 24 countries and the European Union.
In all of these agreements there are clauses of ”consultations within 24 hours”, at the request of Ukraine or the signatory state, to react to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, in case of a new armed attack by Russia or in case of an armed attack by Russia after the end of the present hostilities.
Three of the countries that have signed bilateral agreements – ROMANIA, POLAND AND LITHUANIA – have expressly mentioned in the agreements that “in the event of a significant escalation of the current aggression” they will support Ukraine to counter or limit the aggression.
If these agreements are put into practice, the Russian-Ukrainian war could expand regionally or globally, if only one NATO country officially joins the war.
The content of these treaties and the declarations of the 2024 NATO Summit show that the aim is not to achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine, but to maintain the war and expand it.
At the same time, from a legal point of view, the “24 hours of consultation” clauses in the 24 treaties:
– are contained in different articles, which apply under different premises, have different wording and different effects from country to country;
– the names of the articles in some treaties are misleading – ‘future armed attack’, ‘future aggression’ – but their content suggests that they can also be applied to the current armed conflict;
– the wording is ambiguous, unclear and leaves room for interpretation, thus helping to counter any current criticism by claiming that the interpretation is in fact different;
– concerning between whom the “24-hour consultations” take place: the treaties contain different provisions. Some don’t mention anything, meaning that they will take place between Ukraine and the signatory country. Others mention that the two signatory countries will also consult with representatives of other interested states that have concluded agreements with Ukraine. Others mention that the two signatory countries will consult “in a bilateral format or through other channels as they both deem acceptable” (not sure what could mean channels that are considered acceptable as an alternative to bilateral consultations);
– regarding the assistance to be given to Ukraine following the “24-hour consultations” in some treaties it is mentioned that the signatory state will act in accordance with its legal, constitutional requirements, in accordance with international and European law. In other treaties there is no such mention, which would mean that the treaty is applied “directly” without further internal “analysis or approvals”;
– on the purpose of the “24-hour consultations”: in some treaties it is mentioned as being to “counter or deter aggression”, in others to determine the necessary steps.
Only in the bilateral treaties concluded by Ukraine with 3 states (Romania, Poland, Lithuania) there are express provisions that “consultations within 24 hours” apply to the current Russian-Ukrainian military conflict.
In the other treaties: the case of application of this clause is clearly defined in some (in case of a future armed conflict or new aggression by Russia, after the cessation of current hostilities), and ambiguous in others (a future armed attack by Russia, without mentioning whether in the framework of the current conflict or a future conflict).
Please consider the content of the treaty concluded by your state and let us together oppose the extension of the Russian-Ukrainian war, call for an end to this war and for peace.
In Romania, a petition was launched by Radu on the 22nd of July and a law proposal was made by independent Parliamentarian Dumitru Coarnă, supported by 25 others, asking for the cancellation of the Romanian agreement. Mr. Coarnă also filed a criminal complaint against the President of Romania, Klaus Iohannis, and the members of the Romanian Security Council (CSAT) for committing the crimes of high treason and subservience to a foreign power, provoking war against the country and facilitating foreign military occupation and undermining the economic, political or defense capacity of the state. The petition, as well as the law proposal are being supported in Romania by a national mobilization of a small, but determined minority of civil rights activists.
Excerpts from the Romanian online petition launched on the 22th of July by Elena Radu:
To:
The Romanian Parliament Representatives of all Romanian state authorities
We, the citizens of Romania, request the Romanian Parliament and all Representatives of the Romanian state authorities:
1. To convene, as a matter of urgency, an extraordinary session of the Romanian Parliament for the approval of the “Legislative proposal on the declaration of nullity of the Agreement on security cooperation between Romania and Ukraine, signed in Washington, on July 10, 2024”, registered at the Permanent Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies under no. 471/15.07.2024;
2. The adoption by Romania of a neutral position towards the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine;
3. The termination of any agreements/treaties/conventions by which Romania has engaged to provide military aid, military technology or any instruction and training of Ukrainian military personnel;
4. Romania to take the necessary steps, at the diplomatic level, in order to start negotiations on a peace treaty on feasible terms between Russia and Ukraine and to cease any steps and actions which could widen and perpetuate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict;
5. Non-involvement of Romania in any diplomatic and military/armed conflict anywhere in the world;
6. The respect by senators, deputies, prime minister and ministers, the President of Romania, the Romanian armed forces and by all representatives of public authorities in Romania of the will of the Romanian people expressed in points 1-5 »
The petition explains then, with extended technical details, that what the Romanian President signed was no agreement, but a treaty and that treaties have to be ratified by the Romanian Parliament. This important step was omitted by the Romanian president, Klaus Iohannis, and in consequence this agreement/treaty can not come into force and has to be cancelled.
It goes on as follows:
We note from the content of the Agreement: 1. that Romania undertakes to cede part of the national defense system and to make financial expenditures to support Ukraine in the war with Russia, while Romania’s public budget is in excessive deficit and the public debt has increased exponentially in the last 4 years, with a major impact on the quality of life of the Romanian people;
2. that Romania’s national defense system is becoming non-existent, with the Agreement focusing only on helping Ukraine to develop its industrial and national defense system;
3. that the agreement is bilateral but contains obligations only for Romania;
4. the granting of aid to Ukraine, under the conditions mentioned in the Agreement, in order to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression until Ukraine wins the war;
5. in view of the provisions of the Agreement stating that Romania will help to counter Russia’s aggression against Ukraine (which has been constant for more than 2 and a half years), this aid may be interpreted by Russia as a declaration of war by Romania. In such a situation, there is an imminent risk of an extension of the armed conflict and the declaration of a state of war on Romanian territory, with the consequence of mobilizing citizens to participate on the front line, given Romania’s constitutional obligations to defend itself.
All this has created negative reactions in the public space and in the Romanian society, because this Agreement endangers peace in Romania, affects the national defense and the economic stability of Romania, involving unacceptable expenses and sacrifices for the Romanian people.
We recall that according to art. 118 para. (2) of the Romanian Constitution, Romania’s army is subject exclusively to the will of the Romanian people.
In conclusion, it is necessary to respect the will of the Romanian people, who want peace and not the extension of wars, and to declare null and void the Agreement on security cooperation between Romania and Ukraine, signed on behalf of Romania by the President of Romania with Ukraine on July 10, 2024.
On 15.07.2024 was registered at the Permanent Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies a “Legislative proposal on the declaration of nullity of the Agreement on security cooperation between Romania and Ukraine, signed in Washington, on July 10, 2024”, under no. 471/15.07.2024.
Given that the Romanian Parliament is on holiday until September, it is necessary to urgently convene an extraordinary session to vote on the legislative proposal registered at the Permanent Bureau of the Chamber of Deputies under no. 471/15.07.2024.
Col. (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson, retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff of Secretary of State Colin Powell
Dennis Kucinich, served as the United States Congressman for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District from 1997 to 2013, independent candidate for Congress in 2024
Jack Gilroy, Veterans For Peace, Pax Christi, Ban Killer Drones
ANASTASIA BATTLE: Hello, thank you everyone for joining us. My name is Anastasia Battle, I’ll be your moderator today along with Dennis Small and Dennis Speed. We have a very important discussion ahead of us, especially given the incredible breaking developments which have led us, I believe, the closest we have ever been to thermonuclear war on two fronts; in both Palestine and Ukraine. We wanted to unite the entire peace movement around the world above ideologies, above people’s differences. There are all these various reasons why people don’t like one another, but if we’re actually going to accomplish true peace on the planet, we have to unite everyone under one umbrella in order to accomplish this. So, we wanted to have this meeting today on the anniversary of the Nagasaki atomic bombing, to remember and commemorate those who died in this crime against humanity. This should never happen again. We have people in official layers of government not just in the United States but around the world, who are actually talking about using nuclear weapons. This should never, ever be a thought that this could happen ever again. Human beings were obliterated and annihilated out of existence; they no longer existed. That is what a nuclear war means. This is not just a war on the ground where people die and you have casualties. This is the lack of existence of human beings; they no longer remain on this planet. We do not ever want to see that happen again. We thank all of you for joining us; we have nearly 300 people on the line right now. If you have any friends or organizations you’d like to invite, please bring them on now.
I put the agenda in the chat so you can see the line-up for today. To get us started, we’ll go to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is the founder of the Schiller Institute and the founder of the International Peace Coalition. It’s my pleasure to have you on; thank you for joining us today.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Thank you. Hello to all of you. As you just said, today is the anniversary of the Nagasaki catastrophe, and it is more urgent than ever before that people indeed remind themselves. Unfortunately, many people have completely gotten that out of their mind what the use of nuclear weapons can do. Unfortunately we are very close to the two major crises going out of control simultaneously.
Let me start with the situation around Ukraine, where on the one side there were some hopeful signs that maybe a dialogue solution can be found. There was the very important journey of Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary; there were signs that Zelenskyy would be willing to talk to Russia. But that’s not the whole picture. On Sunday, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Sergei Ryabkov made an unusually stern warning by saying that the “era of unilateral concessions” from the side of Russia is over; that the situation has deteriorated in such a way that there are no more circuit breakers. As if to prove that, two days later, the invasion of the Kursk region inside Russia occurred with about 1,000 elite Ukrainian troops, armored vehicles, tanks. Now, it is very clear that this could not have been done without support from NATO, from the United States giving them intelligence that this was obviously a weak spot in the border defense of Russia. Why are the Ukrainian elite troops—and we heard subsequently from various analysts that these troops are an elite brigade trained to NATO standards, having NATO-standard equipment—while at the same time, the casualties in the other contested regions in the Donbass are horrendous? The latest figures are that in the last two months, 120,000 Ukrainian troops were killed, basically because they’re poorly trained. They just have a couple of days training, and then they are being sent to the front. Naturally, they don’t last long. So, with a casualty rate of 60,000 a month, why is Ukraine then deploying these elite troops to the Kursk region?
Obviously, there are all kinds of narratives that this is just to get territorial negotiations material for future settlements, but I don’t think that is really the official story, because we have seen step-by-step how the provocations are being escalated. The latest, according to various American press outlets, is that ATACMS should be used there. Russia has called a federal emergency, and obviously the casualties which have been inflicted on these elite troops are significant—the latest figure was 940. Well, if there were only 1,000 troops to begin with, then the question is, how many are left? In any case, this is an extremely dangerous escalation.
If you look now at the second crisis spot, the whole world is still waiting to see if Iran is going to retaliate against the two assassinations? There have been several days now, where obviously, supposedly, the United States is talking to everybody to prevent a wider war. For sure, there was the deployment of the former Defense Minister and now Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergei Shoigu to Tehran, delivering a letter from Putin to the new President of Iran, urging him not to go into a massive strike and offering that Putin would mediate between Iran and Israel. At the same time, the head of the U.S. Central Command Kurilla was in Tel Aviv. This also demonstrates this is not just a wider regional war, which could involve Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Türkiye, Syria, the Kurds, but given the fact that the Russians have deployed S-400 air missile defense systems which—according Colonel Macgregor—this means that very likely also Russian technicians are also on the ground in Tehran and that China has a vested interest not to allow any major attack on Iran. It shows you that we are sitting on a complete powder keg which potentially could involve the big nuclear powers. The situation in Israel is hard to describe, at least for a German, and I beg your sympathy. Others may help to describe the situation. The fact that Finance Minister Smotrich publicly said that the best would be to starve the 2 million Palestinians in Gaza to death, and that there was no public outcry by the international community about such a proposition, shows you what the state of affairs is.
Now, that brings me to the other element in the situation, and that is that the whole diplomacy, everything has gotten completely out of control. Ryabkov, in his statement, basically referred to an appeal that the United States should refrain from any assassination attempt against Putin or any other leaders. There was this article in Foreign Policy magazine with the headline, “Would the U.S. Consider Assassinating Putin?” There followed a description of a lot of regime-change operations by the United States. Then, going through a very detailed description about the personnel in the environment of Putin who could be involved in such an assassination. I find this a complete breach of all order of diplomatic relations among nations, which should cause people to get really upset. This goes along, obviously, with either a wartime or pre-wartime kind of control of the narrative. There was the raid by the FBI on the home of Scott Ritter on Aug. 7, accusing him of having violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act, against which Scott Ritter, who is one of the most powerful critics of the present U.S. policies, is referring to the First Amendment and his right as a journalist to do his work. That is a sign of the times that there is obviously an effort to suppress any kind of discussion of what the implications are of these policies. Then similarly, Tulsi Gabbard, who after all was a Congresswoman, a Presidential candidate, and still has a U.S. Army Reserves rank as lieutenant colonel, she was surveilled by U.S. intelligence as a terrorist threat on her air flights. There are similar efforts going on in various European countries, where there is a very clear effort to completely muzzle any criticism of these policies. We know from history that this is what happens when there is either a war about to break out or is already in motion.
I don’t want to go through more elements of the strategic situation. I think what I said so far makes it more urgent than ever that we really unify the international peace movement in ways it has not yet been done, even if the IPC has made tremendous progress in the year that we have been doing this. But I think we absolutely urgently have to have a New Paradigm in the thinking, what I have said from the beginning of the special military operation: We have to overcome geopolitics, because as long as we define in the case of NATO, Russia and China as the existential threat, we are in a dynamic which sooner or later will end in a catastrophe of the annihilation of the human species. We have to find a New Paradigm, where we replace geopolitical confrontation with the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, with the UN Charter, with the principle of dialogue that we are the intelligent species who can settle any conflict through diplomacy and dialogue. That is why I think we need to have a new international security and development architecture which takes into account the interests of every single country on the planet. That is why I have called for the creation of a Council of Reason of wise people stepping forward from every country to discuss what the policy options are for mankind to get in a more human domain. That’s all I wanted to say.
Remarks during the Discussion:
Zepp-LaRouche: I just want to thank both Colonel Wilkerson and Mr. Kucinich for what you said, because it confirms what my deepest belief is; namely what Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz said. He said that the universe is made in such a way that every evil causes an even greater good to emerge. I think what you both said is what is giving hope to the rest of the world that America can be saved; so thank you very much.
Zepp-LaRouche: I think we have to operate on two levels, simply because the crisis is so enormous. I think we need to really have the serious idea of building mass movements much bigger than in the 1980s, when the middle-range missile crisis existed and people in Germany knew that the warning time was 4-7 minutes between the SS-20 and the Pershing II. Everybody was aware at the time that we were on the verge of World War II. Even Helmut Schmidt, we heard from a close friend of his, that he once threw Zbigniew Brzezinski out of his office, accusing him of bringing the world to World War III. So, we need that kind of a mass movement. In Germany it’s an existential question, because if these long-range missiles are deployed in 2026 (provided we get to 2026), Putin already said that Russia will put symmetric responses to these weapons, not asymmetric, but the target will be Germany. If it comes to war, there will be nothing left of Germany, not even a rubble field for somebody to look at, because nobody will be left, elsewhere in the world, either.
So, I think mass action. The 1st of September is coming up, which is International Peace Day. We must have mass demonstrations everywhere. I don’t know now with Scott Ritter’s idea of having a big demonstration on September 28th is still on the table. If it is, we should absolutely try to amplify it. October 3rd there will include nationwide demonstrations in Germany by the peace movement. We should have that replicated in every country that we can. I think that is definitely something to be really concerned with. Get everybody into the streets, because that is the message without which it does not function.
But I also think we need to have this Council of Reason. I have issued this call, and we have started to organize for it already. We’re talking to people, asking “Who do you know who in your country has been in a government position and has shown care for the common good instead of selfish motives? Who has intellectually contributed something important in the field of science, strategy, beautiful art? Outstanding individuals who could constitute such a Council of Reason. I gave three examples in history of this—there are many more. One is the Council of Florence, which was able to unite the Catholic and Orthodox churches at least for some time; being an important part of the beautiful Golden Renaissance of Italy. Second example is the Peace of Westphalia, where the war parties came together and negotiated for four years in Münster and Osnabrück, ending with the Peace of Westphalia, which was the beginning of international law. Lastly, the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa, which helped to overcome the wounds of apartheid. So, these are three examples of when mankind is confronted with an extraordinary crisis, the wise people are asked to step forward to bring in a difference element into the discussion and offer solutions coming from a wiser approach than that of the current leadership.
So, my appeal to all of you would also be, if you know such people, please bring them to our attention, help them to get into contact with us, and let’s form such a Council of Reason in a relatively short period of time, because I know that there are such outstanding individuals. If they would collectively make their voice heard, it could help to wake up those many sleepwalking people who are listening to the mainstream media and think that that is the only truth there is. So, to have this other voice come into being as quickly as possible, I think is also very important. That’s what I would ask you.
Concluding Remarks
Zepp-LaRouche: I hope I can address at least some of the points raised, if not, we will for sure review it and address it next week. I think that the difficulty, obviously, is that we have two exploding regional crises which have the potential to go global. Then we have in addition the kinds of problems which President Ramotar was mentioning in terms of the poverty levels and a lot of sub-problems, like what happens with the Palestinians in Gaza right now, who are in danger of being made extinct? I think that there is one concept which I would like all the listeners and participants to reflect on. I think we are looking, as a human civilization, at an unprecedented crisis. I think there were many Dark Ages in history, many empires which went under with great damage to the people. But never, ever, have we been in a crisis which is of such profound danger. Because of the existence of nuclear weapons, if it goes wrong this time, there will be nothing left for all the reasons Prof. Starr and others were saying. That’s why it is emphatically my view—and I think that of most people in the Schiller Institute and IPC—that you have to have a concept which addresses all the problems at the same time. Because if you are trying to solve only the Ukraine crisis, or only the Middle East crisis, or only this crisis, or that crisis, the danger is that these other ones will come up behind your back and eat you up, before you notice what has happened.
I think we have to address the systemic nature of what is causing all of these problems as a derivative. That is why I think we have to really think about this new global security and development architecture which should include every country on the planet. It should include Russia, China, the United States, Iran, North Korea, and all the other countries of the planet. It has to be designed in such a way that each of the countries can say, “My interest has been taken care of.” Because I don’t think that, unless we come up with an approach, will it be sufficient. It’s like when you have a cover on your bed which is too short, and you pull it over your head to warm there, then your feet get cold. It doesn’t work this way.
This is why I have designed these Ten Principles which could be the starting point of such an architecture. Deliberately, these are not programmatic points: These are principles, and there is a huge difference between programmatic points and principles. I have tried to come up with Ten Principles which are sort of the foundation for all the other programmatic points to be coherent and fall in line. The first seven principles address the immediate changes in the world system, like sovereignty, overcoming world hunger, a new credit system—all of these things, which I would urge you to read. But the last three principles, I deliberately added as those which pertain to the method of thinking which is required in the New Paradigm. I can for brevity mention only the last principle, because it’s also the most debated: That is that the new architecture has to proceed from the assumption that man is good by nature, and that therefore all evil is a lack of development and can be overcome by more development, more perfection, more improvement of the soul and the mind, the aesthetic education. In another place, I talk about the cohesion of the laws of the human mind and the laws of the physical universe. And that there is such a cohesion is easily proven, namely, that something which is completely immaterial—namely a new scientifically valid idea or artistically valid idea—has an impact in the physical universe by enlarging the potential and the degrees of freedom in the physical universe. So, there is a correspondence between an immaterial idea created by the mind and the impact this has on the physical universe. If such a coherence would not be there, it would not be efficient. You could have plenty of ideas, but they would have no impact on the physical universe.
So, I think we have to address this question in a very profound way, and in a certain sense, draw on the wisdom which humanity has produced in the different cultures up to the present development. I have found that you find the answers needed, if you do that kind of research. So, I think that that is a very important conception, and I would like to invite people to really discuss these matters deeply. That also has something to do with the answer to the global resources limit, because this global resources limit does not exist, because it goes against the laws of the universe. The universe has, according to the James Webb Telescope, we are aware of at least 2 trillion galaxies. We have maybe explored a tiny fraction of our planet Earth, which is a tiny, tiny planet in a galaxy which is too big to imagine. But just imagine 2 trillion galaxies, and then you get a sense that in terms of exploring the richness of the universe, we are only taking the first baby steps. So, we should not be pessimistic, and say we have reached the end of things and the limit of all things. It’s actually an intellectual challenge, which I think is very exciting, but that’s a long discussion.
In the meantime, I want to say that one of the members of the International Peace Coalition, who could not be here today for time reasons because he lives on the other side of the Earth in Asia. Mr. Chandra Muzaffar, who heads an organization called JUST [International Movement for a Just World], has just made a proposal which I would like to also bring to your attention. It is the idea that if the UN Security Council is blocked because of vetoes by one of the permanent members and you cannot come to any conclusion, or if you come to a conclusion then one of the members says “This resolution is not binding,” even if it is binding. So, there is clearly a problem. Therefore, the proposal which Chandra has made is to shift the discussion to have a resolution of the situation in the Middle East to the UN General Assembly. There is a clause which is called “Uniting for Peace”; and that mechanism can be used if it is being adopted I think by a majority of the nations. So, we will post all of this, and we ask you to help distribute that to all the UN countries, all the embassies, consulates, and just make sure that there is pressure to do that. Because I think a general debate in the UN General Assembly to address all the issues we addressed here today, I think that would be the gremium [commission appointed to carry out a specific task] which could act in the short term to address the problems we discussed.
Otherwise, I would like to thank you all for having been part of this. I think we will make the video available for the most part. I would say we can agree to that. And then you could take that, and take the passionate speeches—there were about 12 or so absolutely fantastic speeches highlighting different aspects of the world crises. If the 400-500 people who participated today, many of whom represent organizations with many members, get it out to as many organizations worldwide. Then bring those people to next week’s meeting, and then we can really start to become a force which has to be counted on. So, with that, I want to thank you. Be courageous and be loving.
Aug. 16, 2024 (EIRNS)—The 63rd consecutive online meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) met today amidst what Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, described as an “escalation step-by-step closer to a point of no return.” She said, “There is now an active discussion—maybe already a decision—to deploy the stealth Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, JASSMs, to Ukraine.” Ukrainian jets would then be able to launch these highly accurate long-range missiles. And with this move, the U.S. intends to “influence the German decision” to make available the Taurus cruise missile, which Germany has so far refused to do because of the fear that this would escalate the situation to possibly World War III. She further stated, “The entering of Russian territory in the Kursk region would not have been possible without technological advice by NATO. The decision was, in all likelihood, made by NATO,” which is making the option of a diplomatic solution close to impossible according to Dmitry Polyanskiy, the Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Likewise, Israel has made clear its rejection of diplomacy, by assassinating the chief negotiator for Hamas.
Looking at how we got here, Zepp-LaRouche noted that August 15 was the anniversary of the 1971 demise of post-World War II Bretton Woods system, with U.S. President Richard Nixon’s move on that date to floating international exchange rates and vicious austerity. Lyndon LaRouche had forecast the inevitably of such an event, and warned that it would lead to a resurgence of fascism and a new world war. The precision of his forecast and the urgency of his warnings had a global impact, leading to a second important event: The October 6, 1986 Leesburg raid by 400 federal, state and local law enforcement officers, who surrounded the LaRouches’ home with orders to kill if the opportunity presented itself. LaRouche and his supporters warned that if that effort to silence a dissenting voice were not vigorously opposed, actions of this type would continue and no one would be safe.
Lyndon LaRouche’s warnings turned out to be prophetic, as was borne out most recently by the Aug. 7 FBI raid on the home of former UN weapons inspector and U.S. Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter, who was the next to speak.
Ritter said, “once nuclear weapons become mainstreamed,” once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be no limits to their use. As a weapons inspector, he was proud to have been involved, not only in non-proliferation, but in an actual reduction of nuclear weapons. Today, proponents of arms control are mocked and vilified. “We are a nation addicted to war,” he said, which must “constantly search for conflicts that feed the military-industrial complex.” Ritter continued, “Those who raided my house last week are enemies of the United States and the Constitution.” He agreed with Zepp-LaRouche that, had people rallied around Lyndon LaRouche when his home was raided, maybe we would not be seeing these abuses today. Later, in response to another speaker, he replied: “I’m not a politician, I’m a Marine…. The First Amendment is the battle I will fight and die for,” if it comes to that. “I take violent umbrage at the notion that disinformation and misinformation are a threat to democracy…. I believe that the average American is capable of discerning fact-based truth.”
Moderator Dennis Small remarked about some of what made Lyndon LaRouche such a target. In 1982, LaRouche met with world leaders to promote a reorganization of the financial system to reverse the catastrophe which followed the end of the Bretton Woods system. After he met Mexican President José López Portillo, who shortly afterward attempted to implement his proposals, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger asked then FBI Director William Webster to take action against LaRouche. What followed were covert operations, the Leesburg raid, and ultimately, the jailing of LaRouche and a number of his colleagues on spurious conspiracy charges.
Video excerpts about those 1986-1989 events, featuring remarks by LaRouche and former United States Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who served as LaRouche’s attorney on appeal, were broadcast. LaRouche said that there were groupings inside the permanent bureaucracy of the Department of Justice which act like hit teams. Ramsey Clark spoke of a combination of government agencies, media and NGOs which connived to destroy the LaRouche movement, which he described as a “fertile engine of ideas.” Clark had seen similar operations, but “this case takes the prize.”
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), recounted the story of the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom from illegal search and seizure, both big concerns for those who had suffered under British Empire rule. Speaking of the illegal search of Ritter’s home, McGovern said, “You can persuade a magistrate in upper New York State to sign anything if you’re the FBI.”
Zepp-LaRouche briefed the meeting that when she founded the Schiller Institute in 1984, its charter was inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Today, Germany is passing legislation that permits secret searches of homes and electronic devices. “This is a real danger to democracy in the so-called rules-based order.” The global crisis could be easily resolved if the U.S. were to return to the ideas of President John Quincy Adams, who presented a vision of America that “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”
Jack Gilroy of Veterans for Peace invited participants in the IPC to the Aug. 16-19 Veterans for Peace convention, where he will be speaking on a panel, Sunday Aug. 18 at 12noon, on the war industry. They will be on college campuses this fall to oppose recruiters from the war industries, asking students to sign a pledge never to work for them.
Prof. Henry Baldelomar, Chargé d’Affaires of the Bolivian Embassy in Washington, reported that the culture of peace is a key feature of Bolivia’s constitution, and it is for that reason that Bolivia has applied to join the BRICS. The U.S. has attempted to impose a unipolar world order, but Bolivia prefers the multipolar alternative. The IMF measures have created a state of dependency which has aggravated income disparities, exacerbating the tensions which lead to war. BRICS creates an alternative which will move Bolivia from a role as raw materials exporter, to a producer of capital goods. No longer a mere observer of decisions taken by the great powers, Bolivia will become a participant. Later, in the discussion, he wryly observed that the “‘migration problem’ which so concerns the Republican candidate” is a result of the exploitation of the South, “the use of resources by some at the expense of others.”
Jonathan Kuttab, executive director of Friends of Sabeel North America and co-founder of Nonviolence International, expressed his indignation that retiring Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan, in his swan song, asserted that Israel is “the most moral country in the world.” How is such a thing possible? Kuttab demanded to know, in view of Israel’s wanton killing of civilians and rape of prisoners. He blamed “the absence of international law … that applies to friend and foe alike.”
In concluding remarks, Dennis Small endorsed the comments of Professor Baldelomar, saying that Bolivia speaks for the majority of humanity. Co-moderator Dennis Speed provocatively asserted that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have a better understanding of the tradition of the American Revolution than people living in the U.S. today.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar Letter to UN Leaders Insists, UNGA Must Act To Stop Gaza Genocide
July 29, 2024 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute founder and initiator of the International Peace Coalition, declares her endorsement of Dr. Chandra Muzaffar’s initiative and calls for international support for it.
Dr. Muzaffar, the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), has posted his letter to the heads of all member states of the United Nations calling for taking emergency action to stop the continuing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied territories. It is worth reporting at length:
“I am writing on behalf of an international NGO committed to human dignity and social justice based in Malaysia. Like many other citizens groups, the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) is deeply concerned about the continuing catastrophe in Gaza and Palestine. In spite of numerous calls made by people everywhere to Israel to implement an immediate ceasefire and to facilitate the unhindered flow of essentials—water, electricity, food, fuel and medicines—to Gaza, the Israeli government is impervious to any suggestion that it should end immediately the wanton massacre of civilians, especially children and women who constitute the majority of those killed, and ensure that famine does not claim any more lives in that narrow, congested strip of land.
“Since it does not seem to be possible to restrain the Israeli government, we are now hoping that the UN General Assembly and Resolution 377 can be harnessed to curb Israel. The UNGA as you know can be asked to act if the UN Security Council has failed to overcome a prolonged conflict. A special session of the GA can be convened and it can take a vote on the catastrophe in Gaza and Palestine in general.
“It is our hope and the hope of many other citizens groups all over the world, especially the NGO World Beyond War, the initiator of this global campaign, that your government will give wholehearted support to the proposal to adopt [Resolution] 377, or the ‘Uniting for Peace’ Resolution. It will give a pivotal role to the UNGA in bringing to an end the genocide in Gaza. Uniting for Peace can not only impose an embargo upon the flow of arms to both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian resistance group. It can also disarm both parties to the conflict and send a huge number of unarmed peacekeepers to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. They will ensure that there is no armed clash in all parts of Palestine and even in Israel until a conference of all parties involved directly or indirectly in the conflict reach an agreement on restoring the full rights of the Palestinians, establishing a state where there is equality for all its citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity and the right of return of all Palestinian refugees is recognised and implemented.
“JUST is confident given your commitment to peace that you will bring [Resolution] 377 to fruition in the coming session of the GA and help the land of the three faiths to enjoy tranquility and harmony once again.”
In solidarity, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President, International Movement for a Just World”
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377 (V), adopted November 3, 1950, empowers the General Assembly to override the United Nations Security Council—in this case, specifically the United States—under conditions that the world deems immediate action to be essential, in order to preserve the international peace and security of the world. The United Nations website, regarding Emergency Special Sessions, says that Resolution 377 “resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or active aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with the view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures, including, in the case of a breach of the peace or active aggression, the use of armed force if necessary, to maintain or restore, international peace and security.”
The 61st consecutive weekly online meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) met today, noting that in the preceding 60 meetings, roughly 1,200 individuals from 30 to 40 different nations had participated. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, at the close of the IPC meeting, urged participants to:
1) Circulate the call to implement UN Resolution 377 made by World Beyond War and an accompanying coalition of organizations. The UN Security Council has shown that it can’t function under the present circumstances, and only UN Resolution 377, “Uniting For Peace,” can supersede the Security Council and allow the General Assembly to intervene to stop Israel’s genocidal behavior.
2) Join the August 6 demonstrations, which will be held worldwide to commemorate the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
3) Build next week’s Aug. 9 IPC meeting into a very large gathering, to also mark the anniversary of the 1945 nuclear bombing of Nagasaki.
4) Help us find people from every nation on the planet, who, through their life’s work, have contributed something essential to humanity, because these are the people who can be organized to join Zepp-LaRouche’s proposed Council of Reason to pilot the world safely out of the present existential crisis.
Zepp-LaRouche further explained the concept of the Council of Reason. The idea is not to pull together a large grouping of well-meaning people, but rather to find and recruit the handfuls of “elder statesmen” in each country, the key leaders who are committed to the development and security of all nations and all peoples, to lead the way in organizing for a new paradigm “worthy of the Dignity of Man.”
The IPC meeting began with her strategic overview, noting the targeted assassinations of Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Lebanon and Hamas chief negotiator Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran occurred because Israeli leaders believe that the U.S. will fully back them up, following Netanyahu’s address to the U.S. Congress. The fact that they assassinated the key negotiator sends a clear signal that they don’t intend to negotiate. If the war stops, Netanyahu will face elections and jail.
What is looming is a potential war with Lebanon. Hezbollah is a more significant military force than Hamas. The death toll in Gaza is not just 39,000 people, but more likely the 186,000 estimated by Lancet medical magazine, or the 250,000 by strategic analyst John Mearsheimer. Foreign Policy magazine just published the option of assassinating Vladimir Putin, which Zepp-LaRouche described as an “eerily hair-raising discussion … the breakdown of any civility in international relations and diplomacy.”
Dr. Mubarak Awad, founder of Nonviolence International, opened with a personal account of life in occupied Jerusalem during the 1940s: His father was murdered by Zionist forces, and he, his mother and siblings became homeless refugees. So that he might survive, he was taken to an orphanage by his mother. His mother begged him not to carry a gun, not to fall into the “culture of revenge.” He went on to study in the U.S., returned to Palestine, and founded the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence, for which he “was named, in Israel, the most dangerous fellow” and deported. Awad endorsed the Council of Reason, insisting that “we need new thinking”; we need something new because revenge isn’t working.
Graham Fuller, former CIA analyst, and Islamic scholar, focused on the emerging flashpoint of Iran. “Once again we find the United States completely incapable” of engaging in diplomacy in the Middle East, he said. The U.S. “must acknowledge the stupidity” of refusing to engage diplomatically with Iran. He characterized U.S. diplomats as “amateurs” for viewing the situation as a zero-sum game. The old adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend “is really quite puerile and childish,” Fuller added. The U.S. refuses to engage with Iran because of “Israel and its violent objection to anything that would strengthen Iran…. Bibi Netanyahu would like nothing more than to have the United States involved in a war with Israel against Iran.”
Prof. Dr. László Ungvári, President (emeritus) of Wildau University of Technology in Germany, insisted that “peace that is created through weapons is not real peace.” He reminded participants that the peace agreements that ended World War I became the impetus for World War II. He praised Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as “one of the few persons in Europe who can talk with every leading politician in the world.” He posed the question: If the West really wants peace, why are they angry at Orbán?
In an excerpt of an interview conducted by EIR’s Mike Billington with Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of international law, Princeton University, and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor’s Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Falk observed that “it’s extremely difficult to penetrate the mainstream media” and to “challenge the fundamental way that the world is organized.” He expressed guarded optimism about the proposed Council of Reason, saying that there is a similar council of former Nobel Prize winners, but it hasn’t had much resonance with the media. He advised that Council members must be chosen carefully, and adequate funds raised. “All such initiatives help,” he concluded; “it’s worth a try.”
Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that the IPC must unite the peace movement, including other groups mentioned by Falk: “As long as they are all fighting separately,” it is an uphill battle. If this gets into the UN General Assembly, we can obviate the mainstream media problem.
Answering Dr. Awad, Zepp-LaRouche developed her proposal for the Oasis Plan, which may not be considered practical by some, but we absolutely need an economic development plan that is in everyone’s interest. The situation is desperate, but we need to keep a vision of where we need to go.
During the discussion, Congressional candidate Jose Vega asked Dr. Awad to collaborate with his campaign by bringing his experience with non-violent action to the Bronx.
Eisenhower Media Network director Dennis Fritz addressed Dr. Awad, noting the irony that in the U.S., “we try to portray ourselves as defenders of human rights.” Awad replied saying, “I feel so sorry for the leadership of the United States” because they seem to be dominated by the tiny nation of Israel. He applauded the “American spirit” of the campus demonstrators, many of whom are Jews.
Co-moderator Dennis Speed reminded participants that the U.S. is capable of dominating Israel when it suits its purposes, as in 2020 and 2021, when the U.S. used its influence in Israel to forbid economic engagement with China.
A British journalist suggested we observe the anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by reminding Europeans that those bombs could have landed on Germany, had they not capitulated.
There is an awareness of the growing war danger among some German leaders. Some NATO maneuvers were reported by whistleblowers because the maneuvers matter-of-factly took the destruction of Germany for granted. Chancellor Scholz, in February, opposed even sending helmets to Ukraine in order to avoid escalation, and opposed sending the Taurus missiles. Now he acquiesces to U.S. long-range missiles being stationed on German soil with no public discussion, a decision Zepp-LaRouche described as the “elephant in the room.” The EU is “behaving like a total vassal” of the Anglo-Americans. She referenced the “incredible speech” made by Prime Minister Orbán in Romania. He said that the West has abandoned the idea of the nation-state and the values that go with it. The wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and the “effort to make Global NATO in the Pacific” are all extremely dangerous.
