In this week’s webcast, Schiller Institute leader Helga Zepp LaRouche reviewed the latest financial swindle coming from the Black Rock group as an example of the desperate efforts to buy some time to defend a crashing system. While its promoters refer to this plan as a “regime change” in financial policy, it is just another effort to flood the system with “helicopter money”, to protect $1.5 quadrillion of worthless assets. This was exposed in the 1990s by Lyndon LaRouche, who developed the pedagogy of his “Triple Curve” to show why this approach will destroy the physical economy, and will lead to chaos.
This is the backdrop to the escalated destabilization of China, which shows the British hand, and that of their allies such as Bolton and Pompeo, in a vain effort to prevent the rise of China, and its BRI policy. While Trump wants a deal with China, his opponents, both within and outside his administration, are putting the world on a dangerous course.
One significant, positive development she identified is the coverage, in the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Financial Times, of the Dark Age ideology behind eco-fascism, and how it is being used to create a green bonanza for otherwise bankrupt financiers.
These developments are part of an incredible process, which shows that the system is not working, and opens the prospect that growing numbers of people can be brought to see that the solution depends on the proliferation of scientific ideas and great culture — and that is the basis of optimism.
As the storm signals of the impending financial crisis become more alarming, we are witnessing what is probably the largest social engineering experiment that has ever taken place. The aim of this trans-Atlantic campaign is to make the population—with the help of orchestrated climate hysteria (“We only have 18 months left!”)—voluntarily accept a collapse of its standard of living while directing all investments into “green” projects.
At the same time, the “Great Transformation of the World Economy” is supposed to give “green” investors huge profits and—together with the miraculous increase in money supply via endless “Quantitative Easing”—postpone the collapse of the hopelessly bankrupt financial system once again.
Sixteen-year-old climate star Greta Thunberg, the FridaysForFuture (F4F) student movement, and the Extinction Rebellion (XR) are being strategically exploited by the neoliberal financial oligarchy through a whole complex of institutions and organizations—including investment bankers, consulting firms, the Tavistock Institute, entire battalions of psychologists and behavioral therapists, the World Bank, the European Union (EU), and several billionaires, as well as internet platforms and veterans of the population reduction lobby.
‘Green New Deal’ is a Bad Deal
It uses the whole gamut—from panic-stricken children to “Green New Deal”-advocating “internet personalities,” to groups that are also willing to cross the boundaries from civil resistance to more violent forms—to enforce the demands of the Paris Climate Agreement well before the agreed-upon date of 2050. It includes all the green cadres, from Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project to the internet platform wedonthavetime.org, “We don’t have time,” on whose advisory board sits, among others, Greta Thunberg.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel who, along with Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, had previously praised the F4F movement, commented in her summer press conference that Thunberg’s demonstrations had certainly accelerated the government’s decision-making process toward implementing efficient measures to reduce CO₂ emissions. The German “Climate Cabinet” will announce a whole series of measures on September 20, among which the determination of a “carbon price” will be of central importance. Whoever “pollutes” the atmosphere with carbon dioxide will have to pay a price in the future.
Thus, Mrs. Merkel has finally joined the camp of the ideological climate lobby that wants to “nudge” the population, via an increase in prices for energy and transport, to change its behavior. In practical terms, this will mean that a majority of people will no longer be able to afford to use cars or planes, or have adequate heating or power supply.
It means a bonanza for investors, on the other hand, should this measure become policy. This point was made at a June 7 event on “Sustainable Financing” at the House of Finance in Frankfurt by Dr. Christian Thimann, Chairman of the Executive Board of Athene Deutschland Holding, a subsidiary of the insurance company Athora and a long-time employee of the IMF and European Central Bank.
Often one strives unsuccessfully for years for something, and then suddenly something surprising happens, which changes everything. For example, the topics of the “limits to growth” of the Club of Rome, and climate protection, have been under discussion for decades, but only after the notable phrase, “The climate goals will only be achieved if we direct the capital flows into sectors with low emissions,” was formulated in the Paris Climate Agreement, did the climate for the financial sector change completely. Suddenly the issue of “sustainable investment” became central to the economy; suddenly twelve million young people took to the streets, and suddenly this became a “big thing.”
The EU is working on guidelines on emissions trading and climate protection, and legislation that is designed to make these guidelines binding for investment in green technology. For an industrialized nation like Germany, but also for the whole of Europe, this is nothing less than a pre-programmed course for economic suicide.
For what neither the EU bureaucrats nor the sharks of the financial sector understand, are the principles upon which the real, physical economy is built: There is a direct correlation between the energy-flux density applied in the production process, the productivity of the economy, and the number of people whose lives can be supported through these parameters. A diversion of investments exclusively into so-called “sustainable” areas, e.g., “renewable” energy sources such as electricity generated by wind turbines and solar cells, as well as carbon emissions trading, and mandating that the transport, construction, and agriculture sectors must comply with climate regulations, in fact means devolution back to pre-industrial society. For Germany it effectively means the emigration of young workers, more of the aging population left without adequate care, and general impoverishment.
Scientists Dispute Anthropogenic Climate Change
This “Great Transformation,” the complete decarbonization of the world economy, which has long been propagated by German climatologist Hans Joachim “John” Schellnhuber, CBE, is all the more criminal, because the alleged scientific consensus on the thesis of anthropogenic climate change is a fiction. There are many declarations worldwide that have been signed by thousands of scientists, including the late Frederick Seitz, the former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; scientists and scholars associated with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC); and hundreds of Italian, Scandinavian, and Japanese scientists addressing this very problem.
Contested by all these experts, is the claim that the anthropogenic contribution to climate change plays any noteworthy role. They argue that the causes of changes in the Earth’s climate are, above all, natural fluctuations that have to do with processes on the Sun, cosmic radiation influences on cloud formation, the Solar system’s changing position in the Milky Way galaxy, and other cosmic phenomena.
They also stress that climate simulation models do not reflect the actual climatic fluctuations of the past 10,000 years, and that nature—not man—determines the climate. As the recent petition by the Committee of Italian Scientists led by the renowned Professor Uberto Crescenti highlights, it is therefore illusory to suggest that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions could control the climate.
However, Christoph M. Schmidt, the chairman of the so-called economic “Five Wise Men” of Germany, the top advisory body of the German government, did not refrain from praising the F4F movement at its Congress in Dortmund, for allegedly making it clear to the public that present policies cannot continue. Schmidt also fully supported an increase in the CO₂ emission allowance price as a “basic tool” in the fight against climate change. His appearance in Dortmund and his statement are equally scandalous in view of the consequences of this policy and raise the question of whether he should resign because of incompetence, or because of profiteering.
Banks and Foundations in the Climate Line-Up
In the financial markets, initiatives are popping up such as the Climate Bond Initiative, which seeks to turn the $100 trillion global bond market into a giant new platform for investing in sustainable economic activity of all kinds. (The EU has so far provided “only” $360 billion.) Participants in this initiative include the Rockefeller Foundation, Bank of America, HSBC, the Inter-American Development Bank, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the government of Switzerland, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Frederick Mulder Foundation, OAK Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, FSD Africa, NAB (Australia), European Climate Foundation, the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trust, the EU’s Horizon 2020 Program, Climate Works Foundation, UNDP, Climate KIC, KR Foundation, and Martin International. Equally active are the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), The Economist magazine, and the Green Climate Fund, to name but a few.
Ironically, it is clear to Greta Thunberg herself that wealthy interests are involved in the controversy. In a speech to schoolchildren in Katowice, Poland, she said:
“I do not care about being known. My concern is climate justice and a livable planet. Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunities of a small group of people who want to make more and more money.”
However, exactly these sentences were deleted in the publication of this speech by the Internet platform Avaaz. Avaaz, a product of the George Soros-related MoveOn.org platform, specializes in collecting personal information on every conceivable topic by organizing petitions around the world.
Will the Real Economy Survive?
This is precisely the point: At a time when the real economy in Europe and the United States is crumbling and the next collapse of the financial system can be delayed only by a new flood of liquidity, a new gold rush for green investment is being generated, which perhaps may enable speculators to make a large amount of money for a short time. The effect on the developing countries will be catastrophic, the non-affluent part of the population in our country will be clobbered, and after a super-short boom in the monetary area, Germany will be destroyed as an industrial location.
It is high time to pull the emergency brake. But who will do this if the EU and the Berlin government are part of the problem, and the Greens obviously represent the same thing, only colored in green? It can only come from the parts of society that are the victims of that policy: the middle class, the productive part of the working population, parents, teachers and all thinking people.
We urgently need a public debate on these issues. Germany is currently driving at full speed off the cliff!
Helga Zepp LaRouche opened today’s webcast by discussing “bright spots” in the strategic situation, coming from the diplomacy at the G20 summit and the Trump-Kim DMZ meeting. Yet the potential which is emerging to break from the unipolar world of geopolitics is threatened by the enemy of mankind, the British Empire, which is engaged in military provocations, against Iran and China, but more significantly, through its role in spreading pessimism about the future, through the imposition of anti-human Green ideology.
As the West is destroying itself, Asia is rising, and a key feature of Asia’s emergence is the emphasis on space exploration. China and India are both engaged in lunar projects, and Trump’s intent for the U.S. to be back on the Moon by 2024, defines a potential for broad scientific cooperation. This is the antidote to the pessimism of “limits to growth”, etc., around which the Green movement was launched—human creativity can always open new horizons, she emphasized, as Krafft Ehricke emphasized, with his visionary idea of the “extraterrestrial imperative”, and Lyndon LaRouche demonstrated in his writings.
We can use the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing to bring renewed optimism to people, something which is greatly feared by the neo-liberal imperial networks centered in London.
The extraordinary leak of cables from the British Ambassador in Washington to the Foreign Office in London makes clear that the Brits are still engaged in a broad campaign to destabilize the Trump administration, as they have been since his election. Helga Zepp LaRouche warned that Sir Kim Darroch’s statement that Trump may make another U-turn on Iran means that we must be alert for another False Flag provocation, designed to lead to a U.S. strike against Iran. The seizure of an Iranian tanker by British forces on a false pretense is an example of this kind of dangerous geopolitical game.
The presidential diplomacy at Osaka, is continuing. As a follow-up to the strategically significant Trump-Kim meeting at the DMZ, envoys from the U.S. and South Korea are coming to Europe to report on developments. Other activities include a meeting between Russian and U.S. officials on arms limitation talks; Putin’s visit to Italy; and new trade talks between U.S. and Chinese officials.
This is an extraordinary moment, which was prepared by the life work of Lyndon LaRouche, whose contributions include his prophetic vision for the future. Trump’s July 4 address captured this spirit, especially with his talk of the Moon-Mars mission. For this to be realized, the work of LaRouche must be studied by more people, who can then bring his ideas to those who do not yet know him. The campaign for his exoneration is an essential feature of making this happen.
Because of the disorder in international relations many new formats for discussion and dialogue are developed to figure out what to do about the dangerous world security situation. The Wanshou Dialogue for Global Security was started last year by the Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament, which is an organization founded in 1985 and is by far the largest civil society organization in China dedicated to Peace. It has a membership of 25 mass organizations in China and maintains contact with 350 international peace organization and institutes for strategic studies.
The Wanshou Dialogue is organized in coordination with the International Department of the Communist Party of China Central Committee whose Minister Song Tao and Vice Minister Wang Yajun were the highest Chinese representatives in the Dialogue. There were 27 International guests and 23 Chinese participants in the Dialogue which had the form a closed round table discussion.
The opportunity to participate in this very prestigious conference about Global Security came out of the blue, as a side effect of the activities of the Swedish Schiller Institute to promote BRI in Sweden. It was a great opportunity to meet and become friends with leaders of top Think Tanks in many important countries. Only a few of them had met or knew of the International Schiller Institute on other occasions.
Ulf Sandmark presents the Schiller Institute’s report, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Landbridge II to Yu Hongjun, Vice-President of the Chinese people´s Association for Peace and Disarmament and Former Vice-Minister of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee
The Schiller Institute expertise was called upon to contribute to the Panel 3 about “Emerging and New Technologies and Global Security.” Among those technologies are ABM, ASAT, UAV, Cyberwarfare and Artificial Intelligence. Here several speakers warned against the militarization of space and the plan from President Trump to unilaterally deploy space weapons. It was an opportunity to bring those technologies that could uplift the dialogue to a level where the Common Aims of Mankind would show the way out of the disastrous global security dilemmas.
Lyndon LaRouche’s Strategic Defense Initiative and the Strategic Defense of Earth were the obvious starting points for this intervention by the Schiller Institute and then also Space Exploration and Fusion Power development that would make it possible for a policy of Global Raw Materials Security. Also, the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative was brought in from the physical economic standpoint of developing a new infrastructure platform as a new international logistics machine. This made it possible to link up the development of the economy as a stabilizer of the Global Security and to bring in the Four Laws of LaRouche as the absolute strategic necessity to be implemented through a Four Powers agreement for a New Bretton Woods.
The Russia-India-China cooperation was brought into the Dialogue by a Russian scholar as the s.c. RIC-format (as in BRICS). Also, at the G20 meeting President Trump had had meetings individually with the other three leaders who also had their special RIC meeting on their own. These developments opened up for launching the Four Power proposal at the Wanshou Dialogue, which is to ask President Trump to join the leaders of the RIC Powers to form a group strong enough to challenge the currently dominating financial power of London and Wall Street which under its leadership of the modern form of the British empire is the force behind the disastrous policy geopolitical wars bringing the world to brink of nuclear war. Finally, the necessity for the immediate global security to bring into the international strategic discussion these strategic proposals by Lyndon LaRouche, made the call for his exoneration appropriate to bring into the 2nd Wanshou Dialogue.
This ten minute presentation was well received. Another participant responded about SDI in a very positive way and asked if the SDI negotiations could move out of the US – Russian format and also bring in other powers. Ulf Sandmark got the opportunity for a very short reply saying that the first step would be to immediately start the process for implementing the SDE, as it it is civilian and can build trust. Secondly the SDI proposal should be studied and updated by all leading powers in the world. Thirdly a fully implementable counterproposal should be proposed to President Trump as an alternative to his proposal for a Space Force.
Sandmark said that SDI was developed by Lyndon LaRouche and further promoted by the Schiller Institute. If we as private institute could develop the SDI proposal, then any other institute, certainly leading national security organizations, would be able to fully develop the concepts necessary to bring forward the SDI as a solution to eliminate the danger of nuclear extinction.
Also, this intervention was received well. The Chinese chairman of the panel half jokingly introduced the need for an “SDF” – a Strategic Defense of Face. He took up the example of a recent video where the face of President Trump had been manipulated and put into a video saying that he was immediately attacking Iran. These types of videos, although false, could if they were spread, trigger a real war, the chairman said. This warning against the new technologies that could be used in this way, had the effect to further familiarize the conference with the concepts of SDI, which then became a reference point in the later discussions.
The 2nd Wanshou Dialogue brought up many other questions and concerns for evaluation among the participants and for sure will continue to be a platform for discussion about Peace and Development also in the future.
Following a 50-minute meeting with the North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un in the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that divides the North and South Korea in Panmunjom, President Donald Trump said today that teams from the United States and North Korea would start meetings “over the next two or three weeks” for talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Trump said he was in no rush for a deal. Negotiators will “start a process and we’ll see what happens,” South China Morning Post quoted him.
The two held a short press conference, no questions, at their meeting, with Trump saying “Well, I want to thank you, Chairman. You hear the power of that voice. Nobody has heard that voice before. He doesn’t do news conferences, in case you haven’t heard. And this was a special moment.”
U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun held secret discussions at the DMZ to set up the meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong Un, media reports said.
“We’re not looking for speed, we’re looking to get it right,” Trump told reporters. “Speed is not the object… We want to see if we can do a really comprehensive, good deal. [But] a lot has already come up.”
“I would like to move away from the past and maintain good relations in the future,” Kim told Trump. Trump said he appreciated Kim’s presence, noting that many positive changes have happened. “The relationship we have developed has been so much,” Trump said. “This could be very a historic moment. I really enjoy being with you,” SCMP reported, which also pointed out that Trump is the first incumbent U.S. President to have visited the North Korean side of the border.
At a joint press conference in Seoul earlier in the day, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said the meeting at the border was crucial for the future of the denuclearization talks.
Speaking at his press conference after the first day of the G20 meetings in Osaka, Japan, President Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin and their relationship. “You are going to have to take a look at the words, we had a discussion, we had a great discussion President Putin and myself, I thought it was a tremendous discussion, and he would like to trade with United States and they have great products, rangeland, very rich land and a lot of oil, a of minerals, the things that we like, and I can see trade going on with Russia, we could do fantastically well. We do very little trade with Russia, so I could see positive things happening.”
Trump told Rossiya-24: “He is a nice guy, I think. We’ve had an excellent meeting…. Our two great countries, Russia and the United States, must trade with each other. Yesterday’s meeting was great. He [Putin] is an extraordinary man.”
Speaking at his press conference on Saturday Putin said he and Donald Trump had asked their diplomats to begin talks on the New START nuclear arms control treaty. “As for New START, we have ordered foreign ministries of our respective countries to begin consultations. It is too early to tell whether it will help prolong New START,” Putin told reporters.
Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov told Rossiya-24 TV network on June 28: “The sides declared the readiness to discuss the most burning problems. Will this declared intention be realized? Let us wait and see. I am confident that on the Russian part, namely on the part of President Putin, these declarations of readiness are backed by actual possibilities, actual readiness. But what about the American side? Let us wait and see.”
Peskov said the two leaders “outlined problems of mutual interest. They spoke about Iran, Syria, Ukraine. President Trump asked about the Ukrainian military mariners. They spoke about other regional problems, they spoke about international trade. They also mentioned the necessity to begin expert-level talks on disarmament and strategic stability,” Peskov said, adding that these topics required a comprehensive approach and time to discuss. “The willingness to do it was expressed today. So, let us wait and see what becomes of it.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented: “I would say that the attitude remains the same because all Russian-U.S. [summit] meetings, beginning with Hamburg in 2017, Helsinki in 2018, telephone talks, were all very constructive,” Lavrov said. “The two presidents are committed to developing dialogue and refraining from making the biggest global security issues, which are of interest to the entire world, hostage to some problems within the U.S. elites. I believe this is a very positive fact,” he said.
On the issue of trade between the U.S. and Russia, Lavrov said, “Although it [trade] keeps growing, it lags behind in terms of absolute figures compared to many of our partners and many American partners,” and that the talks also touched upon the necessity to reinvigorate the joint work of the Russian and American business circles.
“Among the international issues they discussed Syria, Ukraine, Iran. Iran [was considered] in the context of the current situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear program and what is happening in the Gulf of Oman. The situation is difficult, but both presidents confirmed that they want to find a diplomatic way out of this situation,” he said.
“For the moment, I don’t know how it will be implemented at the working level, what decisions will be made in Washington. But we will definitely strive to ensure that everyone who can somehow influence this situation is working towards a diplomatic solution,” the minister went on.
Meanwhile the invitation for Trump to attend the anniversary of the World War II victory in 2020 will be sent in the coming days, Peskov told reporters. “It is true, as it was said before, Putin invited Trump to [attend] the 75th anniversary of the ending of World War II … next year.” He said, “Trump was positive [about the invitation] and said that he would be expecting an official invitation.” Peskov underlined that the official invitation “will, of course, be sent in the coming days.”
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.
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.
YANG RUI: The Belt and Road Initiative has been thrust intothe media limelight for several years. With more and morecountries onboard now, China will not be the party that dictateswhere the cooperation is heading. For all parties’ commoninterests, China will inevitably undergo a range of policyadjustments along the way, to ensure the Initiative deliverswin-win results that are long-lasting and sustainable. But, whatis behind some of the criticisms against the Initiative, and whatcan the BRI us? Unilateralism undermines world economicpatterns. To discuss this issue and more, I’m happy to be joinedin the studio by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President ofthe Schiller Institute, and Bill Jones, Washington bureau chiefof 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 hasdeveloped a better understanding about the Belt and RoadInitiative after so many years of debates, discussions and mediafanfare since 2013?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I would think that the people ofAsia, for sure. I just attended the Conference on Dialogue ofAsian Civilizations, and the reaction to Xi Jinping’s speech wasreally extraordinary, because people realized that they areparticipating in the evolution of a completely new system ofinternational relations, which is overcoming geopolitics. Ithink people are sick and tired of confrontation and war as a wayof solving problems, and they appreciate very much that everyconflict on the planet can be solved through dialogue. So, Ithink this is very well understood in Asia, in Africa, even someof the Europeans are becoming very enthusiastic. As matter offact 22 of 28 EU nations are already cooperating. So I think therest will be a question of time.
YANG : But it seems the top concern of the EU about the BRIhas been the issue of transparency. Bill, what do you make oftheir concerns?
WILLIAM JONES: I think a lot of it is a tempest in ateapot. The Belt and Road Initiative has been transparent to thepeople who are receiving the investment, who are benefitting fromit. There is also an issue that people can see what’s happeningon the ground, with the improvement of the general conditions oflife of the people who are recipients of the Belt and RoadInitiative. The reason that there’s this objective is, however,that people are concerned, on the one hand, that it has been aChinese initiative, not an initiative taken by the EuropeanUnion. It is also breaking with the policies of the EU and ofthe West generally, of demanding conditionalities for anyinvestment that’s made in places like Africa, India, and Asia.China has been intent on building infrastructure: They don’tdemand certain conditions which are not necessary, and they’renot concerned about the different political systems that exist inthose countries: The goal is to improve the lives of the people,and people can see that on the ground. And the objections thatare raised to the so-called “transparency” issues, I think arejust an attempt to stop the momentum that has been created.
YANG : Helga, it seems, some of the member states of theEuropean Union are starting to break the silence, by standing upto the BRI memorandum, such as Italy, which indeed surprisedtheir American friends. Do you think what Italy has done, islikely to trigger a similar domino reactions that the Britishauthorities had done before the rest of the European Union hadfollowed suit, regarding the AIIB?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the Italian memorandum ofunderstanding with China can be the model for the relations ofall European countries with China, not only in the bilateralagreement, but to have a joint mission, for example, to developthe continent of Africa. Africa will have 2.5 billion by theyear 2050, and either the Europeans join hands with China andother nations to industrialize the African continent, or you willhave the biggest refugee crisis ever in history. And the Italiangovernment, especially Prime Minister [Giuseppe] Conte hasalready advocated that Italy intends to take the lead to bringthe 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 weget development among many nations in the world, but finally, theUnited States must be brought into the Belt and Road Initiative,because if you don’t do that, there is the danger of theThucydides Trap. But I think the Italian government is play avery constructive role in all of these questions.
YANG : Secretary Pompeo has been selling the idea, whereverhe goes, that China will be a threat. Why are we so bad?
Now, when we look at, say, our investment in theinfrastructure building in Africa, it seems to amount to aproject, a mega one, of industrialization, a massive project ofindustrialization. What about the consequences arising from, forexample, the trade war that is just started between the UnitedStates and China? What do you think of the impact of this tradedispute between Washington and Beijing upon Africa, and ourbusiness presence there?
JONES: It’ll be absolutely disastrous, because it willhinder, it will place an obstacle in the free development of theBelt and Road Initiative; it’ll raise suspicions that really haveno basis whatsoever. And it’s disastrous for the United States,itself: President Trump is not going to be able to create astrong economy in the United States through trade embargoes ortrade tariffs. He has to invest in infrastructure, he has toinvest in science and technology. And there are certain attemptsto do that now, over the last couple of weeks, in terms of thespace program in the United States and the attempt to have adiscussion with the Democrats over infrastructure. But if hedoesn’t bring down these tariffs, if he doesn’t create a goodrelationship with China, this is not going to work.
China, in fact, can help in building infrastructure: Theycould invest in an infrastructure bank in the United States withmuch of the money that is now held in Treasury bills, in order tobuild high-speed rail in the United States. The U.S. economy isgoing down, not because of trade, and not because of China, butbecause of a failure of governments over decades, in investing inindustry and technology.
YANG: The idea of a China threat covers many things, such asideology. Well, many say that the Cold War is making a comeback.So, does it mean, Helga, that many African countries have to takesides?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The Chinese model is very attractive to theAfrica countries, because it shows a way of how to overcomepoverty, the miracle which China has undergone in the last 40years is admired by many Africans, and they are now demanding tobe treated more equally by the Europeans. They don’t want tohear Sunday sermons and words about human rights and goodgovernance, and no investment. They demand from the Europeans,direct investment and not development aid which disappears intothe pockets of the NGOs.
So, I think we are in a period of transformation, whereeither the West finds its way back to better traditions, like thehumanist periods of the Classical period of 200 years ago, wherethere was actually a much larger affinity between the moralvalues of the European classics and China. For example, if youlook at the similarity between Confucius and Friedrich Schiller,after whom the Schiller institute is named, they have the sameidea of the moral improvement of the population. Confucius talksabout the aesthetical education of man; Xi Jinping has put a lotof emphasis recently on the aesthetic education of the students,because the goal of this is the beauty of the mind, and this isthe ideal which used to be the case for Europe, and for the earlyAmerican republic! The problem with the West is that, as you cansee in the United States, they have turned away to a very largedegree, from the ideas of their early historical period. Butthey’re going down: The West is in a moral collapse, the economyis far from being in such a great shape as they say, and thestatistics would say. So it’s really a question for the West tochange.
And I think there are many countries, you mentioned some inEurope already, which absolutely are willing to find a new model.I think it’s not so much a question of choosing; I think we arewitnessing the creation of new paradigm of internationalrelations, where the best of all countries and traditions mustcome into it.
YANG: Increasingly, there’s no question that much of thestrength that China can project into a continent like Africawould largely depend on the construction of “soft power.” What doyou know about Confucius schools in Africa? Why do you think theUnited States considered things we teach Confucius schools in theUnited States a threat, whilst it seems these schools are verypopular in the African continent?
JONES: Well, you see in the United States, there is a groupof people, some of whom are in the Trump Administration of aneoconservative bent, who have never come to terms with the factthat China will become a major industrial power. And they haveinitiated a major campaign similar to what was done during theMcCarthy era, to blacken China’s name on all levels — in thearea of economy, in the area of culture, in the area of socialgovernance. And so you have this situation where major scholars,who are most knowledgeable about the United States are now beingrestricted from coming to the United States! And this is a veryserious thing, because, it’s not only that we agree to disagree,but we must also find the common interests: We’re all on thesame globe, we have major problems that we have to resolve, notleast of which is population alleviation not only in China, butpopulation alleviation in the world. And we need populationalleviation in the United States: We haven’t talked about thatfor 40 years. That should be on the agenda. And China’sinitiative, to try to educate Americans about the ideas ofConfucius and to learn the Chinese language, which is a basicelement in learning another culture is learning their language,the Confucius Institutes have been very important in providing ameans of learning the Chinese language. Chinese right now,still, is one of the most important second languages in whichschoolchildren are trying to learn, because they realize this isgoing to become the most important language.
YANG: Language learning is fast becoming an instrument inbuilding interconnectivity, a very critical idea for ourunderstanding of the BRI. During the Cold War, the former SovietUnion was accused of spreading its ideology of communism. Today,one major factor that has prevented United States fromundertaking an all-out Cold War against China, the rising power,is that China is not as aggressive as the Soviet ideology: Wewant 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 theestablishment of Confucius Institutes?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that what China is doing is amoral model of improving the livelihood for people, but alsodemanding that the people improve. Xi Jinping has talked aboutthe role of the artists, that they have to uphold the morality ofthe population. I think that one of the reasons why certaingeopolitical factions in the West are so negative, is because theliberal system has reached a point of degeneration, whereeverything is allowed, every perversion, every new pornography,every new violence, the entertainment “industry” in the West hasreally become terrible! And I think that the people who aremaking their profit with these kinds of things, they don’t likethe idea that somebody says, you should be morally a betterperson.
But I think we have reached a point in history, where, youknow, we are at the end of an epoch. I don’t think that thechanges we are experiencing are just the Chinese model versus theliberal model. But I think that we are experiencing a change asbig, or bigger than the difference between the Middle Ages inEurope and modern times, which will mean completely differentaxioms. And I think what Xi Jinping discusses in terms of the“shared community for the one future of humanity” it is reallythe idea of how you can put the interest of the one mankind aheadof any national interest. So, I think the way to look at thepresent situation is, where do we want to be in a 100 years fromnow? We will have fusion power. We will have the ability tohave limitless energy; we can create new raw materials out ofwaste 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, orelse we will not exist! Take the recent imaging of the blackhole: This was only possible — first of all, it proved thegeneral relativity theory of Einstein, which is a wonderful thingall by itself, because it will mean new breakthroughs in science,at all levels. But, this was only possible, because you hadeight radio telescopes at different points in the world, inSpain, in Chile, in the United States, in the Antarctic, whichtogether could make this image! You could not have done such aproof of a physical principle of the universe by only one countryalone. And I think that that particular incident of imaging theblack hole, gives you a taste of the kind of cooperation mankindwill have in the future. And the key question is, do we getenough people to understand that in time, to make this jump?
YANG: Thank you so much. You’re watching “Dialogue,” withMme. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the SchillerInstitute, and Bill Jones, Washington bureau chief of ExecutiveIntelligence Review.
Welcome back: The BRI would not only cover the Sub-Sahararegion. Most countries in the South — I’m talking aboutSouth-South cooperation — would benefit from infrastructurebuilding. Let’s do a case study: Hambatota Port in Sri Lankahas caused many debates as to whether China has developed aconspiracy theory, whether the Western media concerns about the“debt trap” would hold any water? I would like to have yourthoughts very quickly.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this is turning the truth upsidedown. Because if you look, why is Africa underdeveloped? Fivehundred years of colonialism, and then about 70 years of IMFconditionalities. If you look at the 17 poorest countries inAfrica, which are in danger of defaulting, only in 3 of them isChina involved, but all the rest are indebted to the Paris Club.So the debt trap was created by the IMF before, and China isactually giving many grants and —
YANG: Do you agree, Bill?
JONES: I do agree with that. I think we’ve seen the debtsituation spin out of control, long before the BRI. We haveneeded international financial reform that we have been talkingabout, that Helga’s husband, Lyndon LaRouche has pointed out fordecades, prior to his recent death, of trying to change thefinancial system, in order to create credits for infrastructure,instead of credit for repayment of old debt. These countries inAfrica have been saddled with debt by the IMF, not by China. Asa matter of fact, most of the countries that are in the biggestdanger of their debt being a problem, are those which are notinvolved in the BRI — countries in Africa. And therefore, whathas to be done, is really a reform of the international financialsystem, in order to perhaps even write off some of this debt, andto insist, as we go forward, that any debt that’s given out willgo to increase the physical production capabilities of thesecountries, because if it does that, then it’s debt that’s goingto be repaid. But if it goes to repay old debt, or if it’s thecasino society that we’ve known over the last 20 years, it’sgoing to become a bubble, and we’ve got to change the way we dobusiness in that respect.
YANG: What about financing vehicles, Bill? Is that a majorissue for the beneficiary countries?
JONES: What we actually need is the creation of somethinglike an infrastructure bank in the United States, which wouldallow China to help invest in infrastructure there. Foreigndirect 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 differentorientation toward finance. Chinese finances to the Belt and Roadgo to transportation infrastructure. It brings the countriestogether, it creates a greater production capacities, and it hasbecome, I think, a template for how a functioning, how a healthyfinancial system has to operate. We’ve got to get away from whatused to be called the “bankers’ arithmetic,” in which moneychased after more money. The money has got to be used to financephysical economy, and then it becomes a means of growth for thepopulation, and is no problem in terms of repayment, because thepopulation becomes richer.
YANG: I wonder if you have followed very closely thedevelopment between Malaysia and China, on the construction ofthe east coast railway link, that has a lot to do with how we dorisk assessment, political and legal; and this helps us go backto one of the earlier questions on the issue of transparency. Sodo you think this poses a serious challenge to the prospects ofthe BRI in developing countries, some of which are youngdemocracies, according to Western standards?
JONES: Well, I think a lot of this is a matter of alearning curve that the BRI has been through over the last fiveyears. The Malaysia situation was unfortunate, but it haslargely been resolved, and it’s been resolved because China hasbeen very flexible in dealing with the countries on the BRI, andI think they have a clear indication, a clear orientation forimproving the situation in the countries in which they areinvolved. And if problems arise, or if discrepancies occur, Ithink they have shown a willingness to diplomatically resolve theproblem to the benefit of the countries that are involved. Andthey have to do that.
Look, a lot of mistakes were made by the Western countriesin terms of initial attempts to industrialize Africa, and as aresult of that, they left. They left Africa in the dust. Chinais there, there may be some mistakes in individual cases, butChina learns the lessons and does not leave, and this is theimportant thing: Because the fortitude of continuing with theproject, which is the most important project for mankind today isabsolutely necessary, and I think the Chinese government hasshown the fortitude necessary to move forward on this.
So, yes, problems may occur. They have occurred in thepast. They have been resolved, and I think they will be resolvedin the future, if they would occur again.
YANG: The last two remaining questions will be about, firstof all, the alleged westward expansion of the BRI through theEurasian continent. The other, of course, is the Maritime SilkRoad: Do you think this idea of a Maritime Silk Road, Helga, willhelp ease tensions further between China and other countries thathave competing claims on the maritime stakes in southeast Asia?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the combined concept of the BRI andthe Maritime Silk Road is really a program for the reconstructionof the world economy. And in the beginning, people said, “thisthis railway from east or west or north or south, more beneficialfor China or for Russia?” And I kept saying, “don’t worry aboutit, take it a couple of years from now and all of these networkswill grow into one.” This is why we published this report “TheNew Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” Because, if youlook at it from the standpoint of the evolution of mankind, it isvery natural that eventually the infrastructure will reach allcontinents, will open up all interiors, will connect the maritimeconnections. And for example, Portugal and Spain and Greece andItaly, these are countries that want to be not only the hub forthe Eurasian Land-Bridge on the land line, but they also want tobe hubs for the maritime connection, connecting to all thePortuguese-speaking, Spanish-speaking countries. So, I thinkthis will also grow into a World Land-Bridge connection.
YANG: Bill, what do you think of the connection, betweenChina’s BRI and President Putin’s vision for the EurasianEconomic Union?
JONES: I think they will tend to converge, not on allpoints, but in the basic orientation, because what PresidentPutin wants to do, is to take those countries which have beentraditionally associated with Russia and create some kind ofcommon economic entity. But, the Belt and Road is providing theinvestment for all of these countries, including Russia, whichbenefits tremendously from it. And therefore, there is a meansof really bringing together the two most important countries inEurasia around a common goal of developing infrastructure,transportation infrastructure, and improving the conditions oflife in all these countries. So I think there is thisconvergence going on that will become greater with time.
The latest revelation from an FOIA request on the dirty doings of Christopher Steele is another bombshell, demonstrating that one must hold the British responsible for the dangerous coup attempt against President Trump. And as more evidence emerges daily of the British role, in direct coordination with the Obama intelligence team, where does U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo go to whip up anti-Russian, anti-Chinese sentiment? To London, of course, where he proclaimed that the “Special Relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K. is thriving!
In this week’s webcast, Helga Zepp LaRouche reviews the ramping up of hot spots, especially by Pompeo and Bolton, who are acting at odds with President Trump’s often-stated wish to have good, cooperative relationships with the two nations. Describing the anti-China rantings of intelligence officials, Congressmen and media as a “Yellow Peril rampage,” she emphasizes the importance of getting the U.S.-China trade talks back on track, as a step towards U.S. participation in the Belt and Road Initiative.