Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian

World war danger updates

Category Archives

Culture Is the Key for Peace

Maurizio Abbate – Mr. Abbate is Chairman of ENAC, National Institute for Cultural Activities, Italy

Dear friends and colleagues from around the world,

We are gathered here today to seek, with all our strength, useful ideas and solutions to resolve the terrible armed conflict that has been raging in the old continent for almost a year-and-a-half. A fratricidal war capable of bringing death and destruction among the civilians in the territories directly involved and a very serious economic and financial crisis in the rest of the world, due to a system of speculation implemented with unprecedented wickedness by the food and energy multinationals. Corporations often controlled by the same masters.

We are well aware that giants such as Vanguard and BlackRock share a majority of the shares of agribusiness multinationals through Monsanto, Cargill and Dupont. The same hold today in Ukraine about 19 million hectares of land devoted to intensive agriculture, which corresponds to 60 percent of Ukrainian agricultural land. Similarly, 100 percent of Ukrainian mines are now owned by multinationals. To ask why war broke out in this part of Europe, starting from those simple figures, therefore seems superfluous.

The important thing, therefore, is not to analyze the causes of the conflict, but rather to try to understand how was it possible that the American public, as well as the European public, always attentive to the problem of peace, thanks to their peace movements, are today almost numbed by what is happening.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. These were the slogans engraved on the facade of the Ministry of Truth described in George Orwell’s famous novel. This year, the European Union, in an almost grotesque way, has created a Peace Instrument to allocate nearly €8 billion for the purchase of weapons. Buying weapons to prevent conflict and build peace—this is stated, prominently, on the European council’s website. Almost a parallel to the Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

If an institution such as the European Union can alter the foundations of freedoms, that is, the truth, by characterizing the supply of weapons, tools for killing, as useful tools for building peace, then the cultural and moral degradation of the institutions, as well as that of the media that should be exposing such lies, has become self-evident.

Unfortunately, what I have previously stated about the concentration of food and energy production in the hands of a few powerholders is also true for political institutions, the media, as well as those in charge of education. Culture, which, emulating the teachings of Socrates and Plato, should be concerned with developing thoughts and indicating the models of society to be built in order to achieve nobler goals, such as general welfare and solidarity among peoples, is constantly downgraded to a kind of unimportant fashion. Such principles, at the same time, are subordinated to the interests of a few economic powers who have made contemporary society a huge market of precariousness in which everything can be sold or bought. Even the right to life.

A society in which social cohesion is being progressively demolished and upon which continuous alleged emergencies are being imposed, such as climate, health and finance, capable of altering national choices in agriculture, crafts, industry and society.

Therefore, the time has come to stop this neo-barbaric drift caused by the globalization of economy and culture.

A new social and cultural Renaissance must be initiated. To do so, a new paradigm is urgently needed for our Western communities, which must definitively abandon the principle of business as the centerpiece of society and put man with his material and spiritual complexity back at its center. Politics must redefine a harmonious system in which every man and woman has his or her own role in a synergistic and organic way. A society in which human beings must be judged and valued for who they are, for the values they express and succeed in embodying, rather than for what they possess. Only in this way can individual nations, free, independent, self-determined and with their own specificities, become communities again and contribute to the global growth of all humanity.

The differences and peculiarities of peoples, generated by centuries of history and different cultures, must become the driving force to build a constructive dialogue for peaceful coexistence. A dialogue that leads to an equitable distribution of the resources of the planet on which we all live and which are often the cause of armed clashes and unprecedented violence due to the criminal desire to concentrate them in the hands of a few.

As we develop this thesis and try to involve all those who share its aims, however, strong and persuasive signals must be sent out. It is imperative to make it clear to the world that so many free people, not only have no intention of bowing to the deliberate decisions autocratically made by globalist elites, but are ready for a global change of the paradigm imposed until now by those who believe themselves to be the absolute masters.

Confronted with the holders of the major global media in a now imminent head-on clash, networking is needed. It is necessary to organize as many events as possible and use every single television, computer or radio channel to spread the news. Inviting foreign guests to local events must also become a habit capable of disrupting the mantra that only globalization can guarantee freedom, pluralism and democracy.

ENAC, the National Institute for Cultural Activities in Italy, which I am proud to represent, is organizing a conference in Italy with the aim of re-establishing relations between Syria and Italy. Economic and cultural relations that were interrupted for mere political interests and have not been reopened even in the aftermath of the dramatic earthquake that caused thousands of civilian casualties in Turkey and Syria.

At this conference, in which we would be happy to welcome any of those present today, who would like to participate, we intend to send a clear and unequivocal message: While liberalism talks about peace and democracy causing wars and building walls, we respond with the strength of culture, the only one capable of guaranteeing and respecting individual differences while working on building a bridge made of friendship, solidarity and cooperation among peoples.


What Would Erasmus Say About Peace in Ukraine?

Luc Reychler – Prof. Reychler is Professor Emeritus of International Relations, University of Louvain; former Director, Center for Peace Research and Strategic Studies (CPRS), Beglium.

In my presentation I will share an analysis of the current war in Europe and reflect on how Desiderius Erasmus would deal with it.

As one of the greatest scholars of the Renaissance, Erasmus highlighted the folly of religious wars (folly is the pursuit of a policy contrary to the welfare of the people of the states involved), and took on the establishment of his time, whether princes or popes. Their excuses for going to war, were criticized and satirized in writings, as “In Praise of Folly” and “The Complaint of Peace.” He gave peace a voice. His comments, of nearly 500 years ago, are still relevant today, because, although wars are unique, and historically and culturally different, they are universally similar. Wars and counterwars purposefully commit atrocities. (Counterwars are fought against the country that started a war). People, above all the soldiers, are still slaughtered, pierced, burned, shredded, suffocated, tortured, pillaged, etc. And, violence committed during war, is applauded, called righteous and patriotic; the soldiers, dead or alive, get praised with medals. Erasmus warned that wars are attractive for people who have no experience or knowledge about war. His disgust with war is well expressed in the citation “Dulce bellum inexpertis,” or “War is sweet for the inexperienced.”

Before zooming in to the war in Ukraine through Erasmus’s glasses, let me focus on some facets of the war, which are not part of the official discourse in the West. They however invite us to a more balanced, comprehensive and impartial picture.

1. The war was anticipated. Several diplomats and scholars, including myself, expected a war. For example, in 2008, during the George Bush Presidency, William Burns, Ambassador to Russia, who later served as director of the CIA, cautioned that the expansion of NATO to Georgia and Ukraine would have deadly consequences. It would be the brightest of all red lines and create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

2. The war could have been prevented. The West, especially America, made war prevention difficult by (a) her expansionist foreign policy, (b) reducing the art of diplomacy to coercive diplomacy and regime change, and (c) underestimating the risks and costs of an escalating proxy war. Hans Morgenthau’s political realism was replaced by neoconservatism that urged democratic states to establish a new international order through military power, sanctions and regime change.

3. Russia started the war and is the main culprit, but the West and Kyiv are co-responsible. There are several indicators of co-responsibility. In 1990 Ukraine defined itself as a neutral country; the country would not become a member of an alliance. NATO would not expand to Ukraine. During the first 24 years of the independence, Ukraine did not experience war. The American interference in the domestic politics of Ukraine, in the name of regime change, was well underway before the Maidan revolution. This meddling in domestic affairs and NATO’s stealthy expansion threatened Russia’s objective and subjective security. Russia spoke of its existential security. The US and NATO ignored the security issue, arguing that the alliance is peaceful and defensive. This public confession is painfully dissonant with the many wars that America, her allies and NATO waged in the 21st Century in the Middle East and Europe (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and in Serbia to support in 1999 Kosovo separatist movement). The increasing political and geographical expansion of NATO to the Russian borders presented Russia with a crisis and a dilemma: to allow this to happen or to stop the expansion in time and thus avoid a ‘fait accomplis.’

4. There is not enough space for an open discussion in Russia, Ukraine and in the West. An impartial, open and critical discussion about prevention and co-responsibility would have contributed to a sound analysis and forecast, and a rational and realistic policy. It would significantly increase the chances of serious peace negotiations. In Russia, a critical conversation about the war and the eight years of civil war in Ukraine that preceded it, is impossible. That is also the case in Ukraine. In the public spaces of the free and democratic West, all the noses are expected to point in the same direction. An open and critical discussion is discouraged by ‘groupthink.’ This is a political-psychological phenomenon that prioritizes agreement and discourages critical commentary and alternatives. Characteristics are: the illusion of infallibility, the conviction that one’s own morality prevails, the rationalization of one’s own decisions; the stereotyping or diabolizing the opponent, and pressure and sanctions to enforce conformity. This undermines the chances of successful and cost-effective decision-making and forms a one-sided and narrowly informed public opinion. In wars, pacifists and peace researchers tend to be sidelined, sanctioned and stigmatized as traitors, dreamers or psychological deviants.

5. The war in Ukraine is a vicious entanglement of an internal-war and a proxy-war with escalatory potential. It’s an escalation of an eight-year-long civil war in a pluri-national country. Fortunately, so far, it has remained a limited war, taking place within the borders of Ukraine. The war and counter-war has created a lot of suffering and destruction. It’s a mega media event. Diplomacy is down. President Zelinski turned out to be a stand-up diplomat and appears almost daily at conferences or in the living room. It is a cynical war, for which the population and the front soldiers are paying . The Donets Basin in the East has been, for nine years, the most blood-soaked area.

6. The costs are high. During a war it is always difficult to find good statistics; they are usually rude and not reliable. The numbers are part of the psychological warfare. For example, not much attention is given to the casualties and destruction during the preceding (internationalized) civil and secession war in the Donbas. On April 9, 2018, the Washington Post reported that the Donbas was one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. After five years of fighting, more than 10,000 people were killed, 2,800 of them civilians. The war destroyed the infrastructure and a third of the hospitals and schools, homes and election facilities. The number of refugees and displaced citizens was very high. For the current war, Pentagon documents published in April 2023 estimated that Ukraine suffered approximately 125,000 casualties, with up to 17,500 killed in action, while Russians had nearly 200,000 casualties, including up to 43,000 killed in action. The problem with wars, is not only the huge costs (physical, material, economic, social, political, psychological, spiritual and ecological) but also the real and expected benefits and profits. Wars last as long as they are considered profitable by the main protagonists.

7. The war logic prevails. No serious efforts have been undertaken to boost the chances of de-escalation and the building of sustainable peace. Humanitarians and hawks continue to ask for more guns and more war. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg’s one-liner, “Weapons are the way to peace,” is a fitting title for a surrealist painting of Magritte. The war looks like a huge cage fight, in which the outsider-supporters are safe spectators who empower the fighters and encourage them to win.

8. The war will probably end as a lose-lose operation. Violence may continue for a long time, intensify and even lead to a regional and a third world or nuclear war. The loss is not only for the Ukrainians and fighters on both sides of the battlefield (mostly young men, 40 to 50 percent of whom have no military experience), but also for the whole of Europe. For some spectators in the rest of the world, the war is a European tragicomedy.

How would Erasmus respond to the wars in the 21st Century, and especially the war in Ukraine?

I think he would criticize and satirize the excuses for ongoing war; for example, the misrepresentation of the war as the defense of democracy and of the democratic world. He would also tackle the propaganda on both sides. Above all, he would point at the stupidity of the war and the hubris and mediocracy of the warmongers. Only wise people build sustainable peace. Modern and smart weapons have not reduced the actual and potential atrocities of the war; and the weapons of mass destruction are waiting around the corner. Erasmus would also be a whistleblower and name the princes and kings, and the war profiteers who are responsible for the war. He believes, that what cannot be refuted by argument and fact, can be parred by laughter.

As a constructive pacifist, he would add peace-work to his critical analysis. This implies demanding a cessation of the war, because he considers peace to be more precious than the pursuit of triumph, and a frozen conflict less destructive, less costly and less dangerous than a protracted war. The cessation of the war would go hand in hand with the re-establishment of communication and peace negotiations, but also with development. South Korea is a good example of a country that negotiated a cease-fire with North Korea in 1953 and decided (with the help of the US) to use its talents to become a prosperous country. South Korea reminds us that it is not who wins a war, but who wins the peace that determines their future. A cease-fire in Ukraine, combined with efforts to win the peace, could be a formula to end the war.

Erasmus stresses the relation between education and peace. He would recommend that the Erasmian program for education, training, youth and sports, also give attention to the education of sustainable peace building and the prevention of wars.

Finally, he would encourage people to take part in the building of sustainable peace. This may sound like a dream. But as he said 500 years ago, he would remind us that “there are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.


President John Kennedy

SCHILLER INSTITUTE ANNOUNCES: RELEASE OF 186 PROMINENT SIGNERS OF “URGENT APPEAL”

TO RESTORE PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY’s PEACE MISSION, SPUR EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE COALITION

July 5, 2023 – In light of rapidly rising threat of nuclear war, the Schiller Institute releases the initial list of 186 prominent signers, from 55 countries on six continents, of Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Urgent Appeal by Citizens and Institutions from All Over the World to the (Next) President of the United States!. 

The appeal, issued May 17, calls for the Presidency of the United States to return to the peace policy of John F. Kennedy enunciated in his historic address at American University June 10, 1963. On June 10, 2023, the Schiller Institute (SI) accelerated worldwide diffusion of that speech on its 60th anniversary with this international online conference: The World Needs JFK’s Vision of Peace!

The SI urges everyone possible to add their name to the appeal, and to bring it to the attention of every organization concerned with the welfare of mankind that they can. Total current signers are 1300, with translations into 7 languages. The aim is to reach 5,000 before the worldwide peace actions on August 6, the anniversary of the U.S. nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, from 100 plus countries. The Institute particularly encourages maximum viewings of the Kennedy speech itself, by individuals, schools, and all categories of other groups, in a spreading world awakening. Here is the full 27-minute Kennedy Peace Address; here, a 4-minute set of video highlights, with subtitles.

The circulation of the Urgent Appeal and Kennedy speech has spurred the formation of a rapidly growing International Peace Coalition, initiated by the Schiller Institute on June 2. The summary press release of its most recent deliberation, International Peace Coalition Charts a Path to the New Paradigm, begins: “On Friday June 30, the International Peace Coalition (IPC) held its fourth meetings with approximately 60 organizers from Argentina, Germany, Guinea, Nicaragua, Span, Sweden Switzerland, the UK, the United States, and other nations participating in the proceedings. The meeting could be best characterized as a strategy session on how to expand the IPC through various means of direct action such as street organizing, social media, political interventions, and classes, with the goal of not only preventing the immediate threat of global thermonuclear war, but laying the foundation for a durable peace – a New Paradigm.”

Please add your efforts to the urgent expansion of the Coalition’s work. Contact the Coalition at questions@schillerinstitute.org.

The conclusion of the Appeal, and initial list of prominent signers:

We the undersigned want America to be again the America expressed in that beautiful speech of JFK. We want the United States to be again a beacon of hope and a temple of liberty. We believe that this is the basis for “peace for all time,” as JFK said.

Initiating signer

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), founder Schiller Institute

Additional prominent signers

Daud AzimiAfghanistan/GermanyDipl. Ing. (Engineer); Board Member, Peace National Front of Afghanistan
Tse Anye KevinAfricaVice President, State 55, Afrika
Enrique Juan BoxArgentinaSocial communicator
Roberto FritzscheArgentinaProfessor, Dep’t of Economic Science, University of Belgrano
Carlos Perez GalindoArgentinaLawyer
Rubén Darío GuzzettiArgentinaArgentine Institute of Geopolitical Science
Gustavo RussoArgentinaLawyer; Professor of Juridical Sciences
Trudy CampbellAustraliaNorthern Territory secretary, Australian Citizens Party
Christian DierickBelgiumManager, Big Science Technology Club & Lead Energy Expert
William LindoBelizeExecutive member, Peoples United Party
Edwin Alfonso De La Fuente JeriaBoliviaFormer Commander in Chief of the Bolivian Armed Forces
Osman Vladimir Escobar TorrezBoliviaHuman Rights Secretary, Bolivian Labor Confederation (COB)
Max Yecid IbañezBoliviaFormer Secretary of Grievance Resolution, National Federation of Electrical and Telephone Workers of Bolivia
Jairo Dias CarvalhoBrazilProfessor, Philosophy of Technology, Federal University of Uberlândia
Lilian Simone Godoy FonsecaBrazilProfessor of Philosophy, UFVJM, Diamantina campus
Gabriel Tincani RamosBrazilPresident, Union of Socialist Youth — Campinas
Renata Welinski Da Silva SeabraBrazilESG Consultant; Former UNDP Executive Director for UN Global Compact Brazil; author, “A Regulamentação International Ambiental e a Responsabilidade Corporativa”
Julian FellCanadaFormer Director, Regional District of Nanaimo
Dimitri LascarisCanadaLawyer; Peace activist
Mario Guillermo Acosta AlarcónColombiaScientist and writer; General Director, CIFRA (Space Lab City)
Fernando Duque JaramilloColombiaLawyer; Master’s degree in Political Science
Pedro RubioColombiaUnion leader; public policy analyst
Enrique García DubonCosta RicaEconomist
Enrique Ramírez GuierCosta RicaBiologistç consultant
Tom GillesbergDenmarkPresident, Schiller Institute Denmark
Pernille GrummeDenmarkActress; peace activist; former Chair, Artists for Peace, Denmark
Alcibiades Jose AbreuDominican RepublicUniversity professor of mathematics, English and French
Alexis Joaquin CastilloDominican RepublicPresidential candidate of Alianza Nueva República. Lawyer; former Prosecutor of the National District
Ramón Emilio ConcepciónDominican RepublicAttorney at Law, Presidential Pre-candidate for the PRM party (2020)
Ramon Cruz PlacensiaDominican RepublicFormer Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (UASD)
Luis De León FerreiraDominican RepublicPresident of Fuerza Boschista. Educator, university professor at Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo (UASD). Politician
Marino J. Elsevyf PinedaDominican RepublicAttorney at Law; notary
Enrique Garcia FrometaDominican RepublicIndustrial engineer, master’s degree in public administration, appraiser and planner
Ramón GrossDominican RepublicPost-graduate Professor, Catholic University of Santo Domingo
Dantes Ortiz NuñezDominican RepublicHistorian; Professor of History, Autonomous University of Santo Domingo
Oscar Daniel Pérez QuirozDominican RepublicTheologian and Psychologist
Domingo ReyesDominican RepublicFormer professor of economics, Ph.D. in Higher Education
Rafael Reyes JerezDominican RepublicJournalist; TV producer, “cara a cara”
Enrique Antonio Sánchez LiranzoDominican RepublicLawyer, author, poet
Caonabo SuarezDominican RepublicPoet; Member of the Coordinating Committee of the Institute for Analysis and Conclusions (INAC), Dominican Republic
Patricia MerizaldeEcuadorFounder and President, International Feminist Poetry Movement, “Women’s Flight”
Ernesto Pazmiño GranizoEcuadorHuman Rights lawyer; university professor; former General Public Defender of Ecuador; former Vice-President, Justice Center of the Americas
Alexis PonceEcuadorRights advocate, National Association of Patients and Vulnerable Families of Ecuador
Napoleon Saltos GalarzaEcuadorUniversity professor; Member of Parliament (1996-1998), Quito
Jacques CheminadeFrancePresident, Solidarité et Progrès; former presidential candidate
Dr. jur. Wolfgang BittnerGermanyAuthor
Joachim BonatzGermanyVice President, East German Board of Trustees of Associations (Ostdeutschen Kuratoriums e.V.)
Dr. Ole DoeringGermany/ChinaProfessor, Hunan Normal University, China
Johannes PosthGermanyGeneral Director, Deutsche Telekom in Ukraine, starting 1996; head, Ukrainian-European Policy and Legal Advice Center, 2002-2005
Dr. Rainer SandauGermanyTechnical Director, Satellites and Space Applications, International Academy of Aeronautics (IAA)
Takis IoannidesGreeceAmbassador of Peace, Hon. Dr Literature, historian, researcher, poet.
Dr. Maria Arvanti SotiropoulouGreeceRepresentative, Greek Medical Assoc. for the Protection of the Environment and Against Nuclear and Biochemical Threat (GMA), Greek affiliate of Internat’l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW)
Raul Anibal Marroquin CasasolaGuatemalaCoordinator of the Citizen Observatory for Peace “La pupila del cielo”, San Cristobal, Verapaz, Guatemala.
Otto Rene Quiñones CariasGuatemalaFormer Legislator (1991-1993); President, Board of Directors of Alternate Deputies
Beatriz Solórzano LeónGuatemalaLicentiateç Parliamentary Technician, Congress of Guatemala
Ahmadou DialloGuinea/United StatesSenior Member, Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom In.
Mamadu DjaloGuinea/United StatesSecretary, Guinean American League of Friends for Freedom Inc.
Khemraj RamjattanGuyanaLeader, AFC (Alliance for Change)
Donald RamotarGuyanaFormer President of Guyana
Oscar Abraham Lanza RosalesHondurasIndustrial engineer, retired; columnist for La Tribuna, Honduras
Andrea SzegóHungaryProfessor (ret.), economics
Dr. Balkrishna KurveyIndiaPresident, India Institute for Peace, Disarmament, and Environmental Protection
Maurizio AbbateItalyChairman of ENAC, National Institute for Cultural Activities, Italy,
Angelo AielloItalyFormer sport director of AC Milan
Prof. Bruno BrandimarteItalyProfessor (ret.), Applied Biophysics, Univ. of Rome, Tor Vergata
Renato CorsettiItalyProf. emeritus; Chair, Progressive Esperanto Speakers
Jorge FloresItalyPoet
Liliana GoriniItalyChairwoman of Movisol
Antonio IngroiaItalyFormer candidate for Italian Prime Minister
Nicola ListaItalyChairman, youth organization of MDC, (Movement in Defense of the Citizen)
Enzo PennettaItalyOrganizer, referendum to end Italian military aid to Ukraine
Vincenzo RomanelloItalySenior Nuclear Researcher and Project Manager, National Radiation Protection Institute (SURO)
Alessia RuggeriItalyTrade unionist
Daisuke KotegawaJapanFormer Executive Director for Japan, IMF; former Japan Ministry of Finance official
Pastor James AdundoKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Pastor Amos NyambokKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Pigbin OdimwenguKenyaYouth political party leader
Pastor George OutaKenyaChristian Outreach Ministry
Mohd Peter DavisMalaysiaBiotechnologist; biochemist; architect; consultant, deep tropical agriculture; Visiting Scientist, University Pertanian (retired)
Chandra MuzaffarMalaysiaFounder and Director, International Movement for a Just World (JUST); Co-founder, Saving Humanity and Planet Earrth (SHAPE)
Adam OuologuemMaliJournalist, Mali/Washington D.C.
Angel Coronel BeltránMexicoFormer Research Profesor, Physics REsearch Department, University of Sonora (UNISON)
Maria de los Ángeles HuertaMexicoFormer Congresswoman
Dr. Enrique López OchoaMexicoAngiologic Surgeon; Professor of Angiology, University of Sonora (UNISON) School of Medicine
Tenit Alfonso Padilla AyalaMexicoProfessor of Effective Communication, Technological Institute of Sonora
Jaime Varela SalazarMexicoFormer Director, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Sonora (UNISON)
Alex KrainerMonaco/CroatiaAuthor, “Grand Deception: The Truth about Bill Browder, the Magnitsky Act, and Anti-Russian Sanctions”
May-May MeijerNetherlandsChair and Founder, Peace SOS
C. (Kees) le PairNetherlandsPhysicist (ret.), University of Leiden; Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Djamila le PairNetherlandsFreelance journalist; Free Assange activist
Mykeljon WinckelNew ZealandFounder, Voice Media
Bolívar TéllezNicaraguaLawyer and university professor, Nicaragua
David AjetunmobiNigeriaTrade union leader, auto sector
Adeshola KukoyiNigeriaFounder, Equilibrium Perspectives in Learning and Development/University of Lagos
Manuel HidalgoPeruPhD in Accounting and Business Sciences; Professor at Universidad Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Perú
Herman Tiu (Mentong) LaurelPhilippinesFounder, Philippine BRICS Strategic Studies think tank; TV and radio commentator; organizer, movement vs. new U.S. military bases in the Philippines
Leo SemashkoRussian FederationGandhian Global Harmony Association
Earl M. BousquetSt. LuciaVeteran Pan-Caribbean journalist/columnist; Editor, Voice of St. Lucia newspaper; President, St. Lucia-China Friendship Assoc.; Chair, St. Lucia Nat’l Reparations Cttee
Natasa MilojevicSerbiaPolitical scientist; former Member of Parliament
Meshack MoxongoSouth AfricaLeader, LaRouche South Africa
Princy MthombeniSouth AfricaSpokesperson, Africa4Nuclear
Ishmail PhaliSouth AfricaMember, LaRouche South Africa; member, Democratic Alliance – South Africa
Motutla Juda PhaliSouth AfricaMember, LaRouche South Africa
Hyung-Joon WonSouth KoreaViolinist; Founder and Director, Lindenbaum Festival Orchestra; organizer, North and South Korean peace concerts
Juan Carrero SaraleguiSpainPresident, Fundació S’Olivar; peace activist
Juan Jose Torres NunezSpainPoet, published author, freelance journalist
Dr. George MutalemwaTanzaniaGlobal Peace Studies for Sustainable Development; Africa Peace and Development Network (Mtandao wa Amani na Maendeleo Afrika (MAMA)
Bishop Lubega Geoffrey BobUgandaMinister
Ruslan KotsabaUkrainePresident, Ukrainian Movement of Pacifists
David DabydeenUnited Kingdom/GuyanaProfessor; former Guyanese Ambassador to UNESCO and China
Bernie HollandUnited KingdomSoka Gakkai International
P. D. LawtonUnited KingdomEditor, African Agenda.net
Dr. Athar AbbasiUnited StatesMayor (ret.), U.S. Army
Muhammad Salim AkhtarUnited StatesNational Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)
Bernard Allen-BayUnited StatesCEO, Project Funding Consultants; Vice President, Oklahoma NAACP
David AnderssonUnited StatesCo-Director Pressenza IPA
Deborah ArmstrongUnited StatesJournalist
Dr. Elena BajenovaUnited StatesCreator and Organizer, Anti-War Coalition Group, Arlington, TX; President, Russian International Culture Center
Col. Richard Black (ret.)United StatesFormer Virginia State Senator and Delegate; former head, U.S. Army’s Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon
Kathleen BoylanUnited StatesCatholic Worker Movement, Washington DC
Lt. (ret.) Robert BrancaUnited StatesLt. (ret.) U.S. Naval Reserve
Ellen BrownUnited StatesAuthor, attorney
Malcolm BurnUnited StatesHost, “The Long Way Around”, WKNY Radio, Kinsgston, NY
Harry J. BuryUnited StatesTwin Cities Nonviolent; Association of U.S. Catholic Priests
Bob CushingUnited StatesChairman, Non-Violence Committee, Working Group for the Association of United States Catholic Priests (AUSCP)
T. Herbert DimmockUnited StatesFounder and Music Director, Bach in Baltimore
Daniel DonnellyUnited StatesLibertarian Party, New York
Brian EarleyUnited StatesCaptain (ret.), U.S. Army
Trevor FitzgibbonUnited StatesPresident, Silent Partner Inc.
Christopher FogartyUnited StatesFriends of Irish Freedom
Graham FullerUnited States/CanadaFormer Vice Chair, National Intelligence Council for Long-term Forecasting, CIA; writer; political commentator
David GeorgeUnited StatesProfessor of Economics (Emeritus), LaSalle University
Jack GilroyUnited StatesPax Christi, Upstate New York
Bennett GreenspanUnited StatesPhysician; expert in nuclear medicine; Past President, Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI)
Ephraim HaileUnited States/EritreaEritrean Cultural & Development Center (ECDC) , Eritrean Diaspora Boston
Joyce HallUnited StatesCoordinator, Dallas Pax Christi, TX
Cathy HelgasonUnited StatesMD ;Professor of Neurology. (Retired)
Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Dana HicksUnited Statescomposer, musician, minister
Liz HillUnited StatesLiz Hill Public Relations, LLC
Diana HopeUnited StatesD & D Radio Show,”Delivering the Truth”, NYS, and Beyond
Ivan JonesUnited StatesShop Steward, Local 783, AFSCME (retired)
John JonesUnited StatesBoston Ward 14 Democratic Committee
Frank KartheiserUnited StatesMustard Seed Catholic Worker, Worcester, MA
Bishop Reginald L. KennedyUnited StatesPresident, Ministers Conference of Baltimore and Vicinty, MD
Dr. George KooUnited StatesChairman, Burlingame Foundation; retired business consultant, U.S.-China relations
Janice KortkampUnited StatesCitizen journalist, “American Housewife in Syria” podcasts
Igor LopatonokUnited States/Russian FederationDocumentary film director and producer, “Ukriane on Fire”
Jeff MahnUnited StatesNuclear Engineer (ret.), Sandia Labs, science educator at the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History.
Joseph MarcinkowskiUnited StatesPax Christi. Veterans for Peace; Houston Peace and Justice Coalition
Imam Radwan MardiniUnited StatesInterfaith leader, American Muslim Center
George McGowanUnited StatesFormer Town Councilman, Lake George, NY; former Republican County Committee, Warren County, NY
David MeiswinkleUnited StatesAttorney-at-law; Past President and Executive Director, Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry
Suzzanne MonkUnited StatesChair, Patriot Action PAC
James MooreUnited StatesExecutive Committee- ATA, NSRAA, AKI (fisheries and aquaculture)
Darrell NicholsUnited StatesBishop; Former President, NE Ohio NAACP; Former Vice-President, SCLC, Toledo, OH; Captain (ret.), U.S. Army
Nestor OginarUnited States/MacedoniaRetired Professor of English language and literature, New York; Representative, World Macedonian Congress at the UN; Leade, Macedonian Diaspora in North America ; Member, Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archepiscopy
John OLoughlinUnited StatesAuthor, “McDuff Lives! The life and untimely death of Thomas F. O’Loughlin, Jr.”
Jeff PhilbinUnited StatesNuclear Engineer, Technical Consultant, Independent Contractor
Cynthia PoolerUnited StatesBroadcast journalist, peace activist, NY
Earl D. Rasmussen, P.E.United StatesLt. Col. (Ret.), U.S. Army; International consultant
Coleen RowleyUnited StatesFBI Intelligence (ret.); FBI special agent and intelligence expert; whistleblower and author
Stephen SalchowUnited StatesViolinist, violist; member, Solchow Bow Maker and Repair family
Diane SareUnited StatesLaRouche candidate for U.S. Senate – NY
Martin SchotzUnited StatesCoordinator of JFK Peace Speech Committee, Massachusetts Peace Action, Traprock Center for Peace and Justice
John ShanahanUnited StatesDr. Ing. civil engineer; founder of website AllAboutEnergy.net
Paul ShannonUnited StatesMA Peace Action
John C.SmithUnited StatesProfessional Engineer; Senior Project Engineer; PhD candidate, Colorado School of Mines
Steven StarrUnited StatesProfessor, University of Missouri
Jack StockwellUnited StatesMorning Radio Talk Show Host (1995–present), Salt Lake City, UT
Barbara SuhrstedtUnited StatesConcert pianist; President, Board of Directors, Framingham Lomonosov Association for Mutual Exchange (F.L.A.M.E.)
Dr. Mohammad A. ToorUnited States/PakistanChairman of the Board, P:akistani American Congress
Bob Van HeeUnited StatesRedwood County Commissioner, Minnesota
Zaher WahabUnited States/AfghanistanProfessor Emeritus of Education, Former Advisor to the Afghanistan Ministry of Higher Education
Frederick WeissUnited StatesMusician
Javier AraujoVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofBolivariano; former Councilman; current Alternate Councilman
Luisa Báez CatariVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofPresident, Diocesan Union of Confraternities, Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar of Guarenas, Miranda state
José BustamanteVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofSociologist
Reinaldo Cróes AriasVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofEconomist and public accounting professional
Andrés Ramón Giussepe AvalaVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFormer member, Latin American Parliament
Marco Antonio HernándezVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofSocial media organizer; Bachelor’s degree in education; professor
Alberto Mendoza UribeVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFundamaraisa Foundation
Emil Guevara MuñozVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofFormer member, Latin American Parliament (2006-2011)
Thaidy TeránVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofCoordinator, Music Ministry, Our Lady of Copacabana Cathedral Church, Guarenas
Kelvin ChifulumoZambiaFounder, Educating Girls and Young Women for Development (EGYD)
Munashe ChiwanzaZimbwabweCivil Engineer

Act Now To Reverse Humanity’s Fast-Approaching Thermonuclear Self-Extinction!

May 7—The explosion of drones over the Kremlin on Wednesday, May 3, means the world is closer to thermonuclear war than at any time in history, including October 1962. Absurd stories in the American and European media have appeared (like those that covered up American and NATO responsibility for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines) that assert, without any evidence, that “the Russians flew and blew up the drones themselves.” But think: even if that lying absurdity were true, shouldn’t that also cause extraordinary alarm? If the United States flew and blew up drones over the White House, and then blamed Russia for supporting, say, Cuba, in a drone-weapon assassination attempt against the President of the United States, wouldn’t that mean the world was on the verge of a shooting war between Russia and America, a war potentially deploying thermonuclear weapons that would wipe out life on the planet?

Do you really think that it is sane to be more concerned about “saving the planet from man-made global warming” than saving humanity from madmen-made thermonuclear war? Citizens, wake up! It’s time to take back the United States government from the intelligence agencies that now dominate it, whether in the Congress, State Department, Pentagon or White House, as well as the “informal intelligence agency” called the “mainstream media.”

In each of the 435 Congressional legislative districts, individual American citizens have to stand up for sanity. Go to local meetings of your Congressional and state representatives, to city councils, to university lectures, to state fairs and public gatherings, and demand an immediate shut-off of funds to Ukraine; an emergency audit of American funds already disbursed; the immediate passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, to shut down the speculators that use debt to drive the war machine; and demand support for and discussion of the peace initiatives coming from the Vatican, Brazil and China.

While changing U.S. policy clearly requires Congressional and Presidential action, both these institutions are presently dysfunctional. “Average Americans,” that is, free citizens, have to now stand up, intervene, and be publicly seen and heard both advocating real solutions and implementing them. No partisan party politics! Thermonuclear weapons don’t distinguish between Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. This is a time for solidarity.

The people of Russia, China, and the world recognize, just as do Americans, that “War Is A Racket!” Now, it’s time that we dismantle that racket, and finally deliver on the promise made by President John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961 to “forge … a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West” to “struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.” In this most dangerous period in the history of the world, we are charged in these days ahead to act in such a way that it may be said, in future generations, that this generation proved that humanity, with all its faults, is greater than its presumed destiny.


World War III or Peace? ~ Support China’s Peace Plan!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

No, not sleepwalking, but rather with eyes wide open, and without reason, backbone or conscience, the trans-Atlantic Establishment is pushing us to the edge of the cliff, beyond which a thermonuclear Hell is lurking, that threatens to annihilate all life on this planet. The 12-point program for a diplomatic solution to the strategic crisis between NATO and Russia, released by China on February 24, represents a possible last-minute lifeline to save us from jumping off. Although it was rejected out-of-hand by President Biden and the EU Commission, it has been increasingly supported for good reason by nations of the Global South, and consequently by most of humanity. It definitely needs to become an integral focus of all those forces worldwide that, in this time of existential threat for humanity, are committed to a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. It also represents a concrete option around which to orient the offer of Pope Francis to use the Vatican as a venue for peace negotiations.

The reason why China’s peace plan was immediately rejected by the United States and NATO is that their goal is the restoration of a unipolar world in which China would never be allowed to play the role of a broker for peace. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made clear Feb. 28, in his joint press conference with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin in Helsinki, he sees Ukraine’s future as a part of the EU and as a member of NATO (in the long run). Thus, for NATO, the option of a neutral Ukraine is off the table, although the NATO leadership knows perfectly well that Russia considers that a blatant disregard of its demand for security guarantees. In other words, the U.S., the UK, NATO and the Atlanticists defend the line: “Ukraine has to win on the battlefield,” and “Russia must be ruined.” Conversely, Russia naturally sees this as an existential threat, and will attempt to bring about a decision on the battlefield. 

The Russian government would be in a parallel universe if it did not take seriously the proposals discussed at a joint event of the Jamestown Foundation and the Hudson Institute in December 2022, concerning options for a complete breakup of the Russian Federation. Their “minimalist” goal is for Russia to be turned into “a looser, confederation-type administrative political structure”—de facto disempowering the Russian government, while the “maximalist” goal is the complete breakup and partition of Russia “along ethno-religious lines” and the simultaneous creation of separate states such as Chechnya, Dagestan, and Tatarstan. In that case, they say, demilitarization comparable to the Morgenthau Plan proposal, a “de-Sovietization,” would have to be carried out, and broad sections of society would have to be brought before a war crimes tribunal or re-educated. 

Since the collaborators of these two think tanks are recruited from the inner core of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex, i.e., the real U.S. power structure, Moscow must assume that these scenarios reflect the intention of the U.S. government. That, in turn, would fulfill the condition that the Russian military doctrine has set for the use of nuclear weapons, i.e., when the territorial existence of Russia is threatened.

According to experts from several nations, a military victory for Ukraine is far away. Ukrainian troops have suffered huge losses, averaging 1,000 men per day over the past three months and around 500 per day since mid-February. Some 10 million refugees—two million of them in Russia—unanimously say they do not want to return to Ukraine. Overall, the Ukrainian population has dropped from 37.5 million to about 20 million at present. Almost half of the urban infrastructure has been destroyed, while all critical industrial capacity is located in Russian-speaking regions.

In such circumstances, a war of attrition lasting many years, as the amount of weapons ordered by NATO would seem to indicate, will be a meat grinder in which the population will be wiped out “to the last Ukrainian.”

While U.S. military officials such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley are pushing for negotiations based on a realistic assessment of the situation, and even the Rand Corporation has advised against a “long war” in Ukraine for its own reasons, the hawks around the State Department are apparently following the proposal made by one of Britain’s leading think tanks, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which advocates escalating the war to the point where Russia would have to threaten to use nuclear weapons because of a threat to Crimea and thus to Russian territory. According to this perverse logic, the ensuing “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids” would “promote” the settlement of the war because Russia could thus be forced to surrender. U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria “Dr. Strangelove” Nuland, notorious for her active role in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev, recently reiterated her support for Ukrainian military attacks on Crimea. Thus, the danger of an escalation to a global nuclear war in the short term is knowingly accepted. Obviously, the lives of the Ukrainian population do not count in this scenario; the sole goal is to ensure the defeat of Russia in order to re-establish the status of American hegemony.

The European Council for Foreign Relations, the EU’s own think tank, points out in a recent study that although the U.S. and Europe have drawn closer to one another, the rest of the world is moving further and further away from the West. Those who wish to get an idea of this reality for themselves are advised to watch the video of a dialogue between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the head of the Indian think tank ORF (Observer Research Foundation), Sunjoy Joshi, at this year’s Raisina Dialogue. A good representation of the Global South’s elite meets regularly at this prestigious event sponsored by the Indian government. As Lavrov, among others, indicated, the Russia-India-China troika, first initiated by Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, continues to be a centerpiece of strategic cooperation, but has since greatly expanded into the BRICS Plus group, to which two dozen other countries of the Global South have applied for membership. Therefore, Russia is hardly isolated, as this includes an overwhelming majority of humanity.

And this majority supports the Chinese peace proposal, which calls for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, abandoning a Cold War mentality, ending hostilities, ending sanctions against Russia, and proposes concrete steps on how to overcome the crisis diplomatically. President Zelensky has also stated that he wants to discuss this with President Xi. The near-hysterical reactions of the mainstream media and the Atlanticists to the Chinese proposal prove once again that ideological glasses cause blindness.

The majority of the world’s population supports a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Brazilian President Lula, who has called for a peace club composed of the nations of the Global South, will travel to China later this month to discuss peace initiatives with Xi Jinping. Italian General Fabio Mini, former commander of the KFOR mission in Kosovo, has proposed further useful steps for a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. Pope Francis’ offer to use the Vatican as a venue for diplomatic negotiations is gaining support from key individuals and institutions around the world, as well as religious leaders of various denominations.

Therefore, it is high time for China’s proposal to become the center of the discussion. The situation today is comparable to that in which the negotiations leading to the Peace of Westphalia ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. At that time, the warring parties came to the conclusion that the war had to come to an end, otherwise there would be no one left to enjoy a victory because everyone would be dead. That is precisely our situation today, with the difference that the existence of nuclear weapons today would guarantee such an outcome.

One of the most important results of the Peace of Westphalia, which laid the foundation for international law, was the realization that peace requires taking into account the interest of the other. From that standpoint, not only is NATO’s repeated eastward expansion a catalyst for war, NATO itself is obsolete and urgently needs to be replaced by a new international security and development architecture that takes into account the interests of all states on the planet.

It is urgently necessary that the newly emerging peace movement, that came onto the scene at the “Rage Against the War Machine” demonstration on Feb. 19 in Washington, on Feb. 25 in Berlin, and in many other rallies in Italy, France, Germany and numerous other countries, take a clear position in favor of ending NATO and supporting the Chinese proposal for a peaceful settlement to the conflict which otherwise threatens to lead to the end of civilization.

zepp-larouche@eir.de 


Another Open Letter Calls for Ukraine Diplomacy Before It’s Too Late

March 4, 2023 (EIRNS)–The Working Group Common House of Europe has published an open letter warning against a situation in which the absence of serious diplomacy would throw Europe back to where it was in World War I—into the trenches, however this time in an environment far more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. The letter concludes with:

“War—involving two nuclear powers—has returned to Europe and with it the danger that modern technology will turn the war over Ukraine into a total disaster. It is still true: ‘No security without America,’ but it is also true: ‘No security without Russia.’ And if we get away with it again, then the same will apply: also ‘No security without China.’

“None of the structural reasons that lead to wars has really been overcome. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Carl Friedrich v. Weizsäcker spent a researcher’s life never tiring of reminding us: ‘It is not the elimination of conflicts, but the elimination of a certain way of carrying them out that is the inevitable peace of the technical world.’ “

The Open Letter is signed by Justus Frantz (leading classical music organizer, also signer to the Wagenknecht-Schwarzer Manifesto); General Harald Kujat(ret.); Dr. Bruno Redeker, Chairman Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker Gesellschaft (a think tank in the tradition of detente policies); Professor Dr. Horst Teltschik, former security advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl, former chairman of the Munich Security Conference.


Schiller Rep Tells RIA Novosti: Attack on Russian Fine Arts Is an Attack on Truth Itself

March 4, 2023 (EIRNS)–The renowned Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has gone to hell and apparently intends to stay there. It has become a soldier in Global NATO’s black propaganda machine. RIA Novosti and other Russian media are reporting the story that the identity of many leading Russian painters of the 19th century—Ivan Aivazovsky, Ilya Repin and Arkhip Kuindzhi—whose excellent paintings hang on the museum walls, have had their Russian nationality erased from their paintings’ name plates. Their identities have been changed to “Ukrainian” or to other nationalities. Notices attacking Russia appear next to some of the paintings.

This Nazi-inspired policy of cultural ethnic cleansing is part and parcel of the West’s current forbidding of its scientists from participating in international conferences in Russia, the canceling of the concerts of Russia’s top Classical musicians and singers, and the false arrests and the destruction of the scientific careers of Chinese researchers working in America’s labs.

Quoted in RIA Novosti news service on March 3, the Schiller Institute’s Richard A. Black responded: “The beauty of mankind lies in the fact that it has developed a variety of different civilizations which differ in their language, their means of communication, and in fundamental ideas. Islamic, Western European, Chinese, Vietnamese—all civilizations have evolved for thousands of years, and have made unique contributions to the understanding of fundamental principles, fundamental truths—which, in essence, is the role of art. So, the imposition of lies by the U.S. authorities on an institution—such as the Metropolitan Museum—about leading examples of Russian civilization—this is a mockery of all culture, of all art and all science.” Black called the museum’s actions an attack on truth, “on an idea, on civilization, on the role that art and science play in civilization. This is an attack on American citizens, in order to continue to keep them uninformed, and to portray Russia as an enemy.” RIA Novosti concluded its article by reporting, “According to President Vladimir Putin, Western Russophobia is nothing but racism.” The article, in Russian, may be found here.

The article was also published by Sputnik Mundo, Sputnik’s Spanish-language site today, in full, changing it only to report that Black had made his statement to Sputnik


Mexico’s Journalists Club Honors Schiller Institute With “Freedom of Expression” Award

Dec. 7, 2022 (EIRNS)–The national Journalists Club of Mexico today announced the results of its 70th National and International Journalism Contest, issuing their awards to the Mexican and international journalists, media and institutions chosen by a 20-person independent jury for their work in over 20 areas of journalism and freedom of speech. The annual contest has become an institution in the country, with increasing international attention. Julian Assange, for example, was issued an award for “Freedom of Expression” in 2019.

Today, the Schiller Institute received the Club’s award for “|`Fostering freedom of expression from the academic realm’, for its contributions to historical and geopolitical analysis for understanding global changes, from a multi-disciplinary standpoint of critical thinking, warning of the consequences of the violence and imbalances which affect the concert of nations and world peace,” the master of ceremonies explained. This was one of only five international awards conferred by the Journalists Club. Another 30 or so awards were presented to national journalists in different areas.

The awards ceremony, held in the association’s historic headquarters in Mexico City, is quite an occasion, and was attended by the President of Mexico’s Press Spokesman, Jesús Ramírez Cuevas, and diplomats from various countries, as well as many journalists and media and their families and friends. Ramírez Cuevas was greeted by an ovation when announced, and he gave President López Obrador’s greetings for the occasion.

After the Schiller Institute’s award was announced, a short video-recorded message of greetings and appreciation from Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche was played (with Spanish subtitles), as the Institute’s representative in Mexico, EIR correspondent Gerardo Castilleja, accepted the award on her behalf. Zepp-LaRouche explained that she could not attend personally to accept the award because she was number one on the Ukrainian hit list, expressed her great appreciation for the honor bestowed, and spoke of the international leadership role Mexico is playing, and can play in rallying the world against nuclear war and for peace.

The tone for the spirited meeting was set by the Club’s Secretary General, Celeste Sáenz, in her opening speech, in which she issued an impassioned call to build the fight against the grave threats to freedom of speech afoot in the world. There is war ongoing against truthful journalism, organized by the great media and neoliberal international powers, she charged. Independent journalists who refuse to surrender to their demands are excluded, but have begun setting up their own outlets (several of which were given awards later).

This is “a real war … with real victims.” Journalists are being killed, some caught in the crossfire of the conflicts in the world — but some deliberately assassinated, as in the case of Ukraine, she said. Journalists and academics are being put on a blacklist “by the Ukrainian government and Western intelligence and spy agencies who seek to assassinate” them. When the selected targets are assassinated, their photos on the list are then crossed off, she specified. “This is disgraceful. After the Second World War, we thought that we would not see this again.”

She cited the terrorist assassination of Russia’s Darya Dugina last August 20 as exemplary of this policy, and slammed the policy of censorship carried out in the name of “freedom of speech,” as seen in the “centers for countering disinformation” which impose that policy.

The Club then gave a posthumous award to Dugina, which Russia’s Ambassador to Mexico, Viktor Koronelli, received in the name of her father, Alexander Dugin. A brief video message from Dugin was then presented.


‘Soloviev Live’ Interviews Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Ten Principles

Dec. 7, 2022 (EIRNS)–Wednesday Dec. 7, 2022—Vladimir Soloviev aired a 21-minute interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Dec. 7. {Video version of this interview is here: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/6gNnbGKzVoMQLA }

VLADIMIR SOLOVIEV: Well, unfortunately, that’s about my German, so if you don’t have anything against it, we’ll try English. I’m sorry for being late a couple of minutes. You know, those Russians, they’re never good on time. There’s always a problem with Russians being good on time! [laughter]

I have to say: I was quite impressed with your very tough point of view, (should I say that?) very revolutionary. Definitely not mainstream of current European political ideas. How come? It looks like the Dawn of Europe, the book that was written more than a 100 years ago, suddenly comes true. What are we facing right now? And what should be done, in order to save the world?

HELGA ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Well, I think the problem is that we are, as some of the Russian officials have stated recently, we are already at a state of war between NATO and Russia, and many people in many countries are extremely worried that this may lead to nuclear war. And if it would come to that, I don’t think it would be a limited nuclear war. I think regional war, the use of only tactical nuclear weapons, I think this is all ruled out. And if it comes to the use of only one single nuclear weapon, it would have the danger of a global nuclear and that would mean the annihilation of civilization.

And for me, I think you have to start with that: This is why I have suggested principles, 10 principles for a new international security and development architecture, which is drawing very much on the example of the Peace of Westphalia which ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. And I’m really fighting very hard to put this on the agenda before it is too late.

SOLOVIEV: So, what are those 10 principles? And what makes you think that current political power in Germany, but basically in U.S.A.—we realize that; whatever is there right now in Germany, it’s just a reflection, it’s just another projection of American point of view—that they will hear you? That you won’t be punished severely for your point view. Because now it’s not—it’s impossible to talk about the freedom of speech and the freedom of philosophical ideas in Europe.

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: I know it’s not allowed, and you are being ostracized immediately, and worse. But I think we are in a situation—I mean, this is not a tenable situation. Germany, for example, has lost all of its sovereignty with the present government, at least concerning certain ministers. We are running against a collapse in Germany: The economic situation is absolutely devastating. The result of the sanctions, which Germany imposed against Russia, on orders practically of the United States, is boomeranging, and the blowback is threatening the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. So this will become apparent in the next weeks and months.

And I think we are in an epochal change: It’s not just a war between the West and Russia, but the result of the policies imposed against Russia in particular, have led to a counterreaction: The entire Global South is in a revolutionary spirit to establish a just new economic order, and this is a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was already on that course in the 1970s, and now I think it is unstoppable. You have the emergence of a completely new system, which is the BRICS, the SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the Eurasian Economic Union, all of these countries are reacting to the policies coming especially from the British and the United States, and they’re forming a new world economic order.

Some people may think it is enough if you have a multipolar world; the unipolar world is definitely over. But I am of the opinion that even multipolarity is not sufficient, because it still has the potential of a geopolitical confrontation. So this is why I think the most advanced proposal to overcome that in the present world comes from President Xi Jinping, who is talking about the “shared community of the future of mankind.” My 10 principles are basically an effort to elaborate principles how we can get people to understand what the new paradigm is, in which we have to move. That is a very deep philosophical conception: I’ve been working together with my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on that for the better part of the last 50 years. So I’m convinced that this is resonating with what the world right now urgently needs, which is a new conception—the question, really, is can we as a human civilization give ourselves an order which allows the long-term survivability of our species? So this is the biggest challenge to our intelligence you can have. And since I’m—and that’s the 10th point of my 10 principles—I’m convince that man is fundamentally good, and that the evil in the world is the result of a lack of development.

So I’m confident. I think the danger is incredibly big, but on the same time, I’m also extremely optimistic that a solution to this present calamity can be found.

SOLOVIEV: So what are those 10 principles? What are they? How dare you bring those 10 principles to the world of Schwab! Who is saying that humanity is a disease, and it’s better to be without humanity for the world! So how come that, nowadays, you’re coming with basically, let’s say “humanitarian tradition” of understanding humanity? Instead of modern liberal, Nazi view, where basically humanity should be destroyed?

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Well, I think the present world order, in large part suffers from the problem of oligarchism: That is not a new phenomenon. You had empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian Empire, the British Empire, which in one sense still exists, and these forms of government were based on the idea that you have a small, powerful elite, sometimes the aristocrats, sometimes the financial elite, and that they have all the privileges and rule over backward masses of people. That system is the origin of what a former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, calls the “green delirium,” which is the idea that we are living in a world of finite resources, that you have to have management of scarcity, and all of this.

But that’s not the real universe. The good thing is that man is different from animals, because we are capable of discovering universal principles about the physical universe. This is called scientific and technological progress, and when we apply that progress in the production process, then it leaves to an increase in the living standard, the longevity of people. So, I think we have reached the point now where the evolution of mankind is at a point where we have to adjust the political and economic order to the actual lawfulness of the physical universe, if we want to survive. That is not a new idea: That was actually a philosophical conception in Europe, it was called “natural law.” You have the same idea in other cultures. In India, for example, it’s called “cosmology,” where basically politics is supposed to implement the lawfulness of the cosmos. You have the same idea in Chinese philosophy, with the “Mandate of Heaven.” So in all great cultures, you have the idea that there is a higher lawfulness which we have to respect, or bring about destruction.

So I think we are in a very optimistic change of an epoch. I would call it that mankind is about to reach the age of adulthood.

SOLOVIEV: [laughs] That is very optimistic, should I say! But by reaching the age of adult, we have to face quite new challenges. One of them is that Europe is basically put in an Iron Curtain, by trying to recognize Russia as a “sponsor of terrorism” state, they are just cutting all possible ties that have been left, and it’s leading us to a completely new scenario. Europe without Russia is basically a very small place!

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Right now, the mainstream media and the major political parties, as they are represented in the European Parliament, which made this resolution about Russian being a terrorist state, that is the surface. And if you only look at the mass media, you get the impression that that is everything there is. But we are organizing people: Look, there are demonstrations in all European countries, to end the war, to have a peaceful negotiation, use diplomacy already, and many people are demonstrating in east Germany, in Belgium, in France, in Italy, even in Great Britain. So I think, this is a very dangerous moment, obviously, but I think that as the crisis will become bigger, and you have hyperinflation, the energy prices, the food prices, I think we are heading towards a very big moment of decision. And what the Schiller Institute is trying to do, is we are organizing international conferences, which have to be virtual because of the still existing pandemic conditions, and we are trying to bring together people from all over the world.

I have initiated something which is called—I should explain—Friedrich Schiller, after whom the Schiller Institute is named, had the idea that there must not be contradiction between patriots and world citizens. So, given the fact that the danger of nuclear war makes everybody, instantly a world citizen, because the whole world is challenged, so I’ve called for a world citizens’ movement. And since I was born in Trier—which some people may recognize the importance of that—I have called for “World Citizens of All Countries, Unite!” [laughs] in which I find a certain irony.

But many people have responded. We’ve had three conferences already with many sitting and former parliamentarians, and former ministers and Presidents from Latin America, who have issued a call to all parliamentarians and elected officials of the world to join this movement, and fight essentially for these 10 principles, and a new security and development architecture.

SOLOVIEV: So you are still an optimist? Do you still think that humanity is going to survive?

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Oh, yes! You know, obviously, the danger is enormous, because if it comes to nuclear war, there will not be even an historian left to investigate the reasons why it came to this point. So I’m not unaware of the incredible danger. But I believe that the majority of the world is already creating a new system: The BRICS countries already have a GDP which is higher than that of the G7. And you saw at the recent G20 meeting, despite incredible pressure, the majority of the countries of the Global South do not want to change sides! Even the Trilateral Commission, which is really—not exactly my kind of organization—the Japanese representative of the Trilateral Commission just recently said, telling the United States and Great Britain, do not force us to choose sides between China and the United States, because if we are forced, we will choose China. This came from Japanese Trilateral Commission members!

So the spirit is really not—people do not want this geopolitical confrontation any longer. And I think there is a tremendous chance—look, Modi, who will chair the G20 in the coming year, just wrote a very beautiful statement, where he echoed essentially what I’m saying, that there are people who say that man is evil, but he says, no, the fact that there are so many aspirations in religion and philosophy that man is fundamentally good. And I think that with the leadership of India in the G20, you will see that the Global South will have a much great voice.

And we are trying to convince people in the United States and in Europe to join with that new system, rather than trying to oppose it. And, OK, maybe that will not function, but I’m optimistic that it’s the only choice: Because we have to get the United States and Europe to cooperate with the countries of the Global South and China. If the United States and China, which are the two largest economies of the world, are not working together, then no problem of the world can be solved. On the other side, if we succeed in showing that there is an advantage for everybody, to solve poverty—I mean poverty should be eliminated! It is the biggest violation of human rights you can imagine. So, all I want to say, is that what we are proposing is actually in cohesion with the wishes and desires of the world population.

SOLOVIEV: Well! But how can you imagine those guys in U.S., in U.K., in Germany, giving up the complex of superiority, where they still consider the other part of humanity, according to Kipling, half-beast, half-humans, as in the burden of the white man? So how can you imagine Americans suddenly recognizing that they’re not the chosen nation? They won’t count it! They don’t want to do it! No one ever gave up the complex of superiority before being defeated. There is no brain to apply to: Look at Biden! There is no {brain} to apply to! There is a number of stereotypes! And that’s about it.

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Yeah, but look, Josep Borrell from the EU made this incredible statement that the EU is a beautiful garden…

SOLOVIEV: Yes, surrounded by jungle.

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: And that made him the laughingstock of the whole world!

SOLOVIEV: But he is an idiot! And he represents the diplomacy of the EU! What kind of idiot right now represents the EU as the top diplomat? That’s annoying!

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: Yes. But, in a certain sense, you have to laugh about it, as many countries of the Global South are doing.

The countries of the developing sector are right now in a mood where they recognize that this is the effort to keep the colonial order. But that is not—Look, all of these countries have a different tradition. The United States, for example, made their independence in the War of Independence against the British Empire. And the Constitution of the United States was the first real republic in the history of mankind, and if you look at the principles of Benjamin Franklin, of George Washington, of John Quincy Adams—John Quincy Adams said exactly what we are saying today, that you need a partnership of perfectly sovereign republics and the United States should not go out and look for foreign monsters. And then, Lincoln had the same idea. Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he designed the Bretton Woods system, it was meant as the first priority to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries. Even Kennedy had a beautiful idea about the role of technology would solve all the poverty in the Third World. So there {is} a tradition in the United States which is completely different. The problem with the United States right now is that they have adopted the model of the British Empire as the basis to rule the world in a unipolar world, in a unipolar style. But that is not the whole United States! The people of the United States are essentially good. It is what some people call the “MICIMATT”—you know, Ray McGovern—

SOLOVIEV: Right.

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: It’s the military-industrial complex, plus the Congress, plus the media, plus Silicon Valley, but that is a small minority. They look like the all-powerful force right now, but I think this other tradition of America is there, and we are trying very hard to make a revival of the best traditions of the United States.

SOLOVIEV: I hope that you succeed. I hope you succeed! Unfortunately, our time is running out. And excuse my smile: The reason is that my wife’s name is Olga Sepp [ph], so when I see Helga Zepp, I feel like I’m talking to a relative, should I say! [laughter]

ZEPP-LaROUCHE: That’s funny!

SOLOVIEV: Yes, that’s quite unusual. And, I love what you’re saying! And I love your very sweet, idealistic, but very thought-through, based on the belief that human are better than they are.

The only minor thing is: The Founding Fathers of the United States, after all about democracy and “human rights,” shall we say, so they all owned slaves. So, their definition of free men, were only for WASPs, and that’s what makes us Russians being so careful when we’re dealing with the West—the definition of every word. You have to be sure that you understand words in the same way. In any other case, we’re running into problems all the time.

It was a pleasure, and I to continue our discussions in the coming future.


Zepp-LaRouche on CGTN: “Fostering Cooperation in a Fragmented World”

Jan. 18, 2023 (EIRNS)–CGTN today published on its English-language YouTube channel (which has about 3 million subscribers) a 14-minute video commentary by Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on the occasion of the Davos World Economic Forum. CGTN’s introductory blurb asked the question: “How should world leaders work together in a volatile situation? Join Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to explore these talking points.” The video can be found here.

 Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

          The world economic forum has given its annual meeting the title “Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” and shortly before the Forum published their Global Risk Report, in which they present the results of the latest Global Risk Perception Survey.  In that, they consider the current crisis, then the expectation of what many experts think will come out in the short term (two years), the most severe in the long term (ten years), in terms of the economy, the environment, society, and those geopolitical and technological risks that could become tomorrow’s crises.  Then they consider how these different crises could evolve into a “poly-crisis” by 2030. 

          Concerning the methodology used to come to their evaluations, they report that they interviewed over 1200 experts from academia, business, government, the international community, and civil society between September 7th and October 5th, 2022.  In other words, this Global Risk Report is not based on scientific methods, but rather on an Aristotelian method to arrive at the common denominator of the opinions of selected experts. 

          While there will also be attendance from countries of the Global South, who may try to set different accents, the World Economic Forum represents a good portion of the top global corporate establishment; and they clearly try to continue to push their agenda, which is an acceleration of the Great Reset, that they have been pushing before.  It completely leaves out the optimistic perspective, for example, of the circa 150 countries working with the Belt and Road Initiative and their optimism that through investments in infrastructure, agriculture, industry, and international scientific cooperation, etc., most of the problems they insist will dominate the next years can be overcome.

          Instead, there is a lot of talk about “progressive tipping points” and “catastrophic outcomes,” which are all designed to motivate the assembled business leaders and beyond, to adopt the program fitting the financial interests of the main financial players of the neo-liberal system.  For example, in the section called “Natural Ecosystems; past the point of no return” they write:

          “Human interventions have negatively impacted a complex and delicately balanced global natural ecosystem, triggering a chain of reactions.  Over the next ten years, the interplay between biodiversity loss, pollution, natural resource consumption, climate change, and socioeconomic drivers will make for a dangerous mix. 

          “Given that over half of the world’s economic output is moderately to highly dependent on nature, the collapse of ecosystems will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences.  These include increased occurrences of zoonotic diseases, a fall in crop yields and nutritional value, growing water stress exacerbating potentially violent conflict,” etc., etc.

          The deep Malthusian pessimism reflected in such a statement makes clear that this report is more a program of their intent than a scientific prognosis.  Because of human interventions, the world population has increased from a few millions after the last Ice Age to 8 billion.  If there will be a fall in crop yields, then [it will be] only because of the Green demonization of modern agriculture.  And if there will be a violent conflict, then only because the necessary development of new fresh water resources will be blocked by the Malthusian environmentalist agenda.

          Economic Risks in 2023

          Unfortunately, I think that 2023 will see an escalation of the financial and economic crises.  The central banks have tried to curb inflation by raising the interest rates rather rapidly.  Then, as we could see for example in Great Britain, they had to suddenly go from quantitative tightening to quantitative easing again, because of the danger of a chain reaction of over-indebted firms; thus going back to the inflationary money pumping.  Since the tendency towards hyperinflation is the result of ever more monetarist policies going for profit maximization at the expense of physical economy and the reckless liquidity injections following the systemic crisis of 2008 by the trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds, only an end to the casino economy could solve the problem.

          What should be put on the international agenda is the reintroduction of a Glass-Steagall banking separation, which puts the commercial banks under state protection, but forces the investment banks to straighten out their balance sheets on their own without taxpayer money.  Then, each country must create their own national bank, because credit creation must be under the sovereign control of the governments.  These national banks must then cooperate to create a new credit system, which is only devoted to investments in projects serving the common good of the people.  There are already efforts going on in this direction among many countries of the Global South — also, to create a new international currency.

          While it is very difficult to predict the exact time when the systemic crisis of the neo-liberal system will come to a head, it cannot be excluded that the decision to have a complete reorganization of the international financial system could force itself on the agenda in this year of 2023.

          Geopolitical Conflict Triggering a Chain of Reactions

          Right now, unfortunately, the crisis over Ukraine — which is not a crisis between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and Russia — is accelerating in a dangerous way.  I think it is extremely urgent that a diplomatic solution is found quickly to end the war.  There are various efforts, like Pope Francis has offered the Vatican as a venue for negotiations, and I and a group of Latin American legislators have written an open letter to the Pope to mobilize people around the world to support this idea.  We are also asking people to sign that letter.  Also, President Lula from Brazil has been asked to mediate by several countries from the Global South; and also President Erdogan from Turkiye has made some efforts.

          I think all of these proposals should be merged, because too much is at stake.  But, I think because the crisis around Ukraine is so dangerous, the initiatives made by President Xi Jinping with the Global Security Initiative, together with the Global Development Initiative are probably the most important angle to solve the crisis.  The Global Security Initiative is really a proposal for a new international security architecture, and obviously that must take into account the security interests of every single country on the planet for it to work. 

          I am aware that right now it does not look very likely that the countries of the so-called West would be willing to discuss such a new international security architecture, given the fact that NATO is trying to become Global NATO, and Japan and Great Britain have just signed the so-called “Reciprocal Access Agreement,” and the US, the UK, and Australia have signed the AUKUS pact.  But the BRICS countries already have a higher GDP than the G-7; and 17 countries of the Global South are applying for membership in the BRICS.  So, they are in the process of representing the vast majority of the human species.  And the countries of the Global South have made it quite clear that they don’t want to be drawn into a geopolitical conflict between the West on the one side, and the China and Russia on the other side.

          I think it is therefore quite possible that in the course of 2023, the financial crisis erupts even more dramatically, and that that will be the right moment to put the combination of the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative on the international agenda.  I think President Xi is very right that security can only exist if there is development.  So, I am sure that the vast majority of the countries who are striving to overcome the relics of colonialism, and who really want to develop into become modern and prosperous countries, would support such an intervention.

          And then hopefully, the countries of the West can see that it would be in their best interest to cooperate with the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Belt and Road Initiative.

          Global Risks in the Next Two Years

          There are policy initiatives which can overcome the inflation by reorganizing the financial system, by addressing the root causes for the crisis.  The excessive profit orientation at the expense of the physical economy clearly did not work.  And what the World Economic Forum calls the geo-economic confrontation can be stopped the moment these CEOs recognize that win-win cooperation with the majority of the countries in the world would also be in their best interest; since to cooperate with growing markets with billions of people with growing buying power is for sure better than to go bankrupt in a crash.  And the best way to cope with natural disasters and extreme weather events is to invest in basic infrastructure, water management, and scientific and technological progress in order to develop the technologies to have early warning systems, secure housing construction, and other means of adaptation.

          Disagreements on Cybersecurity in Major Countries

          There have been various attempts to have agreement between major countries on cybersecurity.   There was an agreement for example in 2013 between Russia and the United States to establish a secure phone connection, and a working group to mitigate cybersecurity threats.  In 2017, in light of the allegation of election interference made against Russia, Trump and Putin agreed to create a cybersecurity unit to prevent election interference and other cyber threats.  Trump praised it as a big step forward, but was forced to backtrack only 12 hours later, due to massive pressure from Congress and the mainstream media.  Then, in preparation work for the 2018 meeting in Helsinki between Trump and Putin, Russia offered the United States cooperation in the field of preventing cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — power plants, water supply and transport management systems, hospitals, banks, and so on.  The corresponding provision was included in the joint statement of the Presidents of the two countries prepared by the Russian side for adoption at the summit in Helsinki.  While the summit between the two Presidents worked well, all hell was unleashed against Trump afterwards by the same forces, and the agreement was not signed. 

          At this point, the trust between the West and Russia and China is at an historic low point.  Under these circumstances, an isolated agreement on cybersecurity seems very unlikely.  Therefore, a great vision is required on how a solution can be put on the table which addresses all the major problems together, such as a new, just world economic order based on such concepts as the Global Security Initiative in combination with the Global Development Initiative.

          I think that we have reached a point in the history of mankind where we really must get serious about the international order of relations among nations, and how we can organize them in such a way that we can self-govern as a species which is gifted with creative reason.  In an existential crisis, [such] as the one we are experiencing right now, and which is very likely going to get much worse, it is not the amount of money one owns that counts; but it is the quality of political leadership of exceptionally wise and moral men and women who have the ability to shape the future for the benefit of all humanity.

          In Davos, there will be a great number of billionaires, millionaires, and hangers-on to power.  It will be very interesting to watch if they are also up for the larger job required.


Page 2 of 21123...Last
The Schiller Institute