Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German
  • Russian

World war danger updates

Category Archives

Webcast: Could Man’s Future in Space Be the Key to Defeat the Deadly Pessimism of Empire?

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.


Webcast: Battle for a New Paradigm: American Republic vs. Exposed British Empire

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.


Schiller Institute Invited to 2nd Wanshou Dialogue for Global Security

by Ulf Sandmark, ulf.sandmark@nysol.se

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

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.


Trump on N. Korea Deal — “We’re not looking for speed, we’re looking to get it right.”

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.


Trump-Putin G20 Meeting Described as Ready ‘To Discuss the Most Burning Problems’

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.”


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YANG:  Do you agree, Bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Appeal to Artists & Scientists: Prevent World War III Before It’s Too Late

March 2014

The Schiller Institute has issued the following appeal for circulation and signature among scientific and artistic layers. If you feel addressed by this appeal, please sign it and send it in to the address below.

This appeal in PDF format, fits 1 letter-size sheet on both sides

Never since the beginning of human civilization has the danger been as great, that we will cause our own extinction as a species. Since November 21, a coup, long prepared by Western hands, has been activated in Ukraine, culminating on February 22 in an open putsch, forcing the legally elected President Yanukovych from office, and putting Rada (parliament) Chairman “Yats,” the darling of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, in power as Prime Minister. Throughout the country since then, armed bands of stormtroopers, comprised of right-wing radical, anti-semitic, anti-Russian elements, have been terrorizing elected officials and the population at large.

Photographs and videos are now circulating worldwide, documenting the brutality of these groups, who, with flags, symbols, and martial songs, flaunt their adherence to the Nazi tradition of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera and his Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). And yet, the official line of the United States and the European Union continues to be that these are simply individuals who want to escape from Russian oppression and to join a free and democratic Europe.

Even western think tanks have admitted that without a friendly Ukraine at its doorstep, Russia cannot defend itself. The entire assortment of military doctrines, ranging from the stationing of U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, to the Prompt Global Strike doctrine, to the AirSea Battle doctrine in the Pacific, are all doctrines that no longer proceed from the old NATO doctrine of MAD—Mutual and Assured Destruction—but rather proceed from the utopia idea that in our nuclear age, a first-strike strategy can succeed in winning wars.

The first phase of such a planned war, is the creation of an enemy image. The intended adversary must first be demonized by means of an orchestrated media campaign—a tactic made famous by Dr. Goebbels and later refined by the British intelligence service. “To out-Goebbels Goebbels” has been the credo, then as now: People must be made to believe that snow is black. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the policy of “regime change” has been on the agenda for any government that refuses to knuckle under to the imperial order of globalization; and in every case, the Big Lie has been liberally applied.

Remember those Kuwaiti babies, brutally torn from their incubators by Saddam Hussein’s troops? or Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, which in 45 minutes could wipe out any location on Earth? or the great democratic sentiments of the anti-Qaddafi rebels in Libya? or the alleged proofs of Assad’s use of poison gas? And now? Today it’s President Putin who is the man-eating dictator, who throws poor, helpless oligarchs and blaspheming punk rock singers into prison—acts which, of course, completely justify nuclear confrontation. With an unprecedented campaign of lies, individuals and entire peoples are denounced, dissension sown, and the population indoctrinated and made confused with such persistence, that they finally adopt this enemy image as their own, take up the old Cold War rhetoric, and advocate hot war.

And, what then? If it does come to this threatened thermonuclear exchange with Russia and China, the majority of humankind is exterminated within approximately one and a half hours, and the dead will be the fortunate ones in comparison to those who will only perish some days later.

But mankind’s nature is not what we would be led to believe by the morally degenerate attitude of most national governments today, or by the stupefied state of the masses. Humanity is the only species which, by exercising its creative capacities, is capable of repeatedly pressing forward to attain deeper understanding of the laws of the physical universe, and of utilizing that knowledge for the improvement of humanity’s conditions of life. Human beings are also the only living creatures who can have a vision of the future, and who can shape that vision into a material power of ideas which creates that future.

It is precisely because we scientists and artists understand universal principles in science and art, and develop them further—in other words, that we seek the Truth—that in this dark hour of human history, we call upon the world public to fight to preserve peace, and, in this age of thermonuclear weapons, to abolish, once and for all, the very idea of resolving conflicts through warfare, and to drive out of office those politicians who, with their ideology of geopolitical confrontation, are putting the very existence of humanity at risk.

As the discoveries and compositions of Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, Einstein, Planck, and Vernadsky, of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, of Dante, Shakespeare, and Schiller, of Brunelleschi and Rembrandt demonstrate, to name only a few, their creations are an expression of the immortality of the human soul, and of the potential immortality of the human species. We, the living, have the awesome duty to make our life’s work contribute to ensuring that the creativity of those great minds of the past, provide a foretaste of the potential for limitless possibilities with which the human species is endowed. The kind of international cooperation for the common aims of mankind which all scientists and artists have experienced at countless conferences, joint research projects, concert tours, and lively cultural exchanges, must provide the inspiration for solving all political, economic, and even military problems. As Nicholas of Cusa already wrote back in the 15th Century, peoples can only arrive at mutual understanding when they all bring forth their own scientists, artists, and philosophers.

For the sake of our love for humanity, as our expression of gratitude to all generations whose accomplishments have contributed to our present level of development, and as our sacred commitment to the immortal identity of the human species, we call upon the world’s people to put an end to the threat of our collective annihilation.

 

Signed: _____________________________

Please include your affiliation and contact information with your signature, and mail this to the address below.
Schiller Institute
Appeal to Artists and Scientists
PO Box 20244
Washington, DC., 20041-0244

 


Zepp-LaRouche speech to Chinese think-tank: On the Common Aims Of Mankind

Speech by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

On the Agenda: Common Aims Of Mankind

Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave this speech to a Chinese think-tank on Feb. 19.
I2-helga_china_bonzai_2-23-14.tif

EIRNS/Mike Billington
Helga Zepp-LaRouche in China, Feb. 23, 2014.

I am very happy to be here in China, because when I was here in ’71, China was quite different then. And then I came back in ’96; there had been gigantic development. And having had the advantage of being here at a time when the Cultural Revolution was still a dominant factor, and then seeing how the development had occurred, I think I can appreciate a bit more than most people, what a gigantic leap China has really made.

And now I’m coming back here in a happy mood, on the one side, because I see that President Xi Jinping has adopted the New Silk Road, which is exactly what we have been proposing since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now, the not-so-nice aspect of this present trip is, naturally, the fact that we are at a very dangerous moment, and I would like to speak a little bit more about the war danger, at the beginning, and then in the second part of my presentation, to talk about where I see solutions. But I think the recent developments in Ukraine in just the last two days, where the violence has completely exploded, demonstrates that we are potentially in a terrible crisis. Because, contrary to what Western media have been saying about what is going on in Ukraine, reality is quite different.

As you know, the recent escalation started when President Yanukovych did not sign the EU Association Agreement at the last EU summit in November, and then suddenly, these demonstrations erupted, and the Western media portrayed it as if this would be the disappointment of the freedom-loving Ukrainian people, who want to join Europe, and do not want to be under the dictatorship of Putin, and Yanukovych.

The reality is quite different. President Putin said that what had been activated was something which had been prepared for the presidential election of 2015, but has been activated earlier. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also pointed to the fascist character of these demonstrators, and if you look at the pictures from today and yesterday—people throwing Molotov cocktails against the police, occupying ministries and other buildings—these are not peaceful demonstrators (see this week’s cover story).

We know that what led to the Orange Revolution in 2004 was the result of 2,200 NGOs, which were deployed in Ukraine alone, financed and developed by such organizations as the National Endowment of Democracy, the IRI (International Republican Institute), the National Democratic Institute, which had groomed activists, who were selected on the basis of their anti-Russian profile. And many of these people were not ideologically motivated; they just got money. They were paid to do a job.

Naturally, the situation in Ukraine is complicated by the fact that the Western part of the population is traditionally more Catholic- and European-leaning, and the Eastern part is more Russian- and Orthodox-leaning; but that alone would not account for this present conflict.

What is different between the 2004 Orange Revolution and now, is the fact that we have the emergence of hardcore Nazi networks. The most well-known one is the Svoboda party of Oleh Tyahnybok, but there are also other groups like the Right Sector, who all are referring to the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who helped the invasion of Ukraine by the Nazis in the ’40s. These are people who are hardcore Nazis. They have a party logo which is almost identical with the swastika; they’re singing the old Nazi songs. And I think that the only way to characterize this, is that this is a full-fledged Nazi coup, trying to create civil war in the country for a pretext, for later perhaps to intervene.

Now, if you look at the territorial position of Ukraine, it reaches far into the territory of Russia. Kiev at one point was the capital of Russia, and if Ukraine would come under the influence of NATO and the EU, Russia would not be defensible. This has even been the estimate of American think-tanks like Stratfor, because the distance between the Ukrainian border and Moscow is only 480 kilometers, and it is a flat stretch of land, which is very difficult to defend.

So, last week, the Russian Izborsk Club [see EIR, Feb. 21, 2014], which is a group of very influential intellectuals in which such people as Sergei Glazyev are members, and also Gen. Leonid Ivashov—had put out a memorandum appealing to the Russian government, to Western people, but also to the Chinese government, to understand the nature of what is going on. And they say that the aim of this is to drive the Russian population out of the Eastern part of Ukraine into Russia, to create a flood of immigrants; to then forcibly deny the Russian Black Sea Fleet access to the ports of Sevastopol and Odessa, which, strategically, would also cut off Russia from access to the Mediterranean and the Aegean. And then, basically, establish NATO bases in Ukraine, and place Ukraine under the influence of NATO.

Build-Up for Nuclear War

We think that the situation is even worse than that. Because first of all, you cannot see the effort for eastward expansion in respect to Ukraine apart from the eastward expansion of NATO, which has been going on since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the present situation, where you have the U.S. missile defense system set up in Poland and Romania. Just last week, NATO sent an Aegis destroyer to Spain, to the base at Rota. And the Russian government had made very clear, in a conference two years ago, where the Chief of the General Staff Gen. Nikolai Makarov had shown video animations that they naturally see as indicating that the U.S. missile defense system is not directed against Iranian missiles, but that the physical location of the system at the Russian border means it’s directed against Russia. And nobody has any doubt about that.

Now, this U.S. missile defense system is based on a first-strike conception, aimed to take out the second-strike capability of the Russian nuclear forces. And that has been stated by the Russian Chief of the General Staff; that they cannot accept the system to be built at stages 3 and 4, because there comes a point when Russia would become indefensible, and therefore, General Makarov even said, it may force Russia to go for a first strike, and it may come to the exchange of nuclear weapons in Central Europe [see EIR, May 18, 2012].

The additional aspect is the Prompt Global Strike doctrine, which is also a utopian conception which assumes that you can use traditional ICBMs, put non-nuclear warheads on them, conventional weapons, and then take out the weaponry—which again, is a first-strike conception.

Then, if you look at the world situation: the deployment of the Patriot missiles in Turkey, which were supposedly positioned with respect to Syria, but is really part of a forward deployment of NATO. Then you have to see, since the Asia Pivot policy of the U.S. Administration, the Air-Sea Battle doctrine is again a first-strike doctrine, which has even been admitted by American military analysts, with several articles discussing this problem. It is based on the illusion that it can take out the second-strike and other capabilities of any opponent, which in this case would naturally be China. The critics of this doctrine have noted that it is a doctrine which is, by its nature, causing a spiraling danger of a first strike, and a nuclear showdown.

FIGURE 1
China’s Nuclear Second-Strike Capability

i3-plans-map-of-usa.tif

This map, published in all Chinese media in October 2013, shows the reach of China’s submarine-launched nuclear missiles in case of war.

China has also, like Russia, made clear that it will not accept that. In October, there was, on one Monday, simultaneously, the publication of maps in all Chinese media showing that China has 70 strategic submarines which are located in the Pacific, which could launch a second strike, if China were be attacked, at the [U.S.] West Coast, and that the radioactive fallout would go all the way to Chicago. And that you would have a second strike through the North Pole, attacking the East Coast.

This has been stated very clearly, and also the fact that China has these strategic submarines in places which are not necessarily easy to detect. Therefore, the utopian character of all of this is that, if you think about the number of nuclear warheads worldwide, that they’re placed in so many different places—in submarines, in strategic bombers, in hidden places—then the idea that you can win a first strike without the danger of mankind’s extinction, is complete insanity and a criminal kind of thinking.

The Financial Detonator

Now, that this is all related to the collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system, is really obvious. Some of these things have developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, we proposed a Eurasian Land-Bridge, as a peace order for the 21st Century, and if that had been implemented, we would not be at this moment. But unfortunately, at the moment of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the neo-cons in the United States emerged in the old Bush Administration, and they decided that now was the time to go for a world empire. They wrote the New American Century doctrine, and one of the authors was Robert Kagan.

Now it happens to be that Robert Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland, who, as was revealed in her discussion with U.S. Ambassador in Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt, was shown to be meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine. The scandal was not her vulgar language; that’s her problem, how she behaves. The real scandal was that it was a complete admission that the United States government is fine-tuning, step by step, an intervention into who should be the government in Ukraine—which is a complete violation of the UN charter, of international law, of everything. But it is not surprising if you know that she is married to this neo-con, who has promoted this for a long time.

This has been in place for a very long time, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but what is advancing, and triggering, and speeding up this present development, is the condition of the trans-Atlantic financial system, which is about to blow out.

If you take it back to the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, there was a general recognition by many people in the G8 and G20 countries, that the international financial system was disintegrating, and there was a tremendous panic. For a very short period of time, people were willing to consider reforms to rein in the speculation, to re-regulate the banking system, which had been deregulated since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, but that shock lasted only a couple of days. And then the Too-Big-To-Fail banks, and the international financial institutions, reasserted their control of the governments, and two months later, at the G20 meeting in Washington, on the 15th of November, basically decided to deal with this problem in a different way—not through any reforms, but by just pumping money, quantitative easing, and using taxpayers’ money to make bailouts of banks.

In the five and a half years since the outbreak of the Lehman Brothers crisis, they have pumped in, in the United States, probably somewhere between—it’s very difficult to say, because there’s not total transparency—$25 and $30 trillion, through a combination of rescue packages and quantitative easing. And this money has accumulated in the system as a gigantic bubble. It exists in the form of derivative contracts, which now have gone up, according to our best estimate, to $1.4 quadrillion. A gigantic bubble.

And naturally, eventually, like in Germany in 1923, when you print too much money, if it be paper money or virtual money in the form of electronic money, eventually this creates hyperinflation. In 1923, in Germany, when the Reichsbank printed money to pay the war debt, and to pay the Versailles Treaty payments to the Allies, you could not see the inflation for four years. But then, when the French troops occupied the Rhineland, production stopped, and in half a year, the hyperinflation exploded, so that people were buying a piece of bread for 1 Reichsmark, then 100, then 100,000, then a million, then a billion, and at the end, they went with wheelbarrows to the baker before 12 o’clock, because at 12 o’clock the price was increased. Then by November, the whole thing ended, because it had become absurd.

This is now not only happening in one country, like it did in Germany, but it’s happening in the entire Eurozone, and in the dollar zone—which is obviously not only the United States.

Therefore, there was a debate for a very long time in the Federal Reserve, that there should be a reduction of the liquidity pumping of $85 billion per month, to $75 billion, to $65 billion; but there was a worry that you cannot really do that, because if you start to “taper,” then the danger is of a reverse leverage of this bubble, and that you could cause a new explosion of the system.

The Bank of International Settlements published, about two weeks ago, a very strong, stern warning, saying that the tapering should not occur, because it could lead to a complete blowout of the system. And that is exactly what is happening now: a collapse on the emerging markets. The currencies of Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Hungary, and others have taken a downward turn in the last period. And that is just the beginning.

The other problem is naturally that the Eurozone is in a terrible crisis. And I know that people in China have the idea that Europe is doing better, but I can tell you it is not doing better. Officially they are saying there is an improvement, and small growth of 0.5% or some such remarkable magnitude. But the reality is that, if you look at the figures, what is happening in Greece, in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal—the policy of the Troika, which has been the most brutal austerity imaginable—has led to these economies dying, and the population is dying.

The death rate in all of these countries is going up, and the birth rate is going down. Half of the pensioners in Greece are starving. The suicide rate is going up in all of these countries. Millions of people have no health care. The youth unemployment in Greece is 65%. In Spain it’s over 60%, and that, despite the fact that there has been a tremendous brain drain, because the young and educated people have left Greece and Spain, because they have no opportunities anymore. So the policy of the Troika is to destroy these countries, and, in our view, they’re doing it deliberately.

It’s not just incompetence, which is present also, but there is an intention behind it, to turn Europe into a feudal entity.

Now, the fact that this system is about to blow is the reason for the war danger. In a certain sense, it’s very difficult to explain. On the one side, there is an automatism. We are dealing with an empire, a global empire, where all these moves have been installed, and now there is a certain automatism, which is very, very dangerous.

The Obama Issue

This is the reason why my husband has been making the point—and you may think that this sounds very dramatic, but I can only report to you what he is saying—that the only way to stop World War III is the impeachment of Obama.

Many people had illusions about Obama. They thought he was the big Messiah. He promised change, he promised, “Yes, we can.” You remember all these nice slogans from the 2008 campaign. He even got the Nobel Peace Prize before he did anything. But I think many people, both internationally and domestically, have lost their illusions. And he’s committed several impeachable offenses. One of them is that he conducted war against Libya, without the approval of the Congress. He lied. He said this is just a humanitarian intervention, we will not put boots on the ground. But he did put boots to the ground; there were thousands of secret service agents and special forces on the ground, and whether they had boots or not, doesn’t really make a difference.

Then, immediately after the brutal assassination of Qaddafi, Mr. LaRouche said, the only way to explain what is happening is that we are on the course towards a Third World War. The real policy was regime change.

We came very close to that in the case of Syria. Because in Syria, it was not that the Assad government was shooting peaceful demonstrators which caused the escalation: It was part of the regime-change policy from the very beginning. And a lot of the rebels—al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and other such terrorist groups—were sponsored, on the one side, from the CIA station in Benghazi, Libya, which is now an issue of discussion in the Benghazi hearings in the U.S. Congress; but the main sponsor was Saudi Arabia, in particular the head of Saudi intelligence, Prince Bandar, who has been financing and running these terrorist networks in Syria.

So, at a certain point, the U.S. military attack was about to happen. On the Friday night before the attack was to start, we got information from well-placed contacts in the United States, that the U.S. military attack was supposed to occur in the night between Sunday and Monday. And then on Saturday, about noontime, we got another report saying that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey had made a last-minute intervention at the White House, telling Obama that he could not start a war where you do not know how to end it. This, and the fact that the American population was against this war, and that Congress was against this war, changed the opinion of Obama, so that he then asked the Congress for a vote on the matter, and it became clear that the votes were not there, and the agreement with the Russians on the chemical weapons gave Obama a way out. This is how, at least for the time being, the military intervention was stopped. Had Congress voted, they would have voted no.

But, as you can see with the developments in Ukraine, this has not changed the general character of the problem.

The impeachment of Obama is now being considered by more and more Congressmen, who have made up a list of the many impeachable crimes. For example, that Obama is disregarding the separation of powers by making recess appointments. In his recent State of the Union Address, he said, I will not go to the Congress if the Congress has a different opinion—I don’t care. That has caused a lot of people to say, this has to be stopped.

Obviously, people are also afraid to take that step, but there is a growing momentum for such an impeachment. In the light of the escalation toward thermonuclear war, it is absolutely essential that the United States return to its character as a constitutional republic. Obviously, this is a matter for the Americans to decide.

Stop Monster Globalization

But I think the other necessary thing to do, is to stop the casino economy. Because what is driving this present crazy development of globalization, is the fact that globalization has become a monster, where people, entire continents, are sacrificed. The rich are becoming richer. Recently there was a study published by Oxfam, which stated that 85 individuals in the world own as much as 3.5 billion people. And that means in practice, that Africa, for example, is a dying continent. This globalization has consequences: It is not just a moral issue; it means people are dying.

For example, you have, right now, every week, thousands of people getting into tiny boats, trying to flee across the Mediterranean from Africa to what they perceive as a safe haven in Europe. Half of them are drowning. And this is well known. But they take the risk nevertheless, because the war, the hunger, the disease in Africa is such that they prefer to take a 50% chance that they will survive rather than stay where they are. I wrote a poem about this problem, about Lampedusa—that’s the island in Italy where people flee to. It is a synonym for a completely morally bankrupt system. If you cannot treat people in such a way that this is eliminated, civilization is lost.

It would be so easy to stop this. We have all the technologies to make Africa a growing continent, to eliminate poverty in half a year! If the whole world would say that we will stop hunger in Africa, we will build ports, railways, agriculture, irrigation, this could be stopped in half a year, maybe even less. And for me, this is a big moral issue: that this world order must not stay the way it is.

This is what we propose for the United States as a recovery program today, which would mean to re-implement Glass-Steagall, and we have organized in the last two to three years about 80 Congressmen, 11 Senators, and legislatures in about 28 states out of the 50, where resolutions for Glass-Steagall have been introduced and/or passed. And I can actually say that there is growing ferment from the lower level of mayors, of city councils, of state legislatures, because they feel the brunt of the collapse, much more even than the Congress.

We have organized in Europe important forces for Glass-Steagall. In Italy, we have several laws before the parliament, and in other countries we have mayors supporting it, and legislation being discussed.

So, if this happens, if Glass-Steagall could be implemented, it will end the investment bubble; because if the investment banks no longer have access to the assets of the commercial banks, and no longer have rescue packages from the taxpayers, they would have to bring their books in order, and declare insolvency.

Then, however, we would need to have a new credit mechanism, which also existed at one time in American history, in the form of the American System of Economy, introduced first by Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Treasury Secretary of the United States, and who created a national bank, and the idea that the only institution which has the power and right to create credit, is the sovereign government, and not the private banks.

This was then repeated by Lincoln, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and it was done also by Germany after 1945, which created the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, based on Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to give credit lines for well-defined projects.

Now in the case of the reconstruction of Germany after the Second World War, this led to what became famous as the German Economic Miracle, because Germany, which was a complete rubblefield at the end of the Second World War, through that method of state credit financing reconstruction, became, in a few years, the economic miracle which was admired by the whole world.

Programs for Global Development

So, what we propose, therefore, in this crisis which is now upon us, that we overcome it by establishing a Glass-Steagall system, and by the creation of credit by the sovereign governments in each nation. And then we can agree on what we used to call the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and which we proposed, as I said, in the first place, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, in order to combine the industrial and population centers of Europe with those of Asia, through development corridors.

World Land-Bridge
Helga
View full size

When we made this proposal, we looked at the map and the geographic conditions of the Eurasian continent, and it turned out that the best geographical locations for such corridors, were the Trans-Siberian Railroad; the old Silk Road; and other lines, like from Kazakstan all the way to India, to Indonesia; another line from Iran to Turkey, and from there to Europe. But in the meantime, since we proposed this for the first time really in 1989, and then worked on it in ’91, and in the 23 years since, we have completed this program into something which we now call the World Land-Bridge, which is the idea to have several infrastructure projects which would get the world economy out of this crisis.

For the United States, we have proposed something which is called NAWAPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance, which will be the biggest water-management project that ever existed in history. It’s based on the idea of taking the water which now flows unutilized in Canada and Alaska into the Arctic, to take these waters through a system of canals and river systems, and pumping stations, along the Rocky Mountains, all the way to Mexico. And if you ever have been in the United States, travelling by air from the West Coast to the East Coast, you see that California is green, then comes a strip of desert states, and then you have the Rocky Mountains, passing to the Plains of the Midwest, and further to the green East Coast. And this program would turn these desert states into the most lush agricultural and forested areas, because it’s also an intervention into the biosphere.

Because if you start irrigation in a desert area, you have the possibility to plant vegetation. This vegetation then evaporates water, creating clouds, and the clouds bring rain. Then, you have a cycle of water recycling, and only after three or four such cycles, this water ends back up in the ocean, but you have improved the biosphere through what Vladimir Vernadsky called the noetic capability of man. You create new weather systems, you improve your entire environment.

For Mexico, this is vital, because they have now great starvation. They have deserts with a terrible situation—this would improve it.

Then our idea is, you combine this NAWAPA project, which would immediately create 6 million jobs; it would help to overcome the depression in the United States. You combine that, then, with the building of a tunnel under the Bering Strait, which is this short strip between Alaska and Siberia. This is a project which has been put on the agenda by President Putin, since he became President again, and they have decided to build that, no matter what the intention on the U.S. side may be.

The next connection is to develop the Arctic region of Siberia. The region of Eastern Siberia is the richest area of raw materials. You find there all the raw materials, all the elements, which are in Mendeleyev’s Periodic Table, but naturally, they’re under permafrost conditions, so you cannot just go there and mine them, because if it’s minus 50°C, it’s not so pleasant to work there. So, therefore, you need to develop cosmodromes, new cities which are suitable for human beings to live there; and that, in a certain sense, is also very good, because you need to develop these kinds of technologies as a test for space colonization. If you build such cosmodromes in Siberia, this is exactly what you will need when you colonize the Moon, or later, other planets. So, it’s a step in the next evolution of civilization.

And then, naturally, we want to connect this with the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which we proposed in great detail in many reports, and extend that to Southern Europe, because Southern Europe needs an urgent development plan, to include the Near East and the Middle East/Southwest Asia.

The New Silk Road

Now, this is another problem we have to solve, because right now the region from Afghanistan, Pakistan, all the way to the Caucasus, to the Mediterranean, Syria, to Northern Africa, Central Africa, is a region which is completely destabilized. We have terrorist networks, which have spread, ever since the Trilateral Commission decided to build up the mujahideen in the 1980s in Afghanistan, against the Soviet Union. This terrorist network has grown and spread. In Chechnya, in Dagestan, in Pakistan, in Northern Africa. And it’s a real problem, because it is now being financed by the drug trade from Afghanistan, which has increased 40-fold since NATO moved into Afghanistan 12 years ago.

FIGURE 3
The Ancient Silk Roads (Land-Based and Maritime)

I3-Silk_route.tif

Creative Commons

The good news is, that with the adoption of the New Silk Road policy by President Xi Jinping, this is now on the agenda. This is, in our view, the best development which could have occurred, because you need to put an alternative on the table. The New Silk road which connects China to Central Asia, could potentially be extended into Central Europe and Eastern Europe, as this was presented by Prime Minister Li Keqiang when he visited Romania and met with 15 heads of state. There, he proposed that China build a high-speed-train system in Eastern Europe, and this is what the EU is not doing. They cancelled all transport corridors which had already been agreed upon by the EU Transport Ministers in a meeting in 1994 in Crete, but then, because of the stupid austerity policy, all of these were canceled.

i3-putin_xi_moscow_march_2013.tif

Russian Presidential Press and Information Office
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Moscow, March 22, 2013. Russians are enthusiastic about the prospect of working with China to develop Central Asia.

I know that there was a concern by China as to how Russia would react to China’s developing Central Asia, and also building infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe. And I’m very happy to tell you that my recent communication from our best contacts in Russia, have indicated that they think that that is the best way for China and Russia to cooperate, on these projects. And they have said that the developments in Ukraine have made very clear, that there needs to be a change in policy. And developments in Sochi had the same effect. What they mean by that is not the Olympic Games, but the fact that the investment in the Sochi region transformed an entire region, through infrastructure and other developments, as a model of what can be done everywhere else.

I3-helga_china_maglev_2-25-14.tif

EIRNS/Bill Jones
Zepp-LaRouche at a maglev station in China during her recent visit.

So, therefore, we are optimistic that there are solutions, because we can extend this Eurasian Land-Bridge into Africa, into Latin America, and have a World Land-Bridge, where you can travel in a very short period of time—maybe in 20 years, with a maglev train, like the one you have between Pudong and Shanghai—from Chile, all the way across the Bering Strait, to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, or through the maritime Silk Road into Indonesia, and that we have a completely different conception of foreign relations, and how people can be together.

An End to War as Policy

Now, we have to do a couple more things. If we want to get out of this crisis, we must consciously take the next step in the evolution of civilization. We need to say good-bye to certain accepted axioms, like the idea of solving conflict through war. Because in the time of thermonuclear weapons, to have the idea that you can solve conflict through war, means you risk the extinction of civilization. If it ever would come to nuclear war, within one and a half hours, all of mankind could be dead, and extinct. And since that is not acceptable, we have to say good-bye to the idea of geopolitical thinking.

We should not think, “this is German interest,” “this is Chinese interest,” “this is American interest,” but we must consciously define the next higher level of reason, where the common aims of mankind are what motivates us all. And the common aims of mankind are many. For example, to make thermonuclear weapons obsolete, which was already the idea in 1983, when President Reagan adopted the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was a proposal by my husband, which he had developed, and about which he had back-channel discussions for one year with the Soviet Union, with their representatives in the United States, which was in agreement with the National Security Council of the United States. And for one year, this was discussed, and at one point, the answer came from Moscow, no, we don’t want that.

Nevertheless, President Reagan in March 1983, made it official policy of the United States, and even offered to the Soviet Union to apply the technologies based on new physical principles, which would result from such a program, in the civilian sector, where Russia had the most bottlenecks.

Now, this was a completely different conception than what is generally thought, and had nothing to do with a “Star Wars” scenario, which the Western media tried to make of the SDI proposal. Rather it was a grand design to get rid of nuclear weapons through technologies based on new physical principles, and then have, out of this increase in productivity in the civilian economy, a gigantic technology transfer to the Third World. The idea was to dissolve the blocs, to dissolve NATO, and to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, and really reorganize world affairs. And we were very close to that.

There was a disruption, because the Soviet government and the Bush faction in the Reagan Administration moved to sabotage it. But getting rid of thermonuclear weapons is an absolute necessity, because they imply the possibility of mankind’s extinction.

There are other problems to solve jointly, like getting a joint fight against terrorism. The fight against drug traffic. Drug traffic is a big problem for Russia. [Russian anti-drug chief] Victor Ivanov has declared the drug traffic to be the national security issue number one, because every year 100,000 people are dying from the drug traffic.

Then there are other problems, like the defense of the planet Earth against asteroids, comets, and meteors. One year ago, in Chelyabinsk, the meteorite, asteroid shower, occurred. This was not on the radar screen of the U.S. NASA, ESA, nor of the Russian government, and it showed how vulnerable our planet is to the impact of such objects, which right now, we have no technological possibility to defend against. We must work together internationally to develop the technology to divert such objects once their orbit shows that they’re heading in the direction of the planet.

We have to improve our prognosis of earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, which after Fukushima, the Russian, Italian, and other scientists have focussed on, and I have heard from our friends in Russia that they are making big progress in their ability to forecast earthquakes and tsunamis.

Space Exploration and the Fusion Economy

There are other things to be accomplished. The other most promising development, apart from the announcement of the New Silk Road, was the Chinese landing on the Moon, where the Jade Rabbit started to operate, with the idea that this would be a step in the direction of mining helium-3 on the Moon, as a fuel for a future fusion economy on Earth.

i3-chang%27e-3_moon_lander.tif

CNTV
China’s Chang’e-3 lander on the Moon, December 2013. The landing is a step in the direction of mining helium-3, as a fuel for a fusion economy on Earth.
I3-helga_xu-dazhe.tif

EIRNS
Zepp-LaRouche talks with Xu Dazhe, the head of the Chinese Space Agency, during a forum in Washington in January 2013.

This is the absolute next step, because in the evolution of mankind, we have to go from lower to higher energy-flux densities. Because, as Mr. LaRouche, who developed the idea of physical economy, has pointed out, as compared to monetarism, the increase of energy-flux density in the production process is the law of the universe. With each energy-flux density level, you have a corresponding relative population density. And therefore, we are strongly opposed to solar and wind energy, which can fill minor functions here and there, but which cannot serve as the basis of an industrial society, because if you would transform the entire energy production to these low-energy-flux-density levels, it would only support a population of 1 billion people. But we have presently already 7 billion. And we urgently need to go to the fourth generation of nuclear fission reactors which are inherently safe, the pebble-bed reactors, high-temperature reactors, and to a nuclear fusion economy, and beyond.

So, therefore, one of the next joint cooperation tasks for civilization must be the joint development of a crash program for fusion power, collaborative space colonization, and in general, to move the identity of mankind to a different level. We are not beasts. Mr. LaRouche has made a very big emphasis on the fact that the human species, unlike all other living species on the planet, is the only species which has creativity, which has cognitive powers, which can, again and again, improve the conditions of life for all citizens, and especially, we can shape the future. We are not victims of simply continuing the past, but we are the only living creatures capable of having a vision of what the future should be, and capable of moving to get the future implemented through our own action.

A Cultural Renaissance

So, therefore, we are emphatic that we must combine economic program with a cultural renaissance; that we cannot stay in popular culture, because with globalization, the culture has become, particularly in Europe and the United States, decadent and degenerate. If you look at the youth culture in Europe and in the United States, I can tell you it is satanic. Many of the pop varieties are openly bestial and satanic. And it has bred a culture of violence, where in the United States now, you have school shootings every second month. You have meaningless murder on the streets, for no good reason, because people are just crazy.

We are approaching a Dark Age, like in the 14th Century, when the Black Death was raging, and people became completely crazy. You had self-flagellants, you had witchhunts, you had a real collapse of civilization. And if you compare what is happening in the culture today in Europe and in the United States, you see we are already in a Dark Age.

How many people in Europe know and love Classical music culture? They are rapidly becoming a minority. And therefore, we need to do the same thing which was done in the transformation from the 14th to the 15th centuries, when the Golden Italian Renaissance was consciously created by a few people, who went back to the great Greek tradition of the Classics, of Plato, of the tragedians, and by reviving Plato and Dante, they created the Golden Renaissance of Italy. And we must do the same thing today.

I3-helga_china_2-22-14.tif

EIRNS/Bill Jones
Helga Zepp-LaRouche in China. She proposed a Dialogue of Cultures, where each country would draw on its best traditions from the past: “We have to build a new Renaissance, and create a civilization on this planet which is really worthy for man to live.”

We have proposed for a long time, a Dialogue of Cultures, where each country would go back to its best tradition, which in the case of Germany, would mean to revive the German Classical culture of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schiller—even Goethe has a little place—and also in science, we have to go back to Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, Gauss, Riemann, Einstein, Planck, Vernadsky. In the case of China, you have such a rich culture of 5,000 years. There were many periods which contributed much to world culture, and I think one was really the Song dynasty, where a lot of beautiful things were happening in art and culture.

We have to revive that, and out of this revival, we have to build a new Renaissance, and create a civilization on this planet which is really worthy for man to live.

These are, in short, our ideas, and we are really fighting to implement them; not just to have a nice vision, but to make it happen.


Urgent Appeal to the UN General Assembly

This statement by the President of the Schiller Institute was distributed at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly in New York.

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
President of the Schiller Institute

We all know that the current economic order in the world only allows a very small percentage of the population to live a life of luxury, that only a relatively small percentage live decently, that many languish in inhumane poverty, while what Pope Francis called “hidden euthanasia” is widespread.

Only a few people know that, just a few weeks ago, mankind avoided by a hair’s breadth the danger of extinction in a thermonuclear war, because that would have been the consequence of an escalation following a military strike against Syria.

Both of these dangers, which threaten the very existence of the human species, are ultimately the result of the economic system of globalization, in which “anonymous decisions” — signed by high-level officials — sacrifice man’s unique dignity and his life to mammon, the god of lucre.

The diplomatic initiative around Syria raises the hope that the danger of a regional and possibly world war has been once again averted. But as urgent as war avoidance is, it is not enough. If we, as a species, are to have a future, we need a real perspective for peace, a completely new paradigm, that leaves behind for once and for all the geometry of solving crises through war, and replaces it by defining the common goals of mankind.

Is it not in the interest of all people on this planet to ensure energy security and raw material security as quickly as possible, and by so doing to overcome an essential cause of hunger and of the war danger? Is it therefore not in the interest of all people and all nations to launch the best possible crash program for the use of thermonuclear fusion, along the lines of the “Manhattan Project” for developing the atomic bomb during the Second World War, but this time for peaceful purposes and for the good of all mankind?

Likewise, it is high time to put the legitimate demand of the Non-Aligned Movement for a just world economic order back on the agenda. Such a new order could begin with the proposal of Chinese President Xi Jinping at the latest SCO conference, to build the new Silk Road as the basis for peaceful cooperation among all the countries along that route. This proposal is totally in line with the proposal for a Eurasian Landbridge that the Schiller Institute advanced in 1991, in reaction to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. That concept has been expanded, in the meantime, to an international Landbridge to bring people together, which has gained many friends and supporters throughout the world. Such a worldwide infrastructure and development program would hoist us onto the next higher economic platform where hunger and underdevelopment could be eliminated forever.

If the nations united in the UN General Assembly decide to replace the profoundly immoral and unjust system of globalization by an order allowing an alliance of sovereign Republics — in the tradition of John Quincy Adams — to work together in the common interests of mankind, our civilization can enter, consciously, into the next phase of evolution.

Why should that not be possible? We are the only creatures who, thanks to human creativity, can consciously improve the basis of our existence through scientific and technological innovation, and thus raise our living standards and life expectancy. Likewise, we are the only species which can scientifically determine with precision where the next step of research into the physical order of creation must lie, to ensure the continued existence of our species in the universe.

The Earth is not a closed, entropic system with finite resources. Our solar system and our galaxy are only a tiny part of the universe, which develops itself anti-entropically. What is wonderful about our order of creation is that there exists a verifiable concordance between the laws of the macrocosmos — the universe — and of the microcosmos — our creative reason — which is expressed in the physical power of our immaterial ideas.

What we need today more than anything else is tender love for mankind, an audacious vision for the future which looks at our planet from the perspective of astronauts and cosmonauts who see no borders, but only one mankind, while at the same time looking to the stars.

Friedrich Schiller said as much in his poem, and Ludwig van Beethoven in his 9th Symphony put those words to music:

Every man becomes a brother
Take this kiss throughout the world!
Brothers, o’er the stars unfurld
Must reside a loving father.

Our tormented mankind needs courageous leaders, committed to the mission of leading the world out of the danger zones of destruction into a better future, which is within reach!


Page 9 of 10First...8910