Aktionsdag for en enestående løsning:
Skab fred gennem et Trump-Xi-Putin-topmøde, inkl. afskrift
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 15. januar 2020
Helga Zepp-LaRouche bragte klarhed til en situation, som har efterladt mange mennesker forvirrede, desorienterede og/eller fatalistiske, mens de prøver at forklare den strategiske fare i kølvandet på USA’s snigmord på den iranske leder Soleimani. Begyndende med Putins stærke advarsler i løbet af hans tale til nationen, påpegede hun, at der er betydningsfulde personligheder, som forstår hvorfor et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi er nødvendigt, såsom den tidligere tyske forsvarsembedsmand Willy Wimmer, der sagde, at snigmordet satte verden på randen af tredje verdenskrig.
Hun gennemgik den britiske rolle i denne krises udvikling, fulgte dens rødder tilbage til midten af det 19. og det 20. århundredes imperiale geopolitik, frem til deres rolle i at forme krigsfraktionen i USA i dag. Krigskampagnen finder sted samtidigt med, at det neoliberale finanssystem accelerer mod et kollaps. I denne sammenhæng er det indtrængende nødvendigt, at vores seere og støtter forstår hvordan et samarbejde imellem stormagterne, på de strategiske og økonomiske områder, er den eneste måde hvorpå farerne skabt af imperiet kan overvindes.
Hun opfordrede seerne til at deltage i mobiliseringen, og at mestre de store idéer der er nødvendige for at forhindre at blive fanget i de fælder, der stilles af dem der nægter at erkende, at hvis vi forbliver i deres paradigme, vil det føre til menneskehedens udryddelse.
Afskrift på engelsk:
Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, January 15, 2020
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Day of Action for a Unique Solution: Build Peace through a Trump, Putin, Xi Summit
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast today with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is Jan. 15th, 2020: Today is an International Day of Action by the Schiller Institute and LaRouche PAC, to bring together the forces in the United States and around the world to insist upon an emergency summit of Presidents Trump, Putin and Xi to address the crisis that’s emerged between the United States and Iran. Helga, this was your call: You made this emergency resolution. How would you think this is going to function? It’s going to require the American people, especially, to demand this, isn’t it?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Because, as we have gone into this mobilization to try to suggest to many people in the world, and in the United States and Europe, that such a summit must occur, to get out of the danger of confrontation which is now clearly escalating, and not really resolved at all between the United States and Iran, that you have to have a different level of approaching this whole question. We were talking to many, many people in the streets, in other discussions
… remarkable confusion in the population. You had people who said, there is no war danger, Trump has it all under control; or, it’s too late anyway. So people had absolutely emotional reactions and very little understanding of why we are saying this war danger exists.
So, today as you mentioned, we have an International Day of Action: We had friends of the Schiller Institute and associates mobilizing on five continents. We were in New York, near the Trump Tower, the United Nations; many other cities in the United States, but also Stockholm, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Berlin, Paris, even in Australia; and Latin America, Lima, Peru. We tried to put this same focus on the agenda on five continents around the globe, trying to intersect with many political forces around the world, with the idea to create a chorus, a chorus of people demanding that we were on the verge of World War III, and that is not an exaggeration at all. And we absolutely must change the agenda, because if you leave things as they are right now, the danger that things could go out of control completely is imminent.
This was, by the way, not only our view: Today, Putin gave his state of the nation address before the Federal Assembly, and there he basically picked up on the same line, saying that if you look at the developments in the recent weeks in Southwest Asia and North Africa — clearly referring to Libya — that we are in a situation where a regional conflict very clearly could become something affecting the whole global security situation. And he said it’s absolutely high time that the five founders of the United Nations, start to really establish a new order which makes these dangers impossible, and start to discuss the principles on which such a new order has to be built. I don’t disagree with that: If you have a meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the important thing is that you have the three most powerful nations sitting already at the table — namely, the United States, Russia, and China. You have, then two others, France and Great Britain, which I understand Putin’s position that he would make a suggestion like that. I think given the fact that Macron, in the recent period, has made several statements and taken action to make the point that no solution can be found without Russia, I think France could even play a positive, or at least neutral role. The big question, naturally, is the British role, but having three of the most powerful nations, they would have less opportunity to do their usual kind of destabilization.
So I think the important thing about it is that Putin, obviously, in the same way, sees the danger of this escalation. Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, suggested Russia to mediate in the relationship between the United States and Iran; and so, I think that is all going in the right direction.
But, it’s really important that people do not just say, “this is my opinion, there’s going to be war, or Trump has it all under control.” I have studied, and I know you have, Harley, we have studied this matter of how the situation in Iran, in particular, could be the cockpit for a global nuclear escalation, and this is not something we are saying on the top of our head, just saying it like that, but there are certain principles: Because if you target Iran, it is really Russia and China, and anybody who has studied the history of the region, and looked at the question of geopolitics, going way back to the inventors of geopolitics — Haushofer, Mackinder, Milner — before that, you know that it’s not Iran which is at stake, but it is really Russia and also nowadays, China.
I would urge people not to be opinionated about this: Study military history, study what we have published in many articles about it in the past; study why even the use of even one nuclear weapon has immediately the danger of an uncontrollable global nuclear war. And take it seriously, because it is.
SCHLANGER: You mentioned that there are some people who think that this kind of statement from you is an overreaction. But I think we’re actually getting some very interesting reflections of people who are saying something very close to what you are: for example, Willy Wimmer, a former official in the German Defense Ministry for many years; even Wolfgang Ischinger of the Munich Security Conference, issued a strong statement talking about why Putin is the one who should be involved in this. This is actually reflecting that there are some people who see what you’re saying.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think that Willy Wimmer put out a new statement today, on the day of Putin’s address to the nation, where he said that with the assassination of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, we are on the verge of a global war, and that is completely appropriate to talk about the danger of an imminent third world war. I think this is really important, because we’re not saying this to scare people, or to just create panic. But unless you realize that that danger exists, and I think also the fact that Angela Merkel went to Moscow with Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, and then very quickly — not all of a sudden, but relatively quickly, they have now organized a conference on the Libya situation for this coming Sunday in Berlin, where Merkel has invited both Trump and Putin! Now, there is so far no confirmation that either one of them is coming. From the U.S., it’s only Pompeo and O’Brien, but I think this also reflects a recognition that you have to bring people to the negotiation table.
Now, concerning the Libya issue as such, the military leader of the Libya National Army Khalifa Haftar, has not signed the ceasefire agreement, which he could have signed in Moscow, but it’s not ruled out that he will attend the Berlin conference. But I think there is a general recognition among older people who have the experience of world war, in Europe for sure — I think in the United States it’s different for the very reason that the United States has not been involved in any international war which would have affected American soil; the United States obviously was involved in many foreign wars, but they never had the experience of having a war on American territory since the Civil War. And that is very different in Europe, where especially Germany, I think there is a deep, deep — I would almost say a genetic memory in the Germany population, at least the older ones, who know what the horrors of world war are. And I think therefore, this whole push by Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the German defense minister, to now push to send German troops to Iraq, German troops in Africa, German Navy in South China Sea — this goes very much against the experience of Germany in two world wars.
The French and the British have a slightly different attitude because of their colonialist background, but I think that there are many people who really understand that this is a very grave situation — and Wolfgang Ischinger, of all people, he’s the head of the Munich Security Conference, he’s a completely dyed-in-the-wool Atlanticist, and he says Putin is absolutely crucial to get him involved in this situation. So, this all reflects that people really got shocked when this assassination of Soleimani happened. I know some people in the United States also don’t have that same view, but this has a very erosive effect on the international order: It has a bad effect on Kim Jon Un, for sure, because he will now remember what Bolton had said about Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi, and the North Korea thing is at a halt in any case. But it also has a bad effect what should young people around the world think, if you can simply do these kinds of things.
And I’m not blaming Trump, because Trump is in a completely difficult situation, because he’s surrounded by the same people whom he had attacked not very long ago as “the military-industrial complex,” and the Articles of Impeachment could be introduced into the Senate today.
But I think it’s also very clear, we cannot continue on this line, especially because it clearly shows the hand of the British in the design of this whole escalation.
SCHLANGER: And one of the obvious points is that President Putin is very active, at this moment. You see him with the Libya situation; you see him intervened in Syria — he was just in Syria recently to meet with Assad; he’s intervening in Ukraine with Zelensky; and also now offering to mediate in Iran. One of the major points in the attack on Trump, was to keep him from working with Putin, which brings me to this question you raised about the British role: The British were caught in the act of stirring up some of the regime-change sentiments in Iran, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry called them on that. What was that about, Helga — the British ambassador in Tehran?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Before I say something about that, let me just add, that Putin, in his speech of today, also said that Russia would open all historic archives concerning the Second World War, because it was extremely important to reestablish truth and facts, instead of the lies going around the globe on these issues. Which brings me to remind people that President Trump could also release all documents, because the role of the British in Russiagate, in the whole Christopher Steele affairs — I mean, there is the weapon of releasing documents, and I think that that is absolutely crucial.
Now, the Iranian Foreign Ministry completely attacked the role of the British ambassador in Tehran, who apparently even started the demonstrations against the Rouhani government. As you remember, there were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets in Tehran and other Iranian cities, after the assassination of Soleimani, but then, when the Ukrainian aircraft was shot down by mistake by the Iranians, and it now looks and that’s what the Iranians have vowed to totally investigate, you had students in Tehran and many other cities, in anti-government/pro-American stance, which apparently was led, or triggered, or at least manipulated by the British ambassador. And the Iranian government — I think Rouhani himself — said the British should not forget that they’re no longer the Empire, where the Sun doesn’t set around the globe, and they basically threatened retaliation if this would not stop.
I think this is very important: Because if you look at it, at the surface, naturally, it’s Trump, it’s Pompeo, it’s the U.S. government who’s in this showdown with Iran. But, it goes back, way back — we had talked about this already last time, but I want to repeat it — it goes back to the doctrine of geopolitics, of absolutely preventing the countries of the so-called Eurasian land-mass to cooperate economically; it goes back to the “Great Game” of the 19th century against Russia; it goes back to the Bernard Lewis doctrine, the Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations,” Brzezinski playing the Islamic card — there is a long historical tradition of trying to manipulated this region. The Sykes-Picot agreement during World War I was set up to create the conditions after the war for future manipulation. So you have to take all of that into account to then see how this recent escalation was set up: I mentioned it in my statement from Jan. 3: [https://larouchepac.com/20200103/helga-zepp-larouche-statement-assassination-qasem-soleimani] that the whole setup was prepared, when Bolton, in April of 2019 put the entire Revolutionary Guard — that is, the Iranian army — on the terrorist list. Because, according to that logic, then, any kind of attack would be sufficient to make such strikes. You know, they have a long drone list anyway. So, then Trump, after the Iranians shot down the drone, I think it was June, in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said (who knows what egged him on, or what was the environment), he said, if one more American is killed, then he would consider strikes against Iran. Now, that is a difficult and dangerous thing to say for any state leader — remember, this was Obama saying this red line concerning Syria, which almost led to an attack on Syria by the United States in 2013; and we now know, through the cables which were leaked, that the British ambassador in Washington at that time, Sir Kim Darroch, he wrote in cables back to London that it just takes an attack on one more American, and then there will be war, or strikes against Iran. He also, in these same cables, wrote that it was his job, as British ambassador in Washington, to “flood the zone,” meaning that they should influence all the people Trump is talking to, that Trump would have a habit of telephoning in the evening to people in Washington and elsewhere to try to find out what their thinking was, this Darroch basically said, we have to control this entire environment; we have to whisper into Trump’s ears, so that we create a completely controlled environment. And that was the setting!
And then, if you look how, even after Bolton is out, Pompeo is essentially continuing exactly the role Bolton had before. And if you look at the speech he gave at the Hoover Institution in Stanford University on Jan. 13, it is an incredibly bloodcurdling speech, which clearly is not the same intention as Trump. But people should watch this Pompeo speech in Stanford, to get a sense of what is the environment Trump is in. [https://www.hoover.org/news/secretary-state-pompeo-addresses-stanford-universitys-hoover-institution-following-strike-irans]
SCHLANGER: I think one of the important things in Darroch’s cables, was a reaction when Trump stopped the attack against Iran, when the U.S. drone was shot down: That angered the British terribly, because they thought that was going to cause a reaction, but Darroch wrote: One more act like that could cause another turnaround for Trump.
I wanted to mention one other thing about this British ambassador to Tehran, who was apparently at one of the memorial services when he was involved in leading a walkout of students in a demonstration, very much reminded me of Victoria Nuland handing out cookies and $5 billion in Maidan square in the Ukraine situation in 2014.
Helga, one of the important things which is also part of the context for this situation, is the ongoing disintegration of the neo-liberal economic system, and this is something which there’s been very little focus on, because with the impeachment, with the danger of war, there has hasn’t been a whole lot said about it. But you’ve been following this thing very closely — what’s the latest with the helicopter money and the insane effort to try and keep this system going?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we are in clearly approaching the helicopter money phase of this meltdown of the system. Yesterday, alone, the Federal Reserve pumped into another $82 billion in repo money, and it is now reported that this will go on, probably, until mid-February at least, but it may go on until summer. Jim Rogers, who is the cofounder of the Quantum Fund — together with Soros, he’s now separated from Soros — but he said, that the debt after 2008 has “skyrocketed” everywhere, and that he foresees a “horrible end,” that the central banks will keep pumping money up to the point where many investors will say, look, we don’t want this anymore, and then there will be a big crisis, and they will pump even more money, and then it will come to a horrible end. And he said, this will be the worst thing I have ever experienced in my whole life.
Now, take it for what it is — it’s the opinion of somebody who’s part of this same system, but I think it is useful to remind people that we absolutely need the Four Laws suggested by my late husband: Glass-Steagall globally, immediately; we need a national bank in every country; we need an international credit system, a New Bretton Woods system; and if there is such a UN Security Council meeting, it’s either that body of the G20, or some combination thereof, but since they will not do it, this is why we push for the summit of Xi Jinping, Putin, and Trump, as an absolute, urgent intervention to bring the world into order, not only on the question of the war danger, but also to say this system is about to blow, we have to have this package proposed by Lyndon LaRouche.
One immediate situation is Argentina. Yesterday, the largest province of Argentina, the Buenos Aires, on Jan. 6, this happened already, they could not pay $250 million. The federal government in Argentina said they couldn’t bail out that province, either, and there’s more money coming due. And if this turns out and develops into a complete debt crisis, you will have the derivatives problem with the swaps, and this could be the trigger for the collapse of the system. And there are many other such triggers.
So that all underlines the absolutely urgent need to really go for a reform, a reorganization for this entire financial system before it is too late.
SCHLANGER: I think it’s important, also, that if you look at the fourth of the LaRouche’s Four Laws, the science-driver side of it, it’s a perfect opportunity for the United States to work with China, with the Belt and Road Initiative, with space cooperation, and also what you’ve called for, in terms of dealing with Southwest Asia, these new platforms of infrastructure. And yet, we see, again, the crazed anti-China lobby in the United States Congress and the media, saying that China’s the enemy, when, in fact, working with China would be the solution, wouldn’t it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the whole world would greatly profit: Instead of trying to contain China, — Pence, for example, made another raving speech against China; Pompeo compared China again to, I think Stalin, or something — it’s just completely out of this world.
If you look, really, at what China is doing, naturally, they’re growing, their economy is doing better than the economies of many other countries, but why? Because they continue to put emphasis on innovation, they just announced that they have now the first smart, high-speed, autonomous railway — I find this completely fascinating, because they have prepared this new railway, which will go between Beijing for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in 2022, to all the different cities where the actual Olympics are taking place. Normally it would take 3 hours by train to get to these places in some mountainous regions; but with this smart, fast train, it will go down from 3 hours to 1 hour and even 45 minutes. This will be a train which will have an automatic driver — there is a human in it for emergencies who can intervene, but otherwise, it’s full automated; robots will help passengers to check in; there will be G5 technology, everything will be completely digitized. And I think this is really incredible.
So rather than trying to contain that, which you will not be able to do, unless you want to have World War III and extinguish the whole human species, why not cooperate with China? China has offered this many times, and even in his recent New Year’s speech, Xi Jinping offered to all nations to participate and cooperate, and I think that’s the only way to go.
If you look at Southwest Asia, we have had many discussions, and people have a hard time to imagine, what is “building the peace.” There are left groups who are anti-war, and while it is important to be anti-war and to warn against the dangers, that is not sufficient: You have to know how to build the peace. And if we would really work together with the United States, Russia, China, India, hopefully the European countries, to reconstruct the war-torn areas of Southwest Asia, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, it would be really easy to have a gigantic reconstruction. And my husband, in a video some years ago, said, look this region has been at war for thousands of years, because we have this historic tribal, and ethnic, and religious contradictions. But is that the condition for mankind for eternity? I don’t think so. There are also incredible traditions in this region, for example, the Persian history had an incredibly rich culture! The Caliphate of Baghdad of al-Mansur and Harun al-Rashid, they turned Baghdad at that time into the most developed city of the world, around 800 BCE. They brought in all the knowledge from around the world, all the people who would bring discoveries, and technologies, they would be weighed in gold, and at that time Baghdad was the most knowledgeable and most developed city.
So there are ways how you can reconnect, with Persian history, with the whole tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which went through this entire region. So there is absolutely the possibility to create peace. It would only function if — the first condition is Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping have to take the initiative, because otherwise there is no credibility; only if the three work together is there any hope that you can accomplish that. And therefore, I would actually ask all of you, our viewers, make sure this program, and also Harley’s morning update, which he does every day, is spreading — get it to your contacts, your friends, your social media. Help us to make this mobilization. Because while we have the Day of Action today, we are not stopping at that: because you have a tremendous social ferment. For example, the Yellow Vests, the strikes in France are continuing, there will be on Thursday, tomorrow, after three days of strikes, there will be huge demonstrations in France: We will intersect them, we will bring in this perspective of the summit of the three Presidents. There will be many demonstrations in Germany, among the German farmers, and other groupings. And this will not stop.
So I’m asking you, join this international chorus, and help us to build it, of people who say, “we have to overcome geopolitics, we have to establish a higher level of reason, and that is very, very urgent,” because nobody knows if the next time you have some incident, that the whole thing can be stopped. We were absolutely close to World War III, and we are not out of the danger zone, at all: So join our efforts.
SCHLANGER: Helga, I have nothing to add to that summary. I think it’s very important that people recognize: This is a moment where action must be taken — not talk, not being a spectator. You can go to our website and get the resolution that was drafted by Helga on the call for the emergency summit, and make sure it gets out widely to everyone. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/01/09/call-for-presidents-trump-putin-xi-to-convene-emergency-summit-to-address-danger-of-war/] And have the discussions that are necessary.
Is there anything further you want to add, Helga?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think, today is Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, and King was one of the people who knew that peace is only possible through development. He was about to push that for the entire world, not just for the United States, when he was assassinated. He should have been President of the United States, and as my husband should have been President of the United States, but it’s these ideas which will determine if the human species will exist in the future or not. So, shape up and get on that level of thinking.
SCHLANGER: OK, Helga. Thank you very much, and we’ll be back next week.