Den Internationale Fredskoalitions møde nr. 107, fredag den 20. juni 2025
Helga Zepp-LaRouches åbningstale:
Lad mig først byde jer alle velkommen. Jeg tror, vi alle deler den absolutte rædsel over, at vi stadig sidder på randen af det, der kan blive 3. verdenskrig. Jeg overdriver ikke faren det mindste. Det er meget svært at være rolig, når man har USA’s præsident, præsident Trump, der siger: “Jeg vil måske slutte mig til Israel i bombningen af Iran; måske gør jeg det ikke. Ingen ved, hvad jeg vil gøre.” Det ved han åbenbart ikke selv. Hvis man tænker over, hvad konsekvenserne af dette ville være, og hvor skrøbeligt det, der er tilbage af verdensfreden, er, kan jeg kun fortælle, at mange mennesker, vi har talt med de sidste dage, er fuldstændig usikre og forfærdede. Vi har modtaget flere e-mails til vores kontor fra mennesker, der siger, at de tager på ubegrænset ferie; de tager til et område, der geopolitisk set ikke er i fare for at blive inddraget i denne konflikt. Men som de relevante eksempler fra Anden Verdenskrig viser, er der ingen sikre steder, når man først er kommet ind i denne krigsdynamik.
Den umiddelbare fare ville være, hvis USA blev trukket ind i bombningen af Iran. USA har disse bunkerbuster-bomber, meget tunge bomber, som trods deres størrelse endnu ikke er tilstrækkelige til at eliminere Irans atomfaciliteter, som ligger 80 meter under jorden i bjergene forskellige steder. De er heller ikke lette at ramme, fordi den nøjagtige placering ikke er kendt, da de kan ligge et stykke fra indgangen i en vinkel til siden. Så det er en meget farlig situation. Hvis man kommer ind i denne dynamik, vil den endelige fase naturligvis være, at Israel kan bruge en atombombe eller flere atombomber til at eliminere de iranske atomanlæg. Nu eskalerer det også, fordi den israelske forsvarsminister Katz har fremsat en åben trussel om at myrde den øverste leder [Ali Khamenei] og sagt, at han har mistet sin ret til at eksistere, hvilket er et sprog, der allerede er hårrejsende. Hvis man ser på det store billede, følger det der sker i Mellemøsten, gamle drejebøger. Uanset hvad præsident Trump tror, han gør, er det ikke hans egen beslutning. Lige nu følger alle begivenhederne drejebogen for politikken, som oprindeligt blev skrevet af Richard Perle og Douglas Feith under titlen »Clean Break«, der var de neokonservatives svar i 1996 på præsident Clintons Oslo-aftaler. Desuden nævnte vi i sidste uge en rapport fra Brookings Institution fra 2009, en 170-siders rapport, der detaljeret beskriver alle de forskellige faser, der har ført til den nuværende krise, herunder indgåelsen af atomaftalen med Iran, JCPOA, som Obama indgik, som præsident Trump ensidigt har opsagt. Det fremgår også af Brookings Institution-rapporten, at dette ville føre til et påskud for at angribe Iran, hvilket er det, vi ser lige nu.
Det er også meget klart, at briterne har en særlig interesse i at holde denne konflikt i gang. Vi har ikke kun set briternes rolle i krigen i Ukraine, men også her. Premierminister Starmer har sat de britiske styrker i beredskab, og de forskellige tidligere chefer for MI6 er klart tilhængere af en optrapning. Det bør minde os om, at det umiddelbare mål med hele denne operation ikke kun er det, der sker i Mellemøsten, hvor man i »Clean Break«-scenariet havde udpeget syv nationer, hvor der skulle ske et regimeskifte: Det var Irak, Syrien, Iran, Libanon, Saudi-Arabien, Libyen og de palæstinensiske besatte områder. Man kan se, hvor de fleste af disse lande – med undtagelse af Saudi-Arabien – ligger; Iran ville være det sidste på listen. Libyen er en fuldstændig mislykket stat, Syrien lider den dag i dag, og Libanon er naturligvis i en forfærdelig tilstand.
Så dette var en politik for fuldstændig ødelæggelse. Men regimeskiftet i regionen var ikke det eneste mål. Vi skal naturligvis huske, at det britiske Overhus havde sagt, at de ville gøre alt for at forhindre der nogensinde kom en anden Trump-regering [»U.K. Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order«, december
2018 –red.] Da de ikke kunne forhindre det, forsøger de naturligvis at undergrave det så hurtigt som muligt. Desværre er hele denne operation allerede kommet langt i den retning, hvilket man kan se i lyset af, at halvdelen af præsident Trumps vælgerbase nu næsten vender ham ryggen. MAGA-basen mener, at dette er et forræderi, fordi Trump havde lovet, at han ville afslutte alle krige og ikke starte nye. Nu er han ved at føre USA ind i en krig, der kan blive atomkrig.
Desuden ser Trump ikke ud til at lytte til de mennesker i sit kabinet, som han havde udnævnt til at modarbejde neokonservative. Hans første regering havde i vid udstrækning fejlet, fordi han ikke kunne besejre de britiske bestræbelser på at destabilisere ham med Russiagate-operationen, som viste sig at være en komplet forfalskning, hovedsageligt på grund af det faktum, at hele Trump-apparatet var inficeret med neokonservative på alle mulige niveauer. Trump forsøgte at modsætte sig det denne gang ved at udnævne personer som Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel og J.D. Vance, der synes at være på hans side. Men der er stadig den neokonservative fraktion, der bevæger sig i den anden retning. Så da Tulsi Gabbard i februar orienterede om efterretningstjenesternes rapport, at der ikke er nogen tilkendegivelser af, at Iran er ved at forberede sig på at bygge en atombombe – og hun gentog det for nylig – var Trump meget afvisende og sagde, at han ikke tror, hun ved, hvad hun taler om. Det er meget bekymrende, og det sætter også en anden vinkel på den video, som Tulsi Gabbard lavede, da hun kom tilbage fra sin rejse til Hiroshima, hvor hun på den mest barske måde og med fremragende optagelser viste, hvad en atomkrig ville medføre. Nemlig at den ville brænde alle borgere og udslette alle byer i USA og resten af verden. Jeg synes, vi absolut skal fortsætte med at bruge hendes video samt tidligere videoer, vi har vist på den Internationale Fredskoalitions møder, om konsekvenserne af en atomkrig, for medmindre folk forstår, at vi taler om civilisationens undergang, hvis denne konflikt eskalerer, forstår de ikke rigtig, hvad det handler om.
Jeg synes ikke, det er for meget at sige, at vi befinder os i nogle absolut skæbnesvangre uger, for i næste uge er der NATO-topmøde. Oprindeligt havde NATO til hensigt at gå videre med sin globale NATO, at fortsætte med at opbygge NATO-blokken ved at trække alle mulige lande ind, der naturligvis er imod tanken om en multipolær verden. Det går ikke så godt, simpelthen fordi Trump er en usikkerhedsfaktor. Han har tidligere truet med, at USA måske vil trække sig ud af NATO; det ser ikke særlig sandsynligt ud lige nu. Men det er helt klart en uforudsigelig faktor, som vi netop har set på G7-topmødet i Canada. Trump rejste tidligt og viste dermed sin foragt for denne gruppe. Det kan ske igen på NATO-topmødet, men NATO vil helt sikkert styrke og bekræfte sin politik om, at der er disse permanente fjender, en direkte trussel, som nævnes i det dokument, der er ved at blive udarbejdet til topmødet, nemlig at Rusland er en sådan trussel. Derefter vil den fjendtlige holdning over for Kina helt sikkert blive opretholdt. Det er den slags geopolitisk tænkning, der er den virkelige trussel. For hvis det ikke er krigen i Ukraine, der løber løbsk, eller situationen i Iran, kan det meget vel blive den kommende krig med Kina, som vi ved, at nogle af disse mennesker er fast besluttede på at få i stand.
Situationen i Mellemøsten er i sig selv forfærdelig. Efter en uges bombardementer – missiler, droner, bomber – fra både Israel og Iran er der sket store ødelæggelser i Iran. Nogle af atomreaktorerne er blevet ramt. Den israelske side ser helt forfærdelig ud. Ifølge Scott Ritter er skaderne i form af ødelæggelse af infrastruktur, der allerede er sket, på mere end en halv billion dollars – det er 500 milliarder dollars. Og for et relativt lille land med kun 9,7 millioner indbyggere er det et stort slag for økonomien. Det viser meget tydeligt, at Israel risikerer sin egen eksistens med det, det gør; nogle siger faktisk, at det er en selvmordsmission.
Andre, som den tyske kansler Merz, støttede og bakkede op om den uprovokerede aggressionskrig, som Israel har indledt mod Iran. Han var meget hurtig til at sige, (at hvis det kommer til Rusland og
Ukraine, hvor der klart er en forhistorie, og hvor der i dette tilfælde absolut ikke var nogen provokation fra Irans side, der kunne have forårsaget det). Ikke desto mindre støttede kansler Merz det [det israelske angreb imod Iran] og brugte endda den utrolige formulering, at »Israel gør det beskidte arbejde for os«. Da jeg hørte denne formulering, sagde jeg: »Hvordan kan en civiliseret person, en tysk kansler, bruge et så fordærvet sprog, hvor tusinder af mennesker dør, hele menneskers eksistensgrundlag ødelægges; hvilken tankegang kan frembringe sådanne sætninger?« Det mindste, man kan sige, er, at det afspejler en meget tvivlsom, kolonial tankegang, at det bare er nogle lavere mennesker, som ikke er på samme niveau som os i Europa, mens man selv lever i den smukke have, som Josep Borrell udtrykte det for noget tid siden. Men russerne finder meget hårde ord til at karakterisere Merz, og siger direkte at dette er ånden i Tyskland for 80 år siden. Det er stærke ord, men jeg tror, det er den vej det går.
NATO-topmødet (24.-25. juni) er i næste uge, og den 6.-7. juli er der BRIKS-mødet i Rio de Janeiro. Der har netop været en telefonsamtale mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin, hvor de drøftede situationen i Mellemøsten. De konkluderede, at de har identiske synspunkter, at de begge fordømmer Israels aggression, og at de begge gentager, at en diplomatisk løsning stadig er absolut mulig. Putin sagde især, at han er sikker på, at der kan findes en diplomatisk løsning, hvor både Irans legitime ret til at udvikle sin fredelige brug af atomkraft kan garanteres, så vel som Israels sikkerhed. Det er meget klart, at det der styrer Kina og Rusland er det som viceudenrigsminister Pankin netop udtrykte meget dramatisk. Han sagde, at det vigtigste i denne konflikt er at undgå en optrapning til 3. verdenskrig, fordi det ville være menneskehedens undergang.
Så jeg tror, at de fornuftige kræfter i verden bevæger sig i retning af den idé, at det vigtigste er at undgå 3. verdenskrig, for efter den ville der ikke være nogen tilbage til at reflektere over, hvorfor den fandt sted. Alle de smukke ting, menneskeheden har skabt siden sin begyndelse, ville være ugyldige. Der ville ikke være nogen til at lytte til Beethoven, ingen til at lytte til Shakespeare, fordi vi alle ville være døde. Jeg tror, vi virkelig må have en grafisk, realistisk fornemmelse af, at det er det vi taler om. Forhåbentlig vil BRIKS-topmødet komme med et tilbud, som jeg er sikker på, at de vil arbejde på. Hvis jeg skulle komme med et forslag, ville jeg helt klart sige, at BRIKS-topmødet skal fremsætte et tilbud om en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur i traditionen fra Den Vestfalske Fred, der indeholder en plan, som tager hensyn til alle landes interesser på kloden. Jeg tror, at hvis et sådant forslag kom fra BRIKS, ville det have de bedste muligheder for at blive taget op, fordi der er mange mennesker, der er ved at indse, at vi har nået et punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage, hvis vi ikke stopper.
Det er, hvad jeg kan sige foreløbig.
Læs Helga Zepp-LaRouches bidrag til diskussionen nedenunder på engelsk.
——————
Remarks During the Discussion:
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I definitely want to thank Professor Siqueira, because I have been saying the whole time that the people from the Global South have to speak out loudly, because I’m absolutely certain that if the normal population in Germany, France, Italy, the United States would know that there is this tectonic change going where the countries of the Global South are fighting to over neo-colonialism forever and that they are in a position to do that because of the rise of China and the development of the alternative system represented by the Belt and Road Initiative, which happens to be in complete cohesion with what my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, and our movement have been fighting for. Not only fighting for, but we were among the architects of the Eurasian Land-Bridge; that was our proposal for a peace order for the 21st century after the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union disintegrated. So, I also think this call for a broad international peace movement, not just against nuclear war and war in general, but for development. I think if we could convince many people to get out in the streets and fight for a peace plan, like the Oasis Plan, but also for the development of Africa, of Latin America; I think that would be the real counter to the effort by the oligarchs to keep control. I know it’s much more difficult for people to conceptualize a beautiful vision of what the world could look like; for some reason, it seems to be much easier to go in the streets and say, “I’m against this; I’m against that.” But I think the real step to victory would be if people say, “No, the countries of the Global South have the right to have the same potential unfolding like we have enjoyed for so long in the Global North.” If people would recognize that that is the key issue of our time, I think then we would break the control of those, who are trying to manipulate and set people against each other all the time. So, I’m really calling for support of what you said in this respect.
Q: How do we keep the U.S. from joining in the strikes and get it to end all weapons exports, and instead, convert its defense plants to the purpose of building new industrial capacity and infrastructure for the American people?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the only way I can think of to immediately get out of this present crisis would be if the United States and European nations would just declare that they want to cooperate with the BRICS countries in developing the industrial infrastructure and agriculture in the Global South. If they would join hands and say, “Let’s have joint ventures,” all these problems would vanish.
Now, it’s clear that the present establishments are so hooked to their privileges which they think are married to the present system that you can’t expect them to do it. But I think given the fact that the United States is really falling apart if you look at the infrastructure, the living standard, the cultural situation, the mass shootings. I think there are now every four hours mass shootings in the United States, at least over last weekend. That means more than four people shot dead, not including the shooter, every four hours. If that is not a cultural collapse, then I don’t know what is. Likewise in Germany, the economy is just collapsing. This will accelerate because, unless the bubble of the monetarist financial system is corrected, this will get worse and worse.
I think the idea of a peace movement for development, which then would demand that the United States should engage in the same kind of industrial development program as we are proposing for the Middle East with the Oasis Plan, or the Africa development program. I think we need a movement for development, and I really want to put this out as a challenge to the participants of this peace coalition to start thinking that way. One very good place is, indeed, the upcoming Schiller Institute conference in Berlin at the beginning of July (6-7). There we will present an absolute blockbuster breakthrough program for development, which will exactly show that perspective and how the countries of the West can participate. So, I really would like you to make that mental jump. Not just fight against the war danger, but fight for the right for development of the Global South and the Global Majority. Let’s make a peace movement around that.
re Pedro Rubio question on presenting Iranian culture and history:
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think what people have to recognize is that Iran is not Iran; it’s actually Persia. Persia is one of those Asian nations that is very proud that they have a many thousand-year history with many poets, philosophers, and many technological discoveries. Persia was a leading nation along the ancient Silk Road. I fully agree with your approach that we absolutely need to make the culture of all of these nations known. If people know that there is an incredible wealth of poetry, painting. For example, Persian miniature painting is extremely beautiful; it’s one of the outstanding contributions to universal history. Once you start to know that, your whole perspective changes. I think one of the most urgent questions is the exchange and dialogue of cultures. Every nation should bring in their best traditions, the best that they have produced over the millennia. They should present it so others get to know it.
I think right now, we have a terrible cultural deprivation. The people who are only living in the here and now believe in whatever internet atrocity, pornography, violent videos and so forth that are being presented. But they know nothing about the at least 5,000 years of history of China, of India, of Persia, many other countries, Babylonia. The ancient Silk Road went through Syria; Damascus was a very important hub. All of these things are not known; and I fully agree that that is something which will bring down prejudices and stupidity which causes hostility. That will be one feature of our upcoming conference (July 6-7) in Germany. We will have an effort to portray the dialogue of civilizations through music and poetry. I think we will also keep talking—especially to our Chinese friends, because Xi Jinping has, from his own perspective, proposed the Global Civilizational Initiative. That is very much in tune with what we have been calling for, since the Schiller Institute came into existence. I will make sure this becomes much more prominent in the international discussion; along the line of a positive vision of what kind of a world we do want. Most people do not have the imagination to imagine it themselves; so I think we will go in the next period into a massive video production to be shared all over the world. It’s so rich; but it’s not accessible under the present circumstances.
Closing Remarks:
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that there are two important ideas which are really one which came out of the discussion today. One was emphatically what Professor Siqueira was saying. Because the one thing which really would make a difference in the world, right now, is if the people in the North—the trade unionists, the businessmen, the pharmacists, the hairdressers, ordinary people—who have no idea what is going on in the world; that we are experiencing unprecedented change right now. Probably it has never happened in history like that before, because history used to move much more slowly. It took months before people would even know there was a collapse of a government in one part of the world. It would take half a year by ship to travel, and then people say, “Oh, there was a change in the government in such and such a country.” You have no idea how slow moving history was until very recently. Now, we are experiencing it almost every day; you listen to the radio, you turn on the TV—which you should be very careful about; always thinking how they are trying to manipulate you. Every news item is an effort to do so. Or, you turn to your alternative media or whatever. Every day, there are breaking developments, new changes in the world. That is a reflection of the fact that we are experiencing a collapse of the so-called “rules-based order” which had rules which were only bent in the direction of the privileged, so they could keep their privileges accessible. But that order is disintegrating, and that has a lot to do with the fact that the countries of the Global South, which have been at that for decades; they were at it at the Bandung Conference in 1955, and the Non-Aligned Movement had many years and decades of fighting for a new world economic order. Our LaRouche movement has been an integral part of that struggle from the very beginning. My late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, already in 1975 wrote a proposal for a new credit system—the International Development Bank. We convinced the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 to adopt that proposal as their own. But then there was a gigantic counter-reaction, blow-back. Indira Gandhi, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto all got destabilized—in the case of Bhutto even killed. Henry Kissinger said at the time, “We will make a bloody example of you” to Bhutto, because Bhutto dared to raise the issue of a debt cancellation for the Global South. So, for a long time, these countries were on the defensive; they didn’t play a big role because they were too weak.
But in the last period, in the 11 years since China’s Belt and Road Initiative was put on the table—and that was really a continuation of what we had proposed at the latest in 1991 as a reaction to the collapse of the Soviet Union. That has become the dominant dynamic for development in the world. Now we have the situation in which, short of World War III, nothing in my view will stop the desire of the countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia from fulfilling their right—[internet loss].
DENNIS SMALL: I think we can all finish off Helga’s thought. Nothing short of nuclear war is going to stop this drive for ending colonialism for good, once and for all. By far, the best thing for the nations of the West—Europe, the United States—is to join that effort, rather than go to nuclear war to try to stop it on orders from the British Empire….
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Maybe I just try to finish the thought I was interrupted at. I was just saying that the countries of the Global South are now on the move. And short of a Third World War, I’m absolutely certain that nothing will stop them.
Coming back to what Sharon had said earlier, therefore, I want to encourage that Eduardo should keep saying what he’s saying, and we should invite many more people from the Global South to speak out. I think that is what people need to know in Europe and the United States in particular.
Coming back to what Sharon had said that we must organize with a positive outlook, because people are already freaked out enough about the danger of World War III, at the conference in Berlin, we will present a revolutionary new proposal, and we will make visions of it, like in the form of videos. You have seen our short video about the Oasis Plan, which is a 20-minute video, which shows how the entire Middle East could look very differently once you start building new canals, building irrigation with desalinated ocean water to create green fields, agriculture, forests, orchards, new cities. You have to have a vision that the Middle East, which is now almost entirely desert, can be transformed to have an infrastructure network in a few years—maybe 20 years or so—which will be as dense as the infrastructure in Germany. If you have an idea of how integrated German infrastructure is, coming from a time when Germany was still functioning—which is not any longer. But having waterways, highways, trains, all integrated into a very tight network which is the precondition for industrial development and urban civilization.
We will produce some videos to show that, because most people cannot imagine how you transform an entire desert into a beautiful blooming landscape. But we will try to produce such videos so that people have a sense of what it can look like. I think we have to build a peace movement for development; a world where there is no man, woman, or child hungry or without education or healthcare. I always invite people to sit down and think for themselves, what do you want the world to look like when you die one day? What world do you want to leave behind you? Do you want a world, where only a nuclear rubble field is left? Or, do you want a world, where every child can learn and study and develop their minds?
I think we are on the verge of accomplishing that, because the Global Majority is called that, because they are that. They want this kind of development, and that is the key to overcoming the present oligarchical outlook which dominates the so-called West. So, I just want to invite you to think out your own personal vision of what you want the world to look like. I think once you start to think earnestly like that, then you will recognize the beauty of what we have already produced in terms of a global development network of infrastructure, where poverty will practically be eradicated. Not only that, but we will replace it with lots of science, lots of science centers, lots of science cities, beautiful landscapes where the famous garden Borrell thinks is only inside the EU, will be the normal condition for everybody on the planet to live in. That’s the topic we will discuss in Berlin.
