Den 20. april (EIRNS) – Verdens vigtigste finansministre, centralbankfolk og private finansfolk samledes i Washington, D.C. de første tre dage i denne uge til det årlige forårsmøde i Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Verdensbanken. De indrømmede offentligt, at op mod 1,7 milliarder mennesker står over for en alvorlig fødevarekrise og sultenød i år. De nikkede forstandigt til beretninger om, at en inflation på op til 50, 80 og sågar 120 % på fødevarer og energiprodukter var skudt i vejret i Tyskland og i hele Europa, for ikke at nævne et desperat Sydamerika. De var enige i, at lavindkomstlandenes gæld er blevet fuldstændig ubetalelig og vil komme til at detonere inden for kort tid. Og de lykønskede hinanden med deres »brændte jords«-sanktioner, hvormed de har til hensigt at udslette Rusland – og alle andre oprørske nationer – fra jordens overflade.

Og stadig forsøgte de at trøste hinanden med overbevisningen om, at meget få lande, trods alt det ovenstående, vil tilslutte sig Kina, Rusland og de omkring 150 nationer, der er en del af Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, som udgør et økonomisk alternativ til det døende og dødbringende, transatlantiske finanssystem. Som IMF’s nye cheføkonom, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, argumenterede, forventede han ikke på nuværende tidspunkt, at mange lande »vil træffe det valg, at deres fremtid består i at springe over på den anden side«.

I sit ugentlige webcast den 20. april pegede Helga Zepp-LaRouche på den tilspidsende konfrontation mellem oligarkiets krav og dem, der stræber efter menneskehedens fælles velfærd, som værende karakteren af den kommende konflikt. Hun understregede, at der er en global nyorientering i gang, som er ved at opstå omkring Rusland, Kina og Indien. Dette tager form ligesom hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, havde fremsat med sit Firemagtsforslag, der skulle forene Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA. For at skabe den nødvendige forandring, væk fra det kollapsende transatlantiske system, kræves der en koalition af nationer, stærke nok til at forsvare sig mod London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley. Dette sker nu – det vigtigste spørgsmål er, om vi kan mobilisere nok kræfter i USA og Europa til at støtte denne nye strategiske og finansielle arkitektur, inden de imperiale interesser, der forsvarer det nuværende bankerotte system, fremprovokerer 3. Verdenskrig.

»Konflikten er ikke mellem ’demokratier’ og ’autokratier’, men mellem det koloniale system og dem, der modsætter sig det«, udtalte Zepp-LaRouche, som dette blev præsenteret i dybden på Schiller Instituttets særdeles vellykkede konference den 9. april. Den nærmeste fremtid, sagde hun, vil blive stadigt mere turbulent og tilføjede, at hun er overbevist om, at »vi ikke vil komme igennem dette år uden store nyudviklinger«.

Den kommende opgave er at fortsætte og omgående udvide den proces, der blev indledt på Schiller Instituttets konference, for at bringe tiltagende, internationale kræfter ind i denne diskussion og organisere en tilstrækkelig stor styrke af nationer og politiske grupperinger til rent faktisk at indkalde til en international konference for at skabe en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som er menneskeheden værdig.

Paris, 4. april 2022 (EIRNS)-Jacques Cheminade er leder af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Frankrig og tidligere præsidentkandidat.

Kinas CGTN Français har i disse dage vist særlig interesse for:

1) Jacques Cheminades syn på Ukraine-krigens indvirkning på forholdet mellem Europa, USA og NATO. Cheminade fremsatte i dag Schiller Instituttets opfordring til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy3yVB9_MZ4 

2) Topmødet mellem EU og Kina den 1. april, hvor de europæiske neo-konservatives angreb på Kina blokerede den yderst nødvendige underskrift på investeringspolitikken mellem Kina og EU. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWax3NyrVuQ

Om topmødet mellem Kina og EU sagde Cheminade til CGTN Français: “Den første vigtige kendsgerning – under de nuværende vanskelige omstændigheder – er, at dette topmøde finder sted. Jeg tror ikke, at der vil blive indgået nye partnerskaber, men det er et signal, og der kan udveksles budskaber.

“Det er meget vigtigt, at det, som præsident Xi Jinping har foreslået, – at Global Development Initiative og den Nye Silkevej koordineres med den europæiske Global Gateway-strategi. Disse to ting kan danne en helhed.

“Resultatet heraf, skal udmønte i et meget vigtigt princip: Dette er ikke en politik for systemisk rivalisering, som det undertiden er blevet hævdet i Europa, men tværtimod en politik for udveksling og samarbejde, idet der tages hensyn til, at ca. 15 % af den kinesiske eksport går til Europa, og at Kina i den modsatte retning aftager 10 % af eksporten fra de 27 EU-lande.

“Jeg håber, at den investeringsaftale, der blev indgået i slutningen af 2020 på opfordring af Angela Merkel, som har insisteret på den, kan etableres. Indtil videre er der ikke tale om en sådan mulighed, men det bør overvejes. Desuden bør der være samarbejde inden for atom-, rum- og luftfartsindustrien og især i forhold til den fødevarekrise, der er ved at opstå i verden. Jeg mener, at der er basis for samarbejde inden for landbrug og fødevarer, som er meget vigtigt mellem Frankrig og Kina….

“Det er meget vigtigt at overveje, hvordan Europa og Kina, især Frankrig, kan spille en rolle som mæglere og inspiratorer til fordel for fred…

“Men der er mere. I Frankrig sendte stabschefen for de væbnede styrker et brev til general officererne, hvor han meget klart udtalte, at de sanktioner, som det internationale samfund har iværksat mod Rusland, naturligvis vil ramme den russiske økonomi, men også de vestlige økonomier og især Europa. I sin konklusion fortsatte han: “På mellemlang sigt vil en af konsekvenserne af denne krig utvivlsomt være en periode med omstrukturering af de internationale økonomiske forbindelser”. Her ser jeg en tilnærmelse til Lavrov og Wang Yi’s udtalelser. Dette moment vil være kortvarigt, men det er en mulighed, som vi skal gribe for gensidig udvikling på internationalt plan.”

Da Biden i går rejste til Europa for at mødes med “allierede” ledere i NATO, G7 og EU, var der talrige erklæringer fra amerikanske embedsmænd, herunder Biden, der bebudede en optrapning mod Rusland.  Med udtalelser om russiske “krigsforbrydelser” og atomkrig som en “mulig eventualitet” afspejler det, bemærkede Zepp-LaRouche i dag, “nul kapacitet” til at gennemtænke den strategiske krise.

Zepp-LaRouche imødegik den ensartede fortælling, der dominerer Vesten, ved at identificere målet for denne sprogbrug som værende et regimeskifte mod Putin – men med hvilket formål?  Som følge af optrapningen af sanktionerne anslås det nu, at fødevaremangel snart vil true 1 milliard mennesker – Hvem begår egentlig krigsforbrydelser og krænker menneskerettighederne?

Hun diskuterede det ironiske i, at diskussionen om atomkrig bryder ud på 39-årsdagen for Ronald Reagans promovering af Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), som hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, havde været en af de førende arkitekter bag. LaRouches idé, som var kernen i Reagans forslag, var ikke blot en militærpolitik til forsvar mod atomkrig, men en økonomisk tilgang med deling af de mest avancerede teknologier til gavn for alle nationer. Denne idé er i centrum for Schiller Instituttets kommende videokonference om skabelse af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som skal erstatte det neokonservative, neoliberale system, der er ved at falde sammen i dag.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Foretrædet blev holdt den 18. marts 2014. Se her på Folketingets hjemmeside.

Goddag. Jeg er Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Tak fordi vi måtte komme.

Den amerikanske økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche advarede i begyndelsen af februar om, at verden befandt sig i en nedtælling til atomkrig, der kunne udløses fra slutningen af februar og fremefter, hvis ikke det lykkedes at vriste USA ud af Storbritanniens geopolitiske kløer, og erstatte konfrontationspolitikken over for Rusland og Kina med en politik baseret på gensidig respekt og samarbejde. Et kursskifte, der bedst kunne effektueres, hvis præsident Barack Obama blev fjernet som præsident under trussel om en rigsretssag.[i]

LaRouche begrundede sin advarsel med, at de mange bankhjælpepakker efter finanskrisen i 2008 ikke har reddet det transatlantiske finanssystem, som stadig er i dyb krise, og at den planlagte bail-in-proces – dvs. at man bruger bankkundernes penge til at redde bankerne – ikke vil redde systemet, men tværtimod medføre panik. Det vestlige finanssystem synger altså på sidste vers, og man har desperat brug for at undertvinge sig Rusland og resten af Eurasien, så man kan fjerne den eneste reelle udfordring til Storbritannien og USA, og plyndre det økonomiske potentiale, der er opbygget i Asien over de seneste årtier.

Den 21. februar medvirkede jeg i et to timer langt radioprogram på radio 24/7, hvor jeg i detaljer forklarede, at man under ledelse af USA’s viceminister for europæiske anliggender, Victoria ”Fuck EU” Nuland, var i gang med at gennemføre et neonazistisk kup i Kiev, der ville kunne føre til en direkte konfrontation mellem Rusland og Vesten, farligere end Cuba-krisen i 1962.

Grunden til, at krisen er så farlig, er, at den følger på en langvarig vestlig kampagne, hvor man systematisk siden Sovjetunionens opløsning i 1991 har forsøgt at mindske den russiske indflydelse i Europa, gennem at indlemme de tidligere russiske allierede i Nato og EU. Samtidig har man under stærke russiske protester været i gang med opbygningen af et europæisk antimissilforsvar, der ville kunne indsættes imod et evt. russisk gengældelsesangreb, hvis Ruslands og Kinas atomarsenal blev udsat for et altødelæggende vestligt angreb.

Efter konfrontationen med Rusland og Kina over Libyen, Syrien og Iran er kamppladsen nu flyttet til Ruslands forgård Ukraine. Derved har man tvunget Rusland til at reagere, hvis de ikke ønsker at blive fanget i en håbløs situation, hvor de ikke har andet valg end at underkaste sig Vesten. Derfor er atomkrig i allerhøjeste grad en mulighed.

I den nuværende vestlige krigspropaganda fremhæver man igen og igen, at man betragter Krims løsrivelse fra Ukraine og den netop afsluttede folkeafstemning, der med massivt flertal ønskede en optagelse i Rusland, som ulovlig, fordi den strider imod Ukraines forfatning. Man glemmer i samme åndedrag at gøre opmærksom på, at regeringen i Kiev, som USA og EU har anerkendt som repræsentanter for det ukrainske folk, kom til magten ved et statskup under trusler om vold den 22. februar, der på det kraftigste forbrød sig imod Ukraines forfatning og imod den aftale, der, ved EU’s mellemkomst, var blevet indgået dagen før. Ifølge Ukraines forfatning kan præsidenten kun afsættes, hvis et flertal på to tredjedele rejser en rigsretssag, der efter at være blevet prøvet ved forfatningsdomstolen, bliver vedtaget af trefjerdedele af parlamentets medlemmer. Det skete aldrig.[ii]

At alt ikke er, som vestlige medier siger, ses også ved den offentliggjorte samtale mellem den estiske udenrigsminister Paet og EU’s udenrigsrepræsentant Ashton, hvor man diskuterede rapporter fra Ukraine om, at de snigmord, på såvel demonstranter som politifolk, som blev brugt til at legitimere afsættelsen af Janukovitj, sandsynligvis var begået af dele af oppositionen.

Det ukrainske statskup blev muliggjort af den veltrænede milits fra Dmitri Jarosj’ Pravy Sektor, Sektor Højre. Det er måske en stor del af forklaringen på, at halvdelen af regeringen ifølge Peter Munk Jensen fra Dansk Institut for internationale Studier er fra den yderste højrefløj, med deltagelse af Svoboda-partiet, der har en åben nynazistisk baggrund og nu besætter vicestatsministerposten, og Sektor Højre, der har to ministerposter og nummer to plads i det nationale sikkerhedsråd.

Jeg vil minde om en resolution vedtaget af EU-Parlamentet den 13. december 2012, hvor man i punkt 8 udtalte, at man ” er bekymret over den stigende nationalistiske stemning i Ukraine, der kommer til udtryk i støtten til partiet Svoboda … Minder om, at racistiske, antisemitiske og fremmedfjendske synspunkter strider mod EU’s grundlæggende værdier og principper, og appellerer derfor til pro-demokratiske partier i Verkhovna Rada om ikke at tilslutte sig, godkende eller danne koalitioner med dette parti”.

Under den nye regering har der allerede været eskalerende vold imod politiske modstandere, jøder og russisktalende, med afbrænding af kontorer og huse og voldelige overfald. Sektor Højre har også krævet at blive betragtet som en del af Ukraines militær med adgang til våbenlagre og træningsfaciliteter, noget som under militære protester er ved at blive gennemført. Ukraines regering har netop meddelt, at hæren vil blive suppleret med en nationalgarde på 40.000 mand, der dels skal skaffes ved tilgang af tidligere soldater og helt nye. Denne nationalgarde vil udgøre et ukrainsk Waffen-SS i lighed med den ukrainske ”frihedshær”, som blev oprettet i samarbejde med de nazistiske besættelsesstyrker under Anden Verdenskrig.

Vestens nuværende samarbejdspartnere i Ukraine ser nemlig Stepan Bandera, der var lederen af de ukrainske ”frihedskæmpere”, der samarbejdede med Nazityskland, som deres store frihedshelt, på trods af, at hans bevægelse OUN-B stod bag massive massakrer på jøder, polakker og andre, som man mente skulle udrenses fra Ukraine. Ifølge en rapport fra USA’s Nationale Arkiver i 2010, stod OUN-B bag en masseudryddelseskampagne imod polakker og jøder, der alene sommeren 1943 førte til drab på 70.000 civile. OUN-B’s ledere blev aldrig stillet til ansvar for folkemordet, for efter krigen blev de ansat af henholdsvis MI6, amerikansk og tysk efterretning, til at opbygge anti-kommunistiske netværk i Sovjetunionen.

Protesterne på Euromaidan og det efterfølgende kup var ikke en lokal ukrainsk affære. Victoria Nuland har i en tidligere sammenhæng pralet med, at man havde brugt over fem mia. dollars på at få Ukraine drejet over i en provestlig retning. Den samme Nuland blev også afsløret som værende særdeles aktiv i at sammensætte den nye regering med Arsenij “Jats” Jatsenjuk i spidsen. Politiske ledere fra såvel USA som EU var i hele processen besøgende på Euromaidan, for at sørge for at drive processen, der ledte til statskuppet, fremad.

Det har sammen med det foregående geopolitiske spil fanget verden i en farlig proces, der kan føre til atomkrig. Rusland har indtil nu begrænset sig til at beskytte Krim og er ikke gået militært ind i resten af Østukraine, men hvis der sker angreb på etniske russere, hvilket der med den nuværende regering er stor fare for, så kan vi snart have russiske soldater langt inde Ukraine og involveret i militære kampe.

Der er heldigvis mulighed for en løsning. Formanden for USA’s senatskomité til overvågning af efterretningsaktiviteter, Diane Feinstein, anklager nu Obama-administrationen for ulovligheder, så der er mulighed for, at Obama kan stækkes og forhindres i at trykke på knappen. Samtidig må EU komme til fornuft.

Både Rusland, Ukraine og EU har brug for fred, stabilitet og økonomisk udvikling i Ukraine. Vi må respektere Ruslands legitime krav på sikkerhed, f.eks. ved en garanti imod, at Ukraine kan komme med i Nato og et stop for inddæmnings- og konfrontationspolitikken. Vi må på basis af aftalen fra den 21. februar sammensætte en repræsentativ regering, der kan lede landet frem til frie valg og som samtidig kan udarbejde forslag til en ukrainsk statsform, der bedre er i stand til at tilgodese de store regionale forskelle mellem øst og vest.

EU bærer et hovedansvar for den nuværende krise gennem sit krav om, at Ukraine skal vælge mellem EU og Rusland. Løsningen må være det modsatte, nemlig, at Ukraine skal være en bro mellem EU og Rusland. Med LaRouches forslag til Den eurasiske Landbro, infrastrukturkorridorer, der forbinder Vesteuropa med resten af Eurasien, vil et sådant samarbejde kunne realiseres. Vi kan reorganisere det bankrotte finanssystem med Glass/Steagall-lignende bankopdelinger og banksaneringer og efterfølgende skabe nationale kreditter til økonomisk opbygning. I stedet for EU’s angreb på national suverænitet kan vi, på baggrund af samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater til gensidig fordel, have en verden, hvor vi ikke blot kan undgå krig, men også samarbejder om at bygge langvarig fred til gavn for de kommende generationer.

Tak for ordet.

“Jens Jørgen Nielsen, som er historiker, Ruslandskender og forfatter til bøger om både Ukraine og Rusland, holdt dette foredrag d. 5.  marts 2022 på Aarhus mod Krig og Terrors debatmøde om situationen i Ukraine.” fra hjemmesiden Flygtninge og Fred her.

Diabilleder:

Download (PPTX, 2.67MB)

Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kom med en kraftig appel til alle borgere om at gøre fælles sag med hende for at samle tilslutning til en konference, for at etablere en ny strategisk arkitektur, inden de vanvittige krigshøge i det transatlantiske område roder sig ud i en atomkrig.

Hun beskrev den nuværende situation som “forfærdelig … ude af kontrol”, og fastslog at den totale kontrol med medierne har gjort det muligt for regeringerne at sætte økonomierne i en krigstilstand, hvilket truer med at udløse massedød som følge af hungersnød. Den nuværende sanktionsordning mod Afghanistan truer fem millioner børn nu, sagde hun. I stedet for at tage stilling til dette er USA og NATO-magterne i gang med at dæmonisere Putin og knuse Rusland.  

Jeg opfordrer jer til at slutte jer til os, sagde hun, for at indkalde til en konference “i ånden fra den Westfalske Fred (1648)” for at skabe en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der tager hensyn til alle nationers og folkeslags behov. Centralt i hendes forslag er at acceptere tilbuddet fra den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi, som opfordrede til en integration af USA og Europa med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Resumé:
Det ser ud til at vestlige efterretningstjenester planlægger et falsk kemisk angreb, som det man lavede i Syrien i som fik Trump til at bombe Syrien i 2017. Vil man få Nato i åben krig med Rusland? Faren for en atomkrig har aldrig været større. Der er to krige: Den i Ukraine og den større økonomiske krig USA og Vesten har iværksat imod Rusland. Man forsøger at få russisk kapitulation men trækker også tæppet væk under økonomien, særligt Europas. Hvor længe varer det inden at vi ser konkurser pga. af Ruslands manglende betalinger? De vestlige tiltag som man siger skyldes ”Putins krig”, var noget USA længe har presset på for, både 2 % af BNP til militær og stop for køb af russisk gas. Nato har længe sendt våben og trænet Ukraines hær, også de åbent fascistiske elementer i den, for at Ukraine kunne påføre Rusland maksimal skade. Skaden på Ukraine betyder lige så meget for Vesten, som man bekymrer sig om befolkningen i Afghanistan.

Vestens økonomiske atombombe imod Rusland, udelukkelsen fra SWIFT og indefrysningen af Rusland formue i udenlandske banker vil medføre at ingen kan vide sig sikker, hvis pengene står i vestlige banker der handler på politiske ordrer. Dollarens og euroens rolle som reservevaluta vil blive kraftigt udfordret. En russisk statsbankerot og manglende russiske betalinger kan vælte meget.

Uden russisk gas, olie og kul står Europa stille. Energipriserne himmelflugt gør stor økonomisk skade. Fødevareforsyning og fødevarepriser rammes også af mangel på kunstgødning og evt. dårlig høst i Ukraine og Rusland. Og fiskere som bliver hjemme fordi det er for dyrt at sejle. Andre ting, som f.eks. produktion af mikrochips kan også blive hårdt ramt. Vestens sanktioner vil gøre stor skade på økonomien. Rusland vil nok nationalisere eller tvangsovertage vestligt ejede virksomheder som McDonalds og JYSK der har lukket ned for aktiviteten. Hvad med Carlsberg?

Rusland siger, at de aldrig igen vil være afhængige af Vesten. Fokus bliver på Kina og Asien. Man satser på den verdensorden, som Rusland og Kina fremlagde den 4. februar. Kina vil støtte Rusland for de ved, at hvis Rusland knækker, så er det deres tur bagefter.

Globalt økonomisk kaos truer pga. Vestens sanktioner imod Rusland. Ifølge UNICEF og Verdensfødevareprogrammet er 1 million børn under 5 år på vej til at dø af sult i Afghanistan. 8 millioner børn og 22 millioner mennesker er i fare, og de kan kun hjælpe 12 millioner. Vesten gør ingenting.

Vi behøver en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur som alle, også Rusland, Kina og Indien, kan se sig selv i og vi behøver den nu. Skriv under på Schiller Instituttets appel. Rejs debatten. Gør noget, før det er for sent. 

Den 7. marts (EIRNS)-Helga Zepp-LaRouche var en af tre gæster i et panel på CGTN’s udsendelse Dialog i dag, hvor hun kommenterede den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yis årlige pressekonference, som varede mindst 90 minutter.  De andre gæster var Peter Kuznick fra American University og professor Victor Gao Zhikai fra Soochow University; værtinde var Li Quiyuan. Diskussionen fokuserede på Kinas rolle med hensyn til at skabe fred, især i konflikten mellem Rusland og Ukraine, men vigtigst af alt for verden som helhed. 

Her er udvekslingerne mellem fru Li og fru Zepp-LaRouche.

CGTN: Og fru LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette:  Hvilke centrale budskaber fik du ud af udenrigsminister Wangs pressekonference?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg var faktisk meget tilfreds med tonen, fordi det var som en tilbagevenden til fornuften.  Det står i skarp kontrast til stemningen i de europæiske og amerikanske medier og den førte politik i de seneste dage.  Fokuseringen på at løse problemer gennem diplomati, på at opretholde principperne i FN-pagten og på at have en overordnet holdning til problemløsning gennem samarbejde, var et tiltrængt frisk pust.  Og jeg er meget, meget opmuntret, fordi Kina faktisk indtager en ledende rolle i verden lige nu, hvilket der er hårdt brug for.

CGTN: Udenrigsministeren sagde, og jeg citerer hans ord: “Kina vil gerne arbejde sammen med det internationale samfund for at fremme forhandlingerne, når det er nødvendigt”, selv om han ikke specifikt sagde på hvilken måde.  Men Kina understregede vigtigheden af at holde dialogen helt åben fremover.

Et andet spørgsmål, som blev rejst af journalister på pressekonferencen, er, om denne konflikt eller denne krise i Ukraine vil påvirke relationerne mellem Kina og EU.  Så fru Zepp-LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette? Der er en vis bekymring for, at denne konflikt vil påvirke forholdet mellem Kina og EU. Udenrigsministeren sagde, at dialog og samarbejde mellem Kina og Europa er baseret på gensidig respekt og gensidig fordel, og det vil skabe mere stabilitet i den turbulente verdenssituation.  Og han opfordrer også indtrængende EU til at udarbejde en uafhængig Kina-politik.  Hvad mener du om denne kommentar?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg finder, at situationen er meget alvorlig, fordi f.eks. handelen mellem EU og Kina, som hidtil har været en søjle i verdensøkonomien, er truet af det, der sker mellem Ukraine og Rusland.  Stemningen i Europa lige nu er ganske forfærdelig, og jeg kan kun tilslutte, at der bør findes nye løsninger, som udenrigsministeren giver håb om. 

Jeg er af den overbevisning, at den kinesiske politiske model, den forenede fremtid for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden, efter min mening er det, der er brug for lige nu, – professor Kuznick har ret, når han understreger, hvor vigtigt det er, at der er brug for noget helt andet.  Hvis vi fortsætter geopolitikken som hidtil, er det et spørgsmål om tid, hvornår menneskeheden støder ind i muren, og det kan føre til en atomar udryddelse. 

Modellen, der passer perfekt til det fælles samfund af den samlede menneskehed, ville være at indkalde til en konference, en international konference, der skulle varetage de sikkerhedsmæssige interesser for hvert enkelt land på jorden.  For man kan ikke have en fredsordning uden at tage hensyn til alle landes interesser, og der findes en model i den europæiske historie, nemlig Westfalens Fred. Den Westfalske Fred afsluttede 150 års religionskrig, der kulminerede i Trediveårskrigen, og den var baseret på en erkendelse fra alle krigens parter om, at hvis krigen fortsatte, ville der ikke være nogen tilbage til at nyde resultatet af den. Og det er i en vis forstand en parallel til den situation, vi står over for overfor i dag, for hvis det kommer til en atomkrig, vil der ikke være nogen vinder, der vil ikke engang være nogen tilbage til at kommentere resultatet.

Dette bør være en motivation for at indkalde til en ny konference om Den Westfalske Fred med det specifikke formål at udarbejde en international ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som ville omfatte Rusland og Kina i perfekt overensstemmelse med præsident Xi Jinpings politik om menneskehedens skæbnefællesskab og den ene fremtid, som vi alle deler.

CGTN: Kina er vært for dette års BRICS-topmøde. APEC- og G20-møderne vil også blive afholdt i Asien i år.  Udenrigsministeren sagde, at “Asiens tid er oprundet i den globale styring”, og “de vil forvandle sig fra følgere til frontløbere og endog foregangsmænd”. Fru LaRouche, lad mig høre din holdning til dette:  Det er meget stærke ord, der kommer fra udenrigsministeren.  Hvad mener du om hans vurdering her?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er helt rigtigt, fordi de asiatiske lande generelt, ikke kun Kina, men også nogle andre asiatiske lande, er meget bevidste om deres 5.000 år gamle historie, og ud fra dette synspunkt med en positiv tradition, definerer de en fremtid, og de ønsker at udvikles.  Det er den fælles idé i BRICS, SCO og endda andre organisationer, og dette står i skarp kontrast til Europa og USA.  Idéen om en ny model for internationale forbindelser, hvis disse organisationer –  selv om de skulle blive inddraget i G20 –  idéen om, at man har brug for en ny model for internationale forbindelser, som Wang Yi har understreget igen i dag, bør tilføres substans.  

Vi har valget mellem at ende i en geopolitisk konfrontation, som vil være til skade for alle og muligvis føre til atomkrig, eller også foretager vi et spring i civilisationens udvikling, ved at definere de internationale forbindelser i en bestemt retning i traditionen fra den alliancefrie bevægelse, Bandung-konferencen og FN-pagtens fem principper for fredelig sameksistens; men også at skabe en vision om at løse menneskehedens største problemer i fællesskab, f.eks. at vi stadig er ramt af en pandemi, og at vi har brug for et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land for at bekæmpe denne pandemi og risikoen for nye pandemier.  Vi har en hungersnød i verden af, som Beasley fra World Food Program til stadighed siger, “af bibelske dimensioner”.  Den vil blive større på grund af inflationen i fødevarepriserne, i gødningspriserne og i energipriserne.  

Så der er en presserende dagsorden. Dette år kan bruges til at fastslå, at vi har brug for en ny model for internationale forbindelser, som overvinder geopolitikken: Udenrigsminister Wang Yi og også præsident Xi Jinping har henvist hertil ved at foreslå, at Bælte- og vejinitiativet skal samarbejde med USA’s “Build Back Better”-initiativ og EU’s Global Gateway.  Hvis det besluttes at disse initiativer strømlines i stedet for at konkurrere, så beslutter vi også, sammen at tage fat på det der belaster hele menneskeheden såsom sult i verden, epidemier og fattigdom. Dette skal ses i lyset af , at det nuværende finansielle system i den transatlantiske sektor,  er gået helt i stå. Vi står nu over for et nyt sammenbrud, der er meget værre end i 2008.

Federal Reserve var ikke i stand til at ” tilpasse” renten, fordi de er bange for, at hvis de øger renten, vil der opstå et omfattende kollaps af konkurser.  Så der er et presserende behov for at få et nyt finansielt system, et nyt Bretton Woods-system, et nyt kreditsystem, der giver kredit til udvikling af alle udviklingslande – det er nogle af de punkter, som virkelig vil være menneskehedens udfordring.  Kan vi, når vi står over for grundlæggende udfordringer, skabe en orden, der gør det muligt for alle mennesker på denne planet at overleve og blive lykkelige? Jeg tror, at det vil være dagsordenen. 

Her er endnu en video, som også inkluderer TV2’s spørgsmål, om Danmark og Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) optrapper krisen med deres militære øvelser i Østersøen.

Hele pressekonferencen kan stadigvæk ses på TV2News den 4. marts 2022: Find “Nordeuropæiske forsvarsministre briefer om samarbejde” her.

English:

COPENHAGEN, March 4 (ERINS) — EIR asked the question at a press conference with the ministers of defense from Denmark, Great Britain and Sweden, aboard the Danish frigate Niels Juel, on the occasion of the start of the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) military exercise in the Baltic Sea. The JEF is led by Great Britain, and this exercise, with the starting point in Denmark, also includes Sweden, and the three Baltic countries.

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov answered EIR’s question, alongside British Defense Minister Ben Wallace and Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.

The press conference was broadcast live and is archived on Danish TV2, and there were film crews and reporters from other Danish media, Sweden, Great Britain (BBC), Agence France Press, and maybe other countries, so it might also have been covered live in other countries.

“EIR: Michelle Rasmussen from Executive Intelligence Review in the United States. Given the seriousness of war in Ukraine and the danger of escalation, even up to nuclear war, the president of the Schiller Institute Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called for an international conference for a new security and economic architecture to address the interests of all countries. Do you have any comments to that — any of the ministers?

Danish Defense Minister Morten Bødskov: There is only one comment, that the JEF (Joint Expeditionary Force) cooperation that we have made here is the way forward. We stand together here, today, to confirm our values, our cooperation, and that’s the way forward for the region that we are in now, and I’m glad that our British colleague and my Swedish colleague are here today.”

During the morning short press conference, the BBC reporter brought the nuclear war question up when he asked if, in light of the Russian attack on a Ukrainian nuclear plant, Russia would be in the mindset to use nuclear weapons. British Defense Minister Ben Wallace played down the danger of the current nuclear plant situation, warned Russia against hitting nuclear plants by accident or intention, said that Putin’s mindset seemed to be that there are no limits, and Putin should be reminded that NATO is a conventional and nuclear alliance.

During the afternoon press conference EIR was the second journalist to ask a question, preceded by a national Danish TV2 journalist, broadcasting live, who asked four questions about if this Joint Expeditionary Force exercise can escalate the current crisis. The answer from the Danish minister included that we have to draw a line in the sand for Putin, and ensure freedom in the Baltic region. EIR will release another video with this exchange in Danish and followed by the EIR question and answer.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg kl. 13

Lyd: 

Resumé:

Folk er i chok over Ruslands invasion af Ukraine. Hvordan kunne det ske? Der var ellers mange advarsler over lang, lang tid, som man overhørte. Vil man overse alle tegnene på, at konflikten mellem Vesten og Rusland kan eskalere til atomkrig? Det er ikke nok at håbe på, at det ikke sker. “Hope is not a strategy”. Man stopper ikke krigen i Ukraine gennem at sende våben til at bekæmpe Rusland. Fanatikere i Vesten håber, at Ukraine vil blive det nye Afghanistan for Rusland, men hvordan gik det så efterfølgende for Afghanistan? 27 millioner afghanere sulter nu og mange dør pga. af mangel på alt, mens USA og Vesten har indefrosset Afghanistans penge. Er afghanske liv mindre værd end europæiske?

Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt man holder med Ukraine eller Rusland, men om, hvordan vi får stoppet udviklingen mod global krig. Hvis ikke total økonomisk og kulturel krigsførelse imod Rusland, en chok og skræk-politik, vil få Rusland til at overgive sig til Vestens overherredømme, hvad så? Udryddelse med atomvåben? Hvis ikke Kina går med i blokaden af Rusland, skal vi så også i fuld økonomisk krig med Kina? Det vestlige finanssystem er allerede på vej mod en total nedsmeltning. Nulrente-politikken og ubegrænset likviditet til finansmarkederne er snart forbi. Så står verden med et uoverstigeligt gældsbjerg, der kollapser. Vil udelukkelse af Rusland fra SWIFT-systemet blive et nyt Lehmann Brothers? Sanktionerne vil ramme Europa lige så hårdt som Rusland, og økonomien er i forvejen presser af de høje gas- og energipriser og forsyningskrisen.

Hvad er den egentlige vestligt iscenesatte årsag til krisen mellem Rusland og Ukraine, som er censureret ud af den vestlige fortælling om krisen? Først var der udvidelsen af Nato i flere omgange imod alle løfter. Så kom den farvede revolution i Ukraine og husk på, at det var et vestligt organiseret statskup, der udløste Krims tilslutning til Rusland og krisen i Østukraine. Hvad har man i Vesten gjort for de civile i Østukraine eller for at sikre gennemførelsen af Minsk-aftalen?

Det drejer sig ikke om Ukraine men om den internationale verdensorden. Rusland og Kina annoncerede den 4. februar 2022, at man ikke længere vil acceptere amerikanske og vestlige diktater. Kina ved, at hvis Vesten kan knække Rusland, så er de den næste på listen. Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ og Ruslands energipolitik er et alternativ for Afrika, Sydamerika og Asien. Vil USA starte atomkrig for at stoppe det eller vil Vesten i stedet finde ud af at begrave geopolitikken og samarbejde om økonomisk udvikling?

Skriv under på Schiller Instituttets appel for en indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer. Bryd censuren og skab diskussion og dialog om, hvad der egentlig foregår, og hvordan vi finder en løsning gennem dialog og samarbejde. Freden kan ikke sikres gennem konfrontation og krig! Når først vi overraskes af atomkrig er det for sent.

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

Skriv gerne under og del:
Link: Underskriftindsamling: Indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere
en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer

Den 26. februar (EIRNS)–Helga Zepp LaRouche blev interviewet i kinesiske CGTN’s udsendelse The Hub i morges af vært Wang Guan.

WANG GUAN: Og nu er vi også sammen med Helga Zepp-LaRouche fra Wiesbaden, Tyskland, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. Fru LaRouche, velkommen tilbage til CGTN. Jeg er glad for at have dig hos os igen. Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne høre din vurdering af den igangværende Rusland-Ukraine-konflikt: Tror du, at den kunne have været undgået?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Præsident Putin havde gjort det meget klart, at røde linjer var blevet overskredet. Han sagde på et tidspunkt, at der ikke er noget sted, jeg kan trække tilbage til, og Vesten lyttede ikke til det. Den 17. december bad han så NATO og USA om juridisk bindende sikkerhedsgarantier, om at NATO ikke ville udvide sig yderligere mod øst, at der ikke ville blive placeret offensive våben ved den russiske grænse, og at Ukraine aldrig ville blive medlem af NATO. Og han modtog ikke noget svar. Han fik ikke svar på det centrale spørgsmål, kun på underordnede forhold.
Så jeg mener, at Vesten begik en stor fejl ved ikke at lytte til Ruslands legitime, udtrykte sikkerhedsbekymringer, og nu er vi på randen af noget, som kan komme helt ud af kontrol.

WANG: Fru LaRouche, USA og NATO har annonceret de aktuelle sanktionsrunder mod Rusland, som er rettet mod præsident Putin og udenrigsminister Lavrov og andre. Tror du, at det vil afskrække Rusland fra sine nuværende planer, deres operationer i Ukraine?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det mener jeg ikke, for jeg tror, at præsident Putin har afvist dette. Han har allerede for nogle år siden sagt, at hvis Vesten ikke havde fundet Ukraine til at inddæmme og bruge til at nedbryde Rusland, ville de have fundet et andet problem. For nylig sagde han, at det virkelige formål med alt dette er at forhindre Ruslands økonomiske udvikling. Den 25. januar var der to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus, som sagde, at sanktionerne har til formål at forhindre Rusland i at diversificere fra olie og gas, hvilket betyder, at de nægter Rusland retten til udvikling!

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/25/background-press-call-by-senior-administration-officials-on-russia-ukraine-economic-deterrence-measures/]

Dette er en krigshandling. Sanktioner er en krigshandling, og jeg tror, at Putin har afvist det. Det vil være smertefuldt for Rusland, men jeg tror, at Vesten påfører sig selv langt større skade. Og det skal fordømmes fuldstændigt.

WANG: Og lad os også tale om FN, den rolle FN’s resolutioner spiller, som ikke blev vedtaget tidligere. Overrasker det dig overhovedet? At vi endnu en gang så et splittet Sikkerhedsråd i FN, når der står alt for meget på spil?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er praktisk taget blevet gjort overflødigt af NATO allerede i 2011, da de løj i forbindelse med Libyen. De fik Ruslands og Kinas godkendelse til en begrænset aktion i Libyen, som så viste sig at være et omfattende militært angreb. Fra dengang har løgnen spillet en stor rolle, og det overrasker mig slet ikke, at målet med alt dette nu er at bevare den unipolære verden. Og det kan Rusland og Kina naturligvis ikke gå med til, så det er slet ikke overraskende.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, i årevis og årtier har du opfordret til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, og nu opfordrer du til en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur i Europa. Hvad indebærer denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, jeg opfordrer til en {international} sikkerhedsarkitektur, som involverer sikkerhedsinteresser for alle nationer på denne planet, inklusive Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det historiske forbillede er den Vestfalske Fred, fordi alle de deltagende magter efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa og de enorme ødelæggelser kom til den konklusion, , at en fortsættelse af krigen ikke ville være til gavn for nogen, fordi ingen ville leve for at nyde den. Og vi befinder os i en lignende situation: Hvis man virkelig ser nøje på situationen, er faren en atomar udslettelse af hele den menneskelige art. Og jeg tror, at det er det, der skal trænge ind i alles bevidsthed, og så skal der indledes en proces som Westfalens fred, hvor princippet er, at en løsning skal tage hensyn til den andens interesser, til {alle} andres interesser.

Og det indebærer Ruslands sikkerhedsinteresser, Kinas sikkerhedsinteresser, USA’s, europæernes og alle andre nationers sikkerhedsinteresser. Det andet princip i Westfalske Fred var, at alle forbrydelser, som blev begået af den ene eller den anden part, skal glemmes af hensyn til freden, og for det tredje, at statens rolle er vigtig i den økonomiske genopbygning efter krigen.

Nu betyder det tilsvarende i dag, at alle magter skal tage fat på det virkelige, afgørende spørgsmål, nemlig at grunden til, at vi overhovedet har konflikten, er, at Vestens neoliberale system er ved at bryde sammen, og derfor skal den første handling i en sådan ny arkitektur være en global Glass-Steagall-bankopdeling, hvor der skal sættes en stopper for kasinoøkonomien, som har været årsagen til, at Vesten er blevet så desperat, og hvor der skal gøres en ende på den. Derefter skal vi have et nationalt banksystem for hvert enkelt land og et nyt kreditsystem i traditionen fra Bretton Woods-systemet, som giver billig kredit til udvikling af udviklingslandene. Hvis man bliver enige om disse foranstaltninger, vil en varig fred være mulig.

WANG: Madame LaRouche, [navn 6:23] en anerkendt politolog i Asien sagde tidligere i dag, at Ruslands slutspil kunne være at skabe en slags “mini-Sovjetunion”. Ser du også på det på den måde?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, det tror jeg ikke. Jeg tror, at de eneste mennesker, der presser på for geopolitiske blokke lige nu, er dem, der står bag præsident Biden, som forsøgte at skabe denne “alliance af demokratier” mod de såkaldte autokratiske regeringer. Jeg mener, at aftalen mellem præsident Xi Jinping og Putin den 4. februar, hvor de indgik en strategisk alliance mellem Rusland og Kina baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, er åben for alle. Og jeg mener, at enhver ny orden, der skal føre til fred, skal være inkluderende, skal overvinde geopolitikken og grundlæggende gå ud fra et princip om, at fred kun er mulig gennem udvikling, som skal være tilgængelig for alle.

WANG: Endelig, fru LaRouche, mener De, at USA og Vesten på en eller anden måde er på vej nedad, hvis man sammenligner deres holdning, f.eks. i Jugoslavien for 20 år siden, hvor de resolut greb ind militært, og nu, med Ukraine, med deres lige så resolutte “ingen støvler på jorden”-princip og holdning?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, vi har set i Afghanistan, at NATO og USA, som er den angiveligt mest magtfulde militærmaskine på jorden, ikke var i stand til at besejre det, der i sidste ende viste sig at være 65.000 talibankrigere. Der er altså tvivl om Vestens militære magt.

Problemet er, at der dermed kun er atomvåben tilbage, og hvis man ser på atomdoktrinerne – Prompt Global Strike-doktrinen eller den nylige manøvre Global Lightning, som havde denne idé om en langvarig atomkrig – så tror jeg, at det udgør den virkelige fare. Og derfor er spørgsmålet om det nukleare magtspil, som vi ser lige nu, det, der skal undgås, og som skal udskiftes hurtigst muligt. Folk skal være klar over, at hvis det kommer til brug af et enkelt atomvåben, er det logikken i atomkrig, sammenlignet med konventionel krigsførelse, at alle atomvåben vil blive anvendt, og det vil betyde civilisationens fuldstændige udslettelse. Og det er det, der er spillet her.

Jeg tror, at flere mennesker, forstår det og kræver en anden verdensorden, en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som f.eks. kunne være baseret på samarbejdet om et verdenssundhedssystem. Vi har stadig en pandemi. Vi har en hungersnød, som David Beasley kalder en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner”, som truer 300 millioner mennesker, der risikerer at dø. Og disse ting må vi tage fat på. Og det er den eneste chance for menneskeheden – kan vi forene alle disse… [crosstalk]

WANG: Ja, der er virkelig mange udfordringer derovre. Det er al den tid, vi har, er jeg bange for – undskyld, jeg afbryder. Kom tilbage til vores udsendelse næste gang, tak. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, mange tak, fordi du kom til os i denne stund.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lydfil:

POLITISK ORIENTERING i går den 23. februar 2022:
Rusland gør oprør imod USA med støtte fra Kina.
Vil Europa ødelægge sig selv for at skade Rusland?

Den 19. februar 2022

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: God eftermiddag, god aften, alt efter hvor på planeten du befinder dig.

Hvis man ser på den nuværende strategiske situation ovenfra, ud fra historiens lange historiske bue, hvordan skal menneskeheden så skænke sig selv institutioner, der sikrer dens overlevelse på lang sigt, samt ud fra den nuværende dynamik mellem et Kina i fremgang og Asien generelt og et svigtende vestligt liberalt system, synes det at være indlysende, at resultatet af denne historiske æra må være et nyt paradigme i de internationale relationer. Fortsættelsen af geopolitik, som i øjeblikket har bragt os på randen af atomkrig, og det vanvid som ingen steder kommer tydeligere til udtryk end i den militærdoktrin, der ligger bag manøvren “Global Lightning”, som forudsætter en langvarig atomkrig – denne geopolitik må erstattes af en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der garanterer sikkerhedsinteresserne for alle nationer på jorden, herunder Rusland og Kina samt udviklingslandene.

Konfucius tilskrives den idé, at det første, der skal til for at løse et problem, er at bringe orden i begreberne, for hvis begreberne er i uorden, fører det til misforståelser, som fører til skænderier, som fører til rystelse af statens fundament, og der kan ikke være nogen harmoni i verden. Derfor er det en af de mest presserende opgaver at klarlægge forskellen mellem den historiske sandhed om, hvad der er sket i løbet af de sidste godt 30 år, siden Sovjetunionens opløsning, og den officielle “beretning “, der fortælles i de vestlige mainstream-medier, og faktisk i disse dage nu på sikkerhedskonferencen i München, hvor en bred repræsentation af eliten i NATO-fraktionen er til stede. Og hvor det ser ud til, at udenrigsminister Tony Blinken og den tyske udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock synes at være to alen ud af et stykke – hvilket er et forbløffende skuespil.

Disse kræfters officielle linje er, at Putin er aggressoren, at Rusland er det eneste land, der har ændret grænserne i Europa i efterkrigstiden med magt, nemlig på Krim, og at den eneste relevante kamp er mellem de liberale demokratier og de aggressive, autokratiske stater, at NATO aldrig har gjort noget forkert, og at Rusland nægter suveræne lande som Ukraine retten til at vælge den alliance, de ønsker at være en del af. Det sidste, disse medier og politikere ønsker, er en præcis undersøgelse af, hvordan denne nuværende situation er opstået.

Men at tingene sættes på plads, er en uomgængelig forudsætning for at nå frem til en positiv løsning på den nuværende situation. Sovjetunionens sammenbrud betød ikke den vestlige liberale models overlegenhed. Det kollapsede af præcis de årsager, som Lyndon LaRouche identificerede i 1984, nemlig dets tilslutning til Ogarkov-doktrinen, afvisningen af at acceptere præsident Reagans tilbud om at samarbejde om det, der senere blev kaldt det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche var ophavsmand til, og fastholdelsen af principperne for det, som den sovjetiske økonom Preobrazhensky havde betegnet som “primitiv social akkumulation”. Pave Johannes Paul II advarede dengang eftertrykkeligt om, at Vesten ikke skulle drage den konklusion, at de var moralsk overlegne, og som bevis herpå pegede han på udviklingssektorens tilstand, der var fattig og underudviklet, som et biprodukt af det vestlige liberale system.

I denne periode mellem Berlinmurens fald og Warszawa-pagtens opløsning, var der en reel chance for noget helt nyt: Kommunismen var forsvundet, Vesten havde ikke længere nogen fjende, og Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse havde først foreslået den produktive trekant, Paris-Berlin-Wien, og derefter, efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, Den eurasiske Landbro som grundlag for skabelsen af en fredsordning for det 21. århundrede.

Den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør i Moskva, Jack Matlock, har gentagne gange eftertrykkeligt hævdet, at Sovjetunionen ikke udgjorde nogen trussel i de sidste år af sin eksistens, og at Den kolde Krig ikke sluttede med Sovjetunionen, men at den faktisk var slut to år tidligere, fordi Gorbatjov havde accepteret en demokratisering af Østeuropa og forskellige interne reformer, hvilket en stor del af den russiske befolkning hadede ham for, og betragtede ham som en forræder, i modsætning til folk i Vesten og især i Tyskland, som i store folkemængder råbte: “Gorby! Gorby! Gorby!”

Argumentet om at der aldrig blev givet noget løfte til Rusland om, at NATO ikke ville udvide sig mod øst er en åbenlys løgn, som er blevet afsløret af samtidige vidner såsom Matlock. Der foreligger en diskussion af den daværende amerikanske udenrigsminister, James Baker III, den 9. februar 1990, hvor han bekræftede over for Gorbatjov, at NATO “ikke ville rykke en tomme mod øst”. Og for ganske nylig, på spektakulær vis, af Roland Dumas, den daværende franske udenrigsminister. Tydeligvis, på grund af den akutte krigsfare, brød han for fem dage siden sin mangeårige tavshed og vidnede i et langt interview med den franske hjemmeside “Les Crises” om det, han havde fortalt vores franske repræsentant, Jacques Cheminade, privat, allerede tre år forinden: at der dengang var en meget vigtig forhandling om nedrustning og demilitarisering af Warszawa-pagten i gang.

Dumas sagde: “og diskussionen begyndte således. Det var den russiske diplomat som via Gorbatjov, men også via den russiske udenrigsminister, Sjevardnadze, bad om ordet, og som sagde: “Vi, den russiske delegation, vil gerne vide, hvad der kommer til at ske med NATO’s bevæbning i forbindelse med nedrustningen? Og vi kræver,” jeg husker det tydeligt; han var formel, “at de allierede tropper overholder to forpligtelser”. Den første, hvor han var meget sentimental, er den der vedrører bevarelsen af monumenter i alle de sovjetiske lande, til minde om den sovjetiske hærs ære. Den anden er, at der skal være en forpligtelse for Warszawa-pagtens og NATO’s tropper, og at der ikke må ske nogen forskydning af NATO-tropper i de områder af Sovjet-pagten, der skal afvæbnes.” Og på spørgsmålet om hvorfor det ikke blev nedfældet i de egentlige traktater, sagde han: “Det blev ikke nævnt. Det vil sige, at folk, så påpasselige som amerikanerne, folk i Atlant-alliancen, vi anmodede ikke om, at det blev nedskrevet. Det er muligt, men i forhold til karakteren af den generelle diskussion, det vil sige et forsøg på at afvæbne for at gøre en ende på truslen om krig, for det var det der betød noget, og for at forberede en anden periode i forbindelse med en tid, som var nedrustning, var det logisk.

“Så denne diskussion fandt sted: Den fandt først og fremmest sted, fordi russerne bad om det, fordi vi støttede det – først mig selv, og ligeledes amerikanerne, og naturligvis tyskerne.”

Jack Matlock understreger, at løftet om at selv før Sovjetunionens afslutning, var det almindeligt accepteret, at sikkerhed måtte betyde sikkerhed for alle, og at der var et argument, hvor Gorbatjov retfærdiggjorde en reduktion af oprustningen af det sovjetiske militær. Matlock fortæller også, at præsident Bush senior i en af sine sidste taler i Kiev, da der stadig var et Sovjetunionen, rådede ukrainerne til, at de burde tilslutte sig Gorbatjovs frivillige føderation, som han foreslog, og han advarede ukrainerne mod “selvmorderisk nationalisme”.

Lad os se videoen fra den tyske udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, som bekræftede dette meget tydeligt.

FORTÆLLER: Til gengæld for tysk enhed lovede Vesten at undlade at lade NATO rykke længere mod øst. I Washington afgiver den daværende udenrigsminister vidtrækkende løfter.

HANS DIETRICH GENSCHER: Vi blev enige om, at det ikke er hensigten at udvide NATO’s forsvarsområde mod øst. Det gælder i øvrigt ikke kun med hensyn til D.D.R. [Østtyskland], som vi ikke ønsker at indlemme der, men det gælder helt generelt.

[skærmvisning – “1999”: Videoen viser udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright og tre udenrigsministre på et podium. Bag dem ses USA’s, NATO’s og andre flag.]

FORTÆLLER: Et kortvarigt løfte. De første østeuropæiske lande bliver optaget i NATO. Udenrigsminister Madeleine Albright stråler, da hun omfavner sine kolleger fra Polen, Tjekkiet og Ungarn. Et truende greb set fra Moskvas synspunkt. Men de er for svage til at reagere. [slut video]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Så, man har Dumas, Genscher, Matlock, som alle bekræfter, at disse løfter blev aftalt, og som klart modsiger den officielle erklæring om, at sådanne løfter aldrig blev afgivet, hvilket NATO’s generalsekretær, Jens Stoltenberg, altid gentager.

Så sent som i dag rapporterer Spiegel Magazine i Tyskland om et nyligt fremkommet, tidligere hemmeligt, klassificeret dokument i det britiske nationalarkiv, som blev opdaget af den amerikanske politolog Joshua Shifrinson, om et møde mellem de politiske ansvarlige for udenrigsministerierne i USA, Storbritannien, Frankrig og Tyskland i Bonn den 6. marts 1991. I dokumentet står der, at alle var enige om, at et NATO-medlemskab for de østeuropæiske lande ville være uacceptabelt. Jürgen Chrobog, repræsentant fra Bonn, citeres: “At en udvidelse af NATO hinsides Elben ville være uacceptabel. Derfor bør Polen og de andre lande ikke tilbydes NATO-medlemskab.”

USA’s repræsentant på dette møde, Raymond Seitz, var enig i, at de under 2+4-samtalerne havde lovet Sovjetunionen, at NATO ikke ville udvide formelt eller uformelt mod øst.

Spiegel påpeger, at russerne allerede i 1993, længe før Putin, klagede over, at en udvidelse af NATO mod øst ville krænke ånden i 2+4-samtalerne. Det blev ikke skrevet ned, men begge parter handlede i 1990 i god tro, noget, som tilsyneladende er [gået] helt tabt.

Allerede dengang blev den gode tro imidlertid ikke delt af alle. I stedet for et nyt system, der ville yde sikkerhed for alle, hvilket også kunne have omfattet Ruslands optagelse i NATO, startede de neokonservative i USA og deres britiske kolleger “Projektet for et Nyt amerikansk Århundrede”, som var et initiativ til at opbygge en unipolær verden. Den irrationelle opstemthed overtog ikke kun markederne, som Alan Greenspan bemærkede på et tidspunkt i 90’erne, men det var euforien over, at det vestlige liberale system havde “vundet” Den kolde Krig, som blev den fortælling, der erstattede den historiske kendsgerning.

Francis Fukuyamas tåbelige og fuldstændig grundløse, forkerte argument om historiens afslutning, som betød, at det liberale demokrati ville brede sig til alle lande på verdensplan, begyndte at lægge et røgslør over de vestlige etablissementers tankegang. Måden, hvorpå denne unipolære verden skulle oprettes, var imidlertid ikke så smuk. Farverevolutioner – orange, rosa, hvide, gule, arabiske – næsten hele regnbuens spektrum – blev støttet med milliarder af dollars: 5 milliarder dollars til Ukraine alene, til NGO’ere, før 2014, som Victoria Nuland åbenlyst pralede med. Det omfattede støtte til et kup i Kiev i 2014, som bragte offentligt bekendende nazistiske kræfter i Stepan Banderas tradition til magten; netværk, som var blevet opretholdt af NATO’s efterretningstjenester i organisationer som den Anti-Bolsjevikiske Blok af Nationer i efterkrigstiden med henblik på en potentiel konfrontation med Sovjetunionen.

“Så disse efterretningstjenester vidste præcis, hvem der udførte kuppet på Maidan. Det var som en reaktion på den brutale undertrykkelse af den russisktalende befolkning i Ukraine, at folk på Krim ved en folkeafstemning stemte for at de ønskede at tilslutte sig Rusland, så der var ingen tvungen ændring af Krims grænser.”

Naturligvis skulle FN-pagten og folkeretten i denne proces erstattes af en “regelbaseret orden”. Dette skete med omfattende støtte fra Tony Blair, som i 1999 i Chicago argumenterede for humanitære interventionistiske krige, “retten til at beskytte”: at man måtte erklære afslutningen på den Westfalske Fred.

Omstændighederne omkring den 11. september, som Lyndon LaRouche havde advaret om ni måneder før det skete, som en “Reichstagsbrand”, der var ved at ske, hvilket eliminerede en betydelig del af borgerrettighederne i USA og dannede grundlaget for de endeløse krige, begyndende med Afghanistan – den første krig baseret på løgne. Det der fulgte, var Colin Powells løgne over for FN i 2003 om masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak, efterfulgt af krigene i Libyen med mordet på Gaddafi, forsøget på at vælte Assad-regeringen i Syrien og direkte og indirekte talrige andre militære operationer: Resultatet var millioner af døde og sårede og millioner af flygtninge.

Var alt dette i USA’s eller Vestens interesse i almindelighed?

Resultatet var et gigantisk tilbageslag. Putin, som i de første år af sit præsidentembede havde mange beundrere i Vesten, blev i stigende grad upopulær hos arkitekterne af den unipolære verden, fordi han ikke underkastede sig den “regelbaserede orden”. Han begyndte at genrejse Ruslands rolle som en aktør i verden. I 2008 i Georgien og i 2015 i Syrien og nu for nylig ved at kræve, at NATO’s ekspansion mod øst ikke blot stoppes, men også tilbageføres til 1997-status, og ved at kræve skriftlige, juridisk bindende garantier fra USA og NATO om, at Ukraine aldrig bliver medlem, at der ikke må være offensive våbensystemer langs den russiske grænse, og at NATO ikke rykker længere mod øst.

Hvis man ser på de sidste 30 års historie, er dette faktisk et ganske beskedent krav. Også i lyset af, at Ukraine ikke opfylder kravene i NATO-traktatens artikel 5 og 10, som general Kujat, den tidligere stabschef for Bundeswehr, korrekt hævder.

I mellemtiden har et andet udslag af modstand mod den “regelbaserede orden” fået en fremtrædende plads. Kina, som havde sin egen plan for en eurasisk landbro, reagerede meget positivt på de programmer, som Schiller Instituttet foreslog for en ny silkevej, men som i første omgang mislykkedes. Det var for økonomisk svagt til at gennemføre disse planer efter den såkaldte “Asien-krise” i 1997, hvor nogle asiatiske landes valutaer blev brutalt spekuleret i sænk af folk som Soros, der på en uge frarøvede landene det, som deres befolkninger havde oparbejdet i årtier.

Kinas reaktion på denne hændelse og de overordnede mål om fattigdomsbekæmpelse i hele verden var præsident Xi Jinpings bekendtgørelse af Den nye Silkevej i 2013 i Kasakhstan. Dette uden sammenligning største infrastrukturprojekt i historien er blevet en omfattende succeshistorie med næsten 150 involverede lande. Men især Kinas fortsatte økonomiske fremgang som lokomotivet i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet fik fortalerne for den unipolære verden og deres finansfolk i City of London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley til i stigende grad at karakterisere Rusland og Kina som “autokratiske”, “autoritære” og værre ting.

Disse angreb havde som forventet den følgevirkning, der var et mareridt for folk som Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dick Cheney og beslægtede, nemlig at disse to lande – Rusland og Kina – har skabt et partnerskab uden fortilfælde. Den 4. februar, i begyndelsen af de Olympiske Vinterlege i Beijing, underskrev præsident Putin og præsident Xi Jinping et dokument om et omfattende strategisk partnerskab, som ifølge deres egne beskrivelser udgør en model for de fremtidige internationale forbindelser mellem nationer, der vil være baseret på gensidig hensyntagen til den andens interesser inden for det fulde spektrum af økonomiske, politiske, kulturelle og militære områder. [http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770]

Denne aftale har formelt sat en stopper for ideen om en unipolær verden. Det er en historisk kendsgerning, der er kommet for at blive, ikke mindst fordi den kombinerer Ruslands marginale militære overlegenhed med den kinesiske økonomis styrke, og i praksis indebærer det, at den slags trusler, som blev fremsat af de to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus, om at USA i tilfælde af en invasion af Ukraine ville forhindre Rusland i at diversificere fra olie og gas og nægte det adgang til avancerede teknologier. Aftalen mellem Kina og Rusland har gjort denne trussel forældet.

Det er nu på tide, at alle klart tænkende og fredselskende mennesker i Vesten genovervejer den strategiske og historiske situation uden fordomme eller ideologiske tilbøjeligheder. Hvis menneskeheden skal have en sikker og lykkelig fremtid, må vi opgive den geopolitiske tankegang i form af konfrontation og erstatte den med en plan for samarbejde mellem alle nationer med henblik på en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden. For det er hvad vi har, på godt og ondt.

Det er på høje tid at erklære NATO for forældet og erstatte det med en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som garanterer sikkerhedsinteresserne for alle nationer på planeten. I stedet for at behandle det nye omfattende partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina som en fjendtlig sammenslutning, der skal bekæmpes med et nyt våbenkapløb, bør Europas, USA’s og andre kontinenters nationer signalere, at de er villige til at indgå i en ny ”westfalsk” fredsforhandling, som vil være baseret på den andens interesser og alles fælles bedste. Det stod klart for de kræfter, der forhandlede denne traktat fra 1644-1648, at der ikke kunne være nogen vinder i fortsættelsen af Trediveårskrigen, som i virkeligheden var kulminationen på 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvor en tredjedel af befolkningen og værdierne var blevet ødelagt.

I dag ville det være så meget mere klart for alle parter, at en fortsættelse af konfrontationen, herunder truslen om atomar udryddelse af hele menneskeslægten, ikke vil efterlade nogen som vinder.

En sådan ny Westfalsk Traktat må være baseret på principper, som er i overensstemmelse med naturloven og lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. Den skal afspejle skønheden i den menneskelige art, som er den eneste hidtil kendte art, der er udstyret med kreativ fornuft, hvilket adskiller os fra alle dyr og andre former for liv. Naturligvis skal den nye Vestfalske Traktat ligesom den oprindelige Vestfalske Fred omhandle alle specifikke emner som Minsk II-aftalerne og andre territoriale knaster, men også vor tids store udfordringer som f.eks. et globalt sundhedssystem til bekæmpelse af pandemier, afhjælpning af den globale hungersnød af bibelske dimensioner, som [den administrerende direktør for FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram ] David Beasley taler om, afhjælpning af fattigdom i hele verden og andre anliggender, der vedrører hele menneskehedens fælles bedste.

Den umiddelbare opgave, der ligger foran os, er at organisere alle landes samarbejde med projekter i Bælte- og Vej-initiativet, som allerede er beskrevet meget mere detaljeret i den rapport, vi offentliggjorde i 2014: “Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”, en omfattende plan for udvikling og integration af alle klodens kontinenter. Den skal tage fat på den umiddelbare fare for et systemisk sammenbrud af det transatlantiske finanssystem, som de Fire Love, der blev udformet af Lyndon LaRouche for mange år siden, er den tilgængelige løsning på. (https://larouchepub.com/lar/2014/4124four_laws.html) Og den skal definere de områder, hvor der er brug for et nødvendigt internationalt samarbejde, såsom den hurtigst mulige realisering af en ny økonomisk platform baseret på termonuklear fusionsenergi, for at opnå energi- og råvaresikkerhed for alle nationer. Den skal definere fredeligt samarbejde inden for rumforskning, rumfart og kolonisering af rummet.

Vi er den kreative art, og det er nu det rette tidspunkt i vores historie til at bevise det.

Et sidste punkt. Hvis man sammenligner den Westfalske Freds succes med Versailles-traktatens totale fiasko, som ikke tog hensyn til alle deltagende parters interesser, men blot udgjorde optakten til den næste verdenskrig, så burde det være indlysende, at princippet om alle nationers suverænitet, forenet af et højere mål om én menneskehed, skal opretholdes.

Vi bør derfor vende tilbage til ånden fra Berlinmurens fald, som kunne have været en “menneskehedens stjernestund” (på tysk eine Sternstunde der Menschheit), og potentialet i 2+4-aftalen, som ikke blot var en egentlig fredstraktat, der afsluttede efterkrigstiden og teoretisk set etablerede den tyske suverænitet, men som alle ved, er denne suverænitet som følge af den ovenfor beskrevne udvikling aldrig kommet til udtryk i tyskernes bevidsthed, hvor ordet “suverænitet”, i modsætning til Frankrig, hvor suverænisterne er i flertal, ikke engang er kendt af den gennemsnitlige borger i Tyskland. Det skal der også rettes op på og gøres noget ved.

Så lad os vende dette yderst farlige øjeblik til en chance for at skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden. Lad os skabe en ægte “menneskehedens stjernestund”, som er den udødelige art værdig, som vi er skabt til at være.

Mange tak.

22. februar 2022 – Schiller Instituttet i Danmark gennemførte et 45-minutters interview med Dr. Li Xing, professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Institut for Politik og Samfund, Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, Danmark.

Dr. Li beskriver indholdet af den fælles erklæring af 4. februar 2022 mellem Kina og Rusland og analyserer, hvad dette betyder for forbindelserne mellem Kina og Rusland, men også for resten af verden. De emner, der diskuteres, omfatter unipolaritet eller multipolaritet, et nyt forhold mellem nationer, demokrati, økonomisk udvikling, en amerikansk domineret “regelbaseret orden” eller en FN-baseret orden, behovet for en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som efterlyst af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og hvordan Kina vil reagere på de kraftige vestlige sanktioner mod Rusland, der er udløst af Ukraine-krisen.

Dr. Li havde også givet Schiller Instituttet et interview den 26. januar med titlen “Samarbejd med Kina”: Det er ikke fjenden”. 

Afskrift på engelsk:

Interview: Li Xing, PhD
The China-Russia Feb. 4 Joint Statement:
A Declaration of a New Era and New World Order

Michelle Rasmussen: Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin held a summit meeting on the sidelines of the Beijing Olympics and issued a statement on Feb. 4 called Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development. Schiller Institute founder and international President Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that this signals a new era in international relations. To discuss the content and implications of the development, I am pleased to interview Dr. Li Xing, Professor of Development and International Relations in the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences from Aalborg University in Denmark. Dr. Li also gave the Schiller Institute an interview on Jan. 26 of this year, entitled “Cooperate with China. It Is not the Enemy.” 
Before we go into details, can you please give us your assessment of the overall importance of the summit and statement, including what it means for relations between China and Russia, and China-Russian relations with the rest of the world. And at the end of the interview, we will also discuss what it means in the current, very tense situation between Russia and NATO.

Li Xing: Thank you Michelle for your invitation. It’s my pleasure to be invited again by the Schiller Institute.
First of all let me emphasize that it is a landmark document. Why? Because the document emphasizes what I call a “new era,” declaring a shift in the world order, a multipolar world order, in which the U.S. and the West are not the only rule-makers, and Russia and China take the lead, and lay out a set of principles and a shared worldview. This is my first general summary.
Second, unlike the U.S./NATO alliance, the China-Russia relationship is described by the joint document as a “close comprehensive strategic partnership.” In Putin’s early words, he said, “The China-Russia relationship is a relationship that probably cannot be compared with anything in the world.” The relationship is not “aimed against any other countries.” It is “superior to the political and military alliances of the Cold War era,” referring to the U.S.-NATO alliance. It also echoes Xi Jinping’s recent statement, that “the relationship even exceeds an alliance in its closeness and effectiveness.” So the document tries to demonstrate that the China-Russia relationship is a good example of interstate relationships.

Rasmussen: You have characterized the introduction as “a conceptual understanding and analysis of global changes and transformations taking place in the current era.” It especially refers to the transformation from a unipolar to a multipolar world. Can you please explain how the statement addresses this, and what it means?

Li: In the beginning of this statement, it puts forward both countries’ conceptual understanding of the world order, which is characterized as “multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world.” [emphasis added by Li] “Redistribution of power in the world.” This is what the part emphasizes.
Second, this part also clearly sets up a series of analyses, arguments and discourses to demonstrate both countries’ understanding, and to emphasize the fact that the world order has entered a new era. Again, “new era” are the key words for this document.
Lastly, in this beginning part of the joint statement, it shows both Russia and China’s grand worldview that pave the foundation for the two countries’ broad consensus on almost all issues of the world, which we will deal with one by one later on.

Rasmussen: Part 1 is about the question of democracy, and it starts by saying: “The sides” —that is, China and Russia—”share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community.”
But the charge is that China and Russia are not democratic, but rather autocratic. This is one of the leading accusations by those in the West who are trying to maintain a unipolar world, and they portray the world as a battle between the democrats and the autocrats. How does the document respond to this, and treat the idea of democracy?

Li: Actually, this document utilizes a large amount of space to discuss this point. First, the joint statement points out that “democracy”—including human rights—”is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States.” So here it implies that the concept of democracy must not be defined by the West alone. The West cannot singlehandedly define which country is autocratic and which country is democratic.
Second, the joint document emphasizes that their standpoint is that there is no universal one-form document, or human rights standard. Different countries have different cultures, histories, different social-political systems in a multipolar world. We have to respect the way each country chooses their own social-political system, and also the tradition of other states.
Third, it signals a strong critique of the West, and in this part, there are a lot of criticisms toward the West. That is, that the West has a tendency to weaponize the issue of democracy and human rights, and very often uses it as a tool to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. It is completely wrong for the U.S. and the West to impose their own “democratic standards” on other countries, and to monopolize the right to assess the level of compliance with democratic criteria, and to draw a dividing line on the basis of ideology, including by establishing exclusive blocs and lines of convenience, and this is very bad, according to these two countries, that the West tends to use democracy and human rights to interfere into other countries’ internal affairs, and China really suffers a lot from this point.

Rasmussen: How would you say democracy works in China?

Li: I would argue that if we use Western standards to define democracy, then definitely, China is not a democracy. In a Western version of democracy, China does not have a multi-party system, China does not have elections. But the point is, how the West will respond to the fact that according to major Western sources, survey data sources, throughout many years, that the Chinese people’s confidence in their government is the highest in the whole world. And the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese state receive the highest approval from the Chinese population according to those data. And also China has reached very high, rapid economic development, under the so-called “non-democratic government.” Now, how can the West explain these issues? Many democratic countries suffer from economic backwardness and underdevelopment.
So, as to the form of governance in China, I think it is the Chinese people, themselves, who should make the judgment.

Rasmussen: Let’s move on to part 2, which is about coordinating economic development initiatives, including harmonizing the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, and also the Russian Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), even more, and taking initiatives to create economic development, where they emphasize the role of scientific research in generating economic growth, something that Lyndon LaRouche and our movement have had as a priority concept. And also increasing healthcare and pandemic response in poor countries. What do you see as the significance of this call for increasing economic development cooperation?

Li: Yes. I also read this part of the document very carefully. This part shows a clear difference in approach between the West and the U.S. on the one side, and China-Russia on the other side. While the West is emphasizing, or holding the flag of democracy and human rights, China-Russia actually emphasize that peace, development and cooperation lies at the core of the modern international system. So, according to the understanding of Russia and China, development is the key driver in ensuring the prosperity of other nations, even though democracy and human rights are important, but development must be the core. So it implies that good development will lead the country in the direction of democracy, but not defined solely by the West, the concept of democracy.
Second, that following this line of understanding, then China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union are good examples of interregional cooperation. So they actually use the Belt and Road, and also Russia’s Eurasia Economic Union, as good examples. One interesting point I want to emphasize is that both countries emphasize scientific and technological development, and “open, equal, and fair conditions.” I think here, there is a kind of implicit criticism toward the United States, which has been conducting sanctions against Chinese tech companies, for example, Huawei, or other high-tech companies.
Finally, I’ll remark here that both countries show their commitment to the Paris Agreement and to combat COVID-19, and these two issues are the most vital issues for the international community today. So it is a core for every country to emphasize these two vital issues: climate change, Paris Agreement, on the one side, and COVID-19 on the other side.

Rasmussen: Yes, I can add that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has initiated a proposal which she calls Operation Ibn Sina, which deals with the terrible humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan, leading off with creating a modern health system in every country. And if we could get much more international cooperation for building a modern health system, having the economic development which gives the basis for the population to have the immunology to resist disease, this would be a very important field for economic development, which means life and death at this moment.

Li: I fully agree with Helga’s understanding and call.

Rasmussen: As to part 3, this is about the increasing, dangerous international security situation, with a sharp critique of Western attitudes and actions. And the statement reads: “No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States.” And here, China addresses Russia’s concerns and criticizes NATO’s expansion eastward after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. And Russia addresses China’s concerns by reaffirming the One-China principle and concerns about building different regional alliances against China —the Quad and AUKUS. It also praises the recent P5 statement against nuclear war.
Can you say more about China’s and Russia’s concerns? And do you think this is a call for a new international security architecture?

Li: Yes. If you read the document carefully, and this part on international security architecture, or their understanding of international security, occupied quite a large space. So it is a very important part for China and Russia.
In this part, the statement is actually bluntly clear about their mutual support for each other’s national security concerns. For Russia, it is connected with the Ukraine crisis, but the document does not mention Ukraine specifically, but it is connected. For China, it is the Taiwan issue, definitely. So they show their mutual support for each other.
On Russia’s concern for its national security, both countries oppose “further enlargement of NATO,” and “respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries.” And it clearly pronounced, there will be no peace if states “seek to obtain, directly or indirectly, unilateral military advantages to the detriment of the security of others.” The document claims that the NATO plan to enlarge its membership to encircle Russia will mean security for the Western side, but it is a danger for Russia. It is a national security concern.
On the Taiwan issue, Russia reconfirms that Taiwan is part of China—the One-China policy—and it is against any form of Taiwan independence.
Third, the joint statement also openly criticized the formation of closed blocs, as what you mentioned about the Quad. The document does not mention the Quad, but it does mention AUKUS. The document shows that both countries oppose U.S.-led military camps, or security camps in the Asia-Pacific region, definitely implying the Quad and AUKUS, and it points out the negative impact of the United States Indo-Pacific strategy.
Finally, the two countries call for a new international security architecture, with “equitable, open and inclusive security system … that is not directed against third countries and that promotes peace, stability and prosperity.” So this part is very important for China and Russia to challenge the traditional international security architecture, and call for a new international security architecture, which I will touch on a bit later.

Rasmussen: Many political spokesmen in the West have criticized Russia and China for not adhering to the “rules-based order” and here, in part 4, China and Russia write that they “strongly advocate the international system with the central coordinating role of the United Nations in international affairs, defend the world order based on international law, including the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, advance multipolarity and promote the democratization of international relations, together create an even more prospering, stable, and just world, jointly build international relations of a new type.”
And it continues: “The Russian side notes the significance of [Xi Jinping’s] concept of constructing a ‘community of common destiny for mankind…’”
Can you say more about the significance of this section, about global governance and the difference between the question of the “rules-based order” and an order based on international law, as laid out by the United Nations Charter?

Li: Yes. This part is extremely interesting, because it touches upon the mental clashes between China-Russia on the one side, and the U.S. and West on the other side, about the “rules-based order.” China, in particular, has been criticized a lot, as you also mentioned, that China has been accused by the U.S. of not following the “rules-based order.” If you remember the dialogue between a Chinese delegation and a U.S. delegation in Alaska in December two years ago, then we still remember the clash, that the Chinese claim that the U.S. rules-based order does not represent the global rules-based order, rather the United Nations—China emphasizes that the United Nations should play the central coordination role in international affairs. But the United States does not really like the UN-based structure, which is based on one-country/one-vote. So if we trace UN voting, we could easily find that the United States very often suffers from many setbacks when it comes to UN voting on many issues. So that’s why China emphasizes the United Nations rules-based order, whereas United States prefers a U.S. rules-based order.
And this joint statement also calls for advancing multipolarity and promoting democratization of international relations. In my interpretation, democratization of international relations implies that the power structure embedded in the Bretton Woods system, which was created by the United States after the Second World War, does not really reflect the new era, as I pointed out earlier. China and Russia think reforms are needed to reflect the new era. This definitely, again, from my interpretation, refers to international financial institutions like the World Bank, and the IMF, where Chinese voting power is proportionally weaker than it should have been, according to its economic size.
And also the joint statement mentions the China foreign policy, as you mentioned in your question, “community of common destiny for mankind,” which was raised by President Xi Jinping. And in this nexus China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a good example, seen from China’s point of view, a good example of community of common destiny for mankind, in which the Belt and Road intends to promote, through worldwide infrastructure investment, the formation of a new global economic order, through creating a community of shared interest, and the community of shared responsibilities.
Unfortunately, the West does not really like both a “community of common destiny for mankind,” and the Belt and Road Initiative, because they are interpreted as the Chinese agenda is to transform global governance and the rules-based order.
However, I really think that the West should rethink their opposition, and they must face the fact that the Belt and Road memorandum has been signed by 148 countries and by 32 international organizations. So, according to my judgment, the Belt and Road, and also a community for common destiny for mankind, have already become an indispensable part of global governance and global order.

Rasmussen: Yes, this is also to underscore what you said before, about how important economic development is for the wellbeing of the countries. And here you have China, which was the first country to eliminate poverty in their country, over the last 40 years, and is offering this as a model for other countries to get economic development. The slogan of the Schiller Institute is “Peace through Economic Development,”—

Li: Exactly.

Rasmussen: The way that you can get countries that have perceived each other as enemies to rise to a new level, to seek common interest, is through arranging economic development programs, not only for a single country, but for a whole region, which encourages them to work together. You spoke before about the Chinese criticism of the Bretton Woods institutions. What the Schiller Institute and Lyndon LaRouche have been saying, is that the initial idea of the Bretton Woods institutions as proposed by Franklin Roosevelt was to try to get the economic development of the poorer countries. But it degenerated into, for example, where you had the World Bank and International Monetary Fund imposing austerity conditions on countries as a precondition for loans, where nothing was done to actually increase the productivity of the countries, in the way that the Belt and Road is actually —with the infrastructure development, creating the basis for the countries to becoming prosperous. And what we’re saying is that the total change in the international financial institutions is absolutely necessary now, at a point where financial speculation is blowing out, hyperinflation, and we need to have a new economic architecture, you could say, based on the physical development of the countries.

Li: I fully agree with your remarks and comments.

Rasmussen: Then another important statement in part 4, is that Chinese-Russian relations have reached a new level, as you said at the beginning, “a new era.”
“The sides [China and Russia] call for the establishment of a new kind of relationship between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation. They reaffirm that the new inter-State relations between Russia and China are superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era. Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation, strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation is neither aimed against third countries nor affected by the changing international environment and circumstantial changes in third countries.”
And yet, this is a plea to end the geopolitical blocs, where the two countries also call for strengthening multilateral fora, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS.
Li Xing, what will this much strengthened alliance mean for China and Russia, and also for the rest of the world? Should the West be worried, or is this a plea for a new type of international relations? What are the implications for shaping the new world order? What is your conclusion from the joint statement?

Li: I think one of the purposes of the joint statement is to demonstrate the good example of the China-Russia relationship, characterized as mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and mutually beneficial cooperation. It is not targetted at any other country. It is not like the U.S.-led coalitions which are Cold War minded, according to Russia and China’s understanding.
And if we look at the BRICS, and if you look at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, they are not purely juridical and geopolitical organizations or alliances. They are non-binding, open and non-binding.
After I read the document several times, I reached the conclusion that the unipolar world order is over. The West and the United States might have a hard time to accept it.
So the joint statement shows a strong unity between Russia and China. So my question is where is the West’s unity after the Cold War, and when the unipolar world order is over? How strong is the trans-Atlantic relationship today? I don’t know: I’m asking the questions to the West, the U.S. The West must rethink its Cold War strategy of reviving unity through creating enemies, and I think this is a completely wrong strategy, in a multipolar world order, where countries are much more interdependent. So it is necessary for the U.S. to rethink its own version of the rules-based order, in which the U.S. is the rule-maker and others are rule-followers. And this does not work in a new era any more. That is my conclusion after reading the joint statement.

Rasmussen: Now, as to the current situation, today is Feb. 22, and yesterday, Russia recognized the two breakaway republics in Ukraine as independent republics, which is now going to lead to very heavy sanctions by the West. Putin’s point was that these sanctions would have come anyway, but in any case, without going into the details of the Ukraine-Russia-U.S./NATO crisis, the fact is that Russia will be most probably faced with enormously hard sanctions.
In our last interview, you were asked, for example, if Russia were thrown out of the SWIFT system, how would China react? Now it’s a question of the not only of the SWIFT system, but also of other major financial penalties. How do you see China reacting, in light of the joint statement, to the new sanctions against Russia, that will most probably come?

Li: Let me first of all put it in this way: That sanctions are never one-sided punishments. That both sides will suffer. It’s like President Trump’s trade war, that President Trump thought the trade war would hurt China. Yes, it hurt China, but it had a backlash, a backfire to the U.S. economy. And today, if you look at the U.S. economy, the inflation actually is, one way or another, connected with the trade war, as well. It was one of the outcomes.
Now, sanctions against Russia will also cause mutually suffering by both sides. Because if you look at the European dependence on Russia’s oil and gas, it’s about 30-35%; some countries more, some less. If Russia is thrown out of the SWIFT system, which means that Russia cannot have international trade, then Europe cannot pay Russia as well, then the oil or gas pipelines will be blocked, which is in the interest of the United States, but not in the interest of Europe. This is the first point.
Second, that China and Russia have already agreed that they are not going to use dollars for their bilateral trade. So that doesn’t really matter seen from the Russian and Chinese perspective, and in light of the spirit of this joint statement. So definitely China will continue to do business with Russia, and if the U.S. is saying that any country that is doing business Russia will be sanctioned as well, then the U.S. is creating even a larger, a bigger enemy. And China is a different story. And Russia, because Russia’s economy, Russia’s economic-financial status is relatively limited, compared with China. China is the second largest economy in the world.
By the way, China is the largest trading nation in the world. And you can see that last year, the China and EU trade reached more than 850 billion! That’s a lot! And look at the China-U.S. trade as well. If you punish China, in what way? I cannot imagine it. Take China out of the SWIFT system as well? No, you can’t do that! Then the whole world is blocked! Then no trade, no economic development at all.
So these are grave consequences of sanctions. I cannot predict the future situations. Until now I haven’t read any concrete reaction from the Chinese government, but I guess, following the spirit of this document, which was signed three weeks ago, definitely, China is going to act. China will also act in accordance with the spirit of solidarity between both countries.

Rasmussen: Our analysts were saying that it may be the case that China would buy more oil and gas and other products from Russia. Actually, one thing is that today, February 21 , is the 50th anniversary of Nixon’s trip to China, [February 21 to 28, 1972] and the opening up of relations, andthe United States commitment to the One-China policy. And at that time, many people were saying that Kissinger’s strategy was to open up the relations to China, as a way of isolating Russia, of putting Russia aside. But the fact is that these sanctions and this type of policy over the recent period, has done more to bring Russia and China together, as signified by this document. What is your reaction to that? But also the prospects of how we get out of this?
Lyndon LaRouche, for many years, called for a “Four Power” agreement between the United States, Russia, China, and India. How can we break through, looking at the world as Russia and China on one side, andthe U.S. and Europe on the other side, how can we get a cooperation among the great powers for the necessity of dealing with these other very serious crises the world is facing?

Li: Extremely interesting that you mentioned Nixon’s trip, of playing the “China card,” during the Cold War, in the beginning of the 1970s. You are completely right that the U.S. has historically enjoyed a very favorable position, in which the U.S. has been able to keep relatively stable relations with China, relatively stable relations with Soviet Union, at that time—but making the Soviet Union and China fight each other all the time. And especially after the Cold War, the U.S. still had this favorable position—relatively stable relations with both countries, but China and Russia still had difficult relations with each other.
But today, the situation is reversed. It’s totally shocking that the U.S. is fighting both world powers simultaneously. If you remember that the former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, he wrote, before he died, he wrote clearly, that the worst situation for the United States, for the West is when Iran, Russia, and China become a bloc, become an alliance, with China as the economic driver, the economic power. I was very surprised that his words are becoming true today!
So, the only way we can come to the second part of your question, about how we can manage major power relations, is in line with the spirit of the Schiller Institute conference that took place last week and its call for establishing a new international security architecture. There is no other way. The Western dominance, the U.S. singlehanded dominance, the unipolar world is over. We need what Helga proposed, to establish a new international security architecture. We don’t know exactly what the form of this architecture, but that needs discussion from both sides! Unless the international community forms a kind of great, new international security architecture, conflict will continue.

Rasmussen: And then, as we spoke, it goes hand in hand with the increasing economic cooperation and the determination of the great powers to really do something for the economic development of the poor parts of the world.

Li: Yes, definitely. I agree with you. Thank you.

Rasmussen: Is there anything else you would like to add?

Li: No, I just want to add the last point, that I am very amazed by this joint statement, because I have come across many joint statements by two countries, or by multiple countries. But this one is the most comprehensive political document I have ever come across, because it covers every aspect of the world order, international relations, governance, security, values, norms, technology, climate change, health—you name it. So it is an extremely comprehensive document, which shows what Russia and China envision as a just world order.
So I would argue that this document implies a kind of new world order which Russia and China are going to, not only propose, but also push forward.
Unfortunately, this document has been demonized by many Western media—I have read many media talking about — to me it’s a kind of Cold War syndrome, because those media describe the document as creating a “bipolar world,” they say bipolar world, with the Russia and China/autocracies on the one side, and the U.S. and the West/democracies on the other side. So to me again, it’s a dividing line, when they allege that this document divides the world into two camps again. So to me, this is a typical Cold War syndrome.
Again, I come back to my last point: That we need a new international security architecture, as the Schiller Institute also proposed during the conference last week. Otherwise, there will be no peace and development. Thank you.

Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Li Xing. This has been a very important discussion.

Li: Thank you very much.

Jan Øberg, ph.d., er freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf,
Direktør, The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF, Sverige, https://transnational.live

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

Interviewet er på engelsk p.g.a. international deling.

Lydfil: 

Afskrift: 1. del om Ukraine-Rusland-U.S.-NATO krisen:

Michelle Rasmussen: Hello. Today is February 21st, 2022. I am Michele Rasmussen, the vice president of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. And I’m very happy that peace researcher Jan Oberg agreed to this interview. Jan Oberg was born in Denmark and lives in Sweden. He has a PhD in sociology and has been a visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, Switzerland, part time over the years. Jan Oberg has written thousands of pages of published articles and several books. He is the co-founder and director of the Independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden since 1985, and has been nominated over several years for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Our interview today will have three parts. The danger of war between Russia and Ukraine, which could lead to war between the United States and NATO and Russia, and how to stop it.

Secondly, your criticism of Denmark starting negotiations with the United States on a bilateral security agreement, which could mean permanent stationing of U.S. soldiers and armaments on Danish soil.

And thirdly, your criticism of a major report which alleged that China is committing genocide in Xinjiang province.

A Russian invasion of Ukraine, which some in the West said would start last Wednesday has not occurred. But as we speak, tensions are still very high. You wrote an article, Jan Oberg, on January 19th, called Ukraine The West has paved the road to war with lies, specifying three lies concerning the Ukraine crisis. Let’s take them one by one.

You defined lie number one: “The Western leaders never promised Mikhail Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, not to expand NATO eastwards. They also did not state that they would take serious Soviet or Russian security interests around its borders, and, therefore, each of the former Warsaw Pact countries has a right to join NATO, if they decide to freely.” Can you please explain more to our viewers about this lie?

Jan Oberg: Yes, and thank you very much for your very kind and long and detailed introduction of me. I would just say about that point that I’m amazed that this is now a kind of repeated truth in Western media, that Gorbachev was not given such promises. And it rests with a few words taken out of a longer article written years ago by a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who says that Gorbachev did not say so. That article was published by Brookings Institution. Now the truth is, and there’s a difference between truth and non truths, and we have to make that more and more clear when we deal with the West at the moment. The truth is, if you go to the National Security Archives in the U.S., if I remember correctly, the George Washington University that is well documented, their own formulation is that there are cascades of documentation. However, this was not written down in a treaty, or signed by the Western leaders, who one after the other came to Gorbachev’s dacha outside Moscow or visited him in Kremlin, and therefore some people would say it’s not valid. Now that is not true in politics. If we can’t rely on what was said and what was written down by people personally in their notebooks, etc.

George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, James Baker, you can almost mention any important Western leader were unanimous in saying to Gorbachev, we understand that the Warsaw Pact has gone, the Soviet Union has gone, and therefore, we are not going to take advantage of your weakness. James Baker’s formulation, according to all these sources, is we’re not going to expand nature one inch. And that was said in 89, 90. That is 30 years ago. And Gorbachev, because of those assurances also accepted, which he’s been blamed very much for since then, the reunification of Germany. Some sources say that was a kind of deal made that if Germany should be united, which it was very quickly after, it should be a neutral country. But the interpretation in the West was it could remain a member of NATO, but would then include what was at that time the German Democratic Republic, GDR [East Germany] into one Germany. You can go to Gorbachev’s Foundation home page and you will find several interviews, videos, whatever, in which he says these things, and you can go to the Danish leading expert in this, Jens Jørgen Nielsen, who has also written that he personally interviewed Gorbachev, in which Gorbachev, with sadness in his eyes, said that he was cheated, or that these promises were broken, whatever the formulation is.

And I fail to understand why this being one of the most important reasons behind the present crisis, namely Russia’s putting down its foot, saying “You can’t continue this expansion up to the border, with your troops and your long-range missiles, up to the border of Russia. And we will not accept Ukraine [as a member of NATO]. You have gotten ten former Warsaw Pact countries which are now members of NATO, NATO has 30 members. We are here with a military budget, which is eight percent of NATO’s, and you keep up with this expansion. We are not accepting that expansion to include Ukraine.

Now, this is so fundamental that, of course, it has to be denied by those who are hardliners, or hawks, or cannot live without enemies, or want a new Cold War, which we already have, in my view, and have had for some years. But that’s a long story. The way the West, and the U.S. in particular — but NATO’s secretary general’s behavior is outrageous to me, because it’s built on omission of one of the most important historical facts of modern Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yes. In your article, you actually quote from the head of NATO, the general secretary of NATO, back in 1990, one year before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Manfred Wörner, where you say that in these documents released by the U.S. National Security Archive, that you just referred to, “Manfred Wörner gave a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990, in which he argued ‘The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system.’ And the next year, in the middle of 1991, according to a memorandum from the Russian delegation who met with Wörner. He responded to the Russians by saying that he personally and the NATO council, were both against expansion “13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view,” and “Wörner said that he would speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries leaders, as he had already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And he emphasized that we should not allow the isolation of USSR from the European community,” and this was even while the U.S.S.R. was still alive. So it must have been even more the case after the U.S.S.R. collapsed, and Russia emerged.

Jan Oberg: Well, if I may put in a little point here, you see, with that quotation of a former NATO secretary general, compare that with the present secretary general of NATO. Wörner was a man of intellect. The leaders around him at the time in Europe were too. I mean, those were the days when you had people like Willy Brandt in Germany and östpolitik [East policy], and you had Olof Palme in Sweden with common security thinking. We cannot in the West be sure, feel safe and secure in the West, if it’s against Russia. Which does not mean at all to give into everything Russia does, but just says we cannot be safe if the others don’t feel safe from us. And that was an intellectualism. That was an empathy, not a necessarily a sympathy, but it was an empathy for those over there, that we have to take into account, when we act. Today that intellectualism is gone completely.

And it is very interesting, as you point out, that 13 out of 16 NATO countries, at that time, were at that level, but in came in 1990 Bill Clinton. And he basically said, well, he didn’t state it. He acted as though he had stated it, I don’t care about those promises, and then he started expanding NATO. And the first office of NATO was set up in Kiev in 1994. That was the year when he did that. And that was a year when I sat in Tbilisi, Georgia, and interviewed the U.S. representative there, who, through a two-hour long conversation, basically talked about Georgia as “our country.”

So, you know, it’s sad to say it’s human to make mistakes, but to be so anti-intellectual, so anti-empathetic, so imbued with your own thinking and worldview, you’re not able to take the other side into account, is much more dangerous than it was at that time, because the leaders we have in the western world today are not up to it. They were earlier, but these are not.

Michelle Rasmussen: Lie number two that you pointed out, “The Ukraine conflict started by Putin’s out-of-the-blue aggression on Ukraine and then annexation of Crimea.” What’s the rest of the story here?

Jan Oberg: Well, it’s not the rest, it’s the beginning of the story. You see, people who write about these things, and it’s particularly those who are Western media and Western politicians and foreign ministers, et cetera, they say that it all started with this out-of-the-blue invasion in the Donbass, and then the taking, annexing or aggression on, or whatever the word is, Crimea. Well, they all forget, very conveniently, and very deliberately — I mean, this is not a longer time ago than people who write about it today would know — that there was a clearly western assisted, if not orchestrated, coup d’état in Kiev in 2014. After, I won’t go into that long story, after some negotiations about an economic agreement between Ukraine and the EU, in which the president then jumped off, allegedly under pressure from Putin, or whatever, but there were a series of violent events in Kiev.

And it’s well known from one of those who were there, and participated, namely the assistant secretary of State for European Affairs, Mrs. Nuland, and she’s given a speech in the U.S. where, if I remember correctly, she says that the US has pumped $5 billion into Ukraine over the years, to support democracy and human rights, et cetera, and training courses for young NGOs, et cetera. And it’s obvious that that operation, that ousting of the president, he had to flee to Russia, and the taking over, partly by neo-Nazis and fascists who were present and who probably did the beginning of the shooting and the killing of people, that all this had to do with the promise that was given to Ukraine years before that it would be integrated into the Euro-Atlantic framework. And then it was kind of stopping and saying, we don’t want that anyhow. We will negotiate something else, and we will look into what Putin has to offer, etc.

But that that, in Putin’s mind, in Russia’s mind, meant that NATO would be the future of Ukraine. And Russia had, still has, a huge military base in Crimea, which it had a lease on for, at the time, I think it was 30 plus years, meaning should Ukraine, which was clearly signalled by the western NATO member’s leadership, enter and become a full member of Ukraine, then he would look at a Russian base, either being lost or you would have a Russian military naval base in a NATO country.

Now I’m not saying that that was a smart move. I’m not saying it was a legal move, but it’s very difficult for the western world to blame Russia for annexing Crimea. If you look at the opinion polls and the votes for that, if you will, voting ourselves back to Russia — you know, the whole thing was Russia until 1954, when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine, and he was from Ukraine himself. And so this happened three weeks before. And I’m amazed that it should not again be intellectually possible for people who witnessed this — The other thing we talked about with 30 years ago. There might be some young fools who would not read history books.

But what I’m talking about was something that happened in 2014, and there’s no excuse for not mentioning that there’s a connection between that coup d’état, and the influence of the West in Ukraine in a very substantial way, and what happened in Donbas and Crimea.

So I’m just saying, if I put it on a more general level, if we look at today’s ability to understand, describe, analyze issues as conflicts, we are heading for zero understanding. There is nobody in the press, and nobody in politics who are able, intellectually, to see these things as conflicts, that is, as a problem standing between two or more parties that has to be analyzed. And conflict resolution is about finding solutions that the parties we have defined as parties, and there certainly are many more than two in this very complex conflict, can live with in the future. What we are down to in banalization is that there is no conflict. There’s only one party, Russia, that does everything bad and evil and terrible, while we are sitting in the receiving end, being the good guys who’ve done nothing wrong in history. Who could never rethink what we did or say, we’re sorry, or change our policies, because we are right. There’s only one problem. That’s them. We’re down now to the level in which these things, also the last three months, the accusations about Russia invading Ukraine, has nothing to do with conflict analysis. It is purely focusing on one party, and one party, by definition, is not a conflict.

We are not party to a relationship anymore, and that makes a huge difference, again, from the leaders and the way of thinking and the intellectual approach that existed 20-30 years ago. And one reason for all of this is, of course, that the West is on his way down. Secondly, and they feel threatened by anything that happens around the world. And secondly, when you have been number one in a system for a long time, you become lazy. You don’t study. You don’t have as good education as you should have. You bring up people to high levels who have not read books, because we can get away with everything. We are so strong militarily. And when that happens, you know, it’s a slippery slope and you are actually on board the Titanic.

This is not a defense of everything Russia does. What I’m trying to say is there is a partner over there, by the way they call us partners in the West. We call them anything else but partners. We don’t even see them. We don’t listen to their interests. We didn’t listen to Putin when he spoke at the Munich conference in 2007 and said, ‘You have cheated us.’ And of course, when Gorbachev, 90 years old, says, you have cheated us, he’s not even quoted in the Western world, because there’s no space anymore for other views than our own. You know, this autism that is now classical in the Western security policy elite is damn dangerous.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to just ask you shortly about the third lie, and then we’ll get into what you see as the solution. The third lie you, you pointed out, was that “NATO always has an open door to new members. It never tries to invite or drag them in does not seek expansion. It just happens because Eastern European countries since 1989 to 1990 have wanted to join without any pressure from NATO’s side, and this also applies to Ukraine.” And in this section, you also document that Putin actually asked for Russia to join NATO. Can you shortly, please explain your most important point about this third lie?

Jan Oberg: Yeah, well, it’s already there since you quoted my text, but the fascinating thing is that you have not had a referendum in any of these new member states. The fascinating thing is, in 2014, when this whole NATO membership came to its first conflictual situation in the case of Ukraine, there was not a majority, according to any opinion poll in Ukraine. There was not a majority. And I would say it’s not a matter of 51%. If a country is going to join NATO, it should be at least 75 or 80% of the people saying yes to that. Third, and it’s not something I’ve invented, it is NATO’s former secretary general Robertson, who has told the story. I think it was first released in the Guardian, but it’s also in a long podcast from a place I don’t remember, which the Guardian quotes. He says that he was asked by Putin whether, or at what time, or whatever the formulation was, NATO would accept Russia as a member.

This probably goes back to what you had already quoted Wörner, the NATO secretary general for having said, namely that a new security structure in Europe would, by necessity, have some kind of involvement, in a direct sense, of Russia, because Russia is also Europe.

And that was what Gorbachev had as an idea that the new [common] European home, something like a security structure where we could deal with our conflicts or differences or misunderstandings, and we could still be friends in the larger Europe.

And that was why I argued at the time thirty years ago that with the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, the only reasonable thing was to close down NATO. And instead, as I said with Clinton and onwards, the whole interpretation was we have won. The Western system, the neoliberal democratic NATO system has won. We have nothing to learn from that. There’s nothing to change now. We just expand even more.

And the first thing NATO did, as you know, was a completely illegal. Also, according to its own charter, the invasion, involvement and bombing in Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia was not a member. Had never been a member of NATO, and NATO’s only mission is paragraph five, which says that we are one for all and all for one. We are going to support some member, if the member is attacked. Now, it had nothing to do in Yugoslavia. That happened in 1991 and onwards, all the nineties. And you remember the bombings and 72 two days of bombings in Kosovo and Serbia. And it’s nothing to do — and there was no UN mandate for it. But it was a triumphalist interpretation. We can now get away with everything, anything we want. We can do it because there’s no Russia to take into account. Russia could not do anything about it. China could not do anything about it at the time.

And so, you get into hubris and an inability to see your own limitations, and that is what we are coming up to now. We are seeing the boomerang coming back to NATO, the western world for these things. And then, of course, some idiots will sit somewhere and say, Jan Oberg is pro-Russia. No, I’m trying to stick to what I happen to remember happened at the time. I’m old enough to remember what was said to Gorbachev in those days when the Wall came down and all these things changed fundamentally.

I was not optimistic that NATO would adapt to that situation, but there was hope at that time. There’s no hope today for this, because if you could change, you would have changed long ago. So the prediction I make is the United States empire, NATO, will fall apart at some point. The question is how, how dangerous, and how violent that process will be, because it’s not able to conduct reforms or change itself fundamentally into something else, such as a common security organization for Europe.

Michelle Rasmussen: Well, I actually wanted to ask you now about the solutions, because you’ve been a peace researcher for many decades. What what would it take to peacefully resolve the immediate crisis? And secondly, how can we create the basis for peaceful world in the future? You mentioned the idea that you had 30 years ago for dismembering NATO and the founder and international chairman of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has now called for establishing a new security architecture, which would take the interests of all countries, including Russia, into account. So how could we solve the immediate crisis? If there were the political will, what would have to change among the parties? And secondly, what needs to be done in terms of long term peaceful cooperation?

Jan Oberg: Well, first of all, the question you are raising is a little bit like the seventh doctor who is trying to operate on a patient who is bleeding to death and then saying, “What should we do now?” What I have suggested over 30 years is something that should have been done to avoid the situation today, and nobody listened, as is clear, because you don’t listen to researchers anymore who say something else that state-financed researchers do. So it’s not an easy question you are raising, of course. I would say, of course, in the immediate situation, the Minsk agreements, which have not been upheld, particularly by Ukraine in establishing some kind of autonomy for the Donbass area. Now that is something we could work with, autonomous solutions. We could work with confederations, we could work with cantonization, if you will. Lots of what happened, and happens, in the eastern republics of Ukraine. It reminds me of a country I know very well, and partly educated in and worked in during the dissolution, namely Yugoslavia. So much so that it resembles Granica. Ukraine and Granica in Croatia, both mean border areas. Granica means border, and there’s so much that could have been a transfered of knowledge and wisdom and lessons learned, had we had a United Nations mission in that part. A peacekeeping mission, a monitoring mission. UN police and U.N. civil affairs in the Donbas region.

If I remember correctly, Putin is the only one who suggested that at some point. I don’t think he presented it as a big proposal to the world, but in an interview he said that was something he could think of. I wrote in 2014, why on earth has nobody even suggested that the United Nations, the world’s most competent organization in handling conflicts, and, if you will, put a lid on the military affairs, for instance, by disarming the parties on all sides, which they did in eastern and western Slovonia, in Croatia. Why has that not been suggested? Because the western world has driven the United Nations out to the periphery of international politics..

I’ve said Minsk. I’ve said the UN. I’ve said some kind of internal reforms in Ukraine. I have said, and I would insist on it, NATO must stop its expansion. NATO cannot take the risk, on behalf of Europe, and the world, to say we insist on continuing with giving weapons to, and finally making Ukraine a NATO member. You can ask Kissinger, you can ask Brzezinski, you can take the most, if you will, right wing hawkish politicians in the West. They’ve all said neutrality like Finland or Switzerland, or something like that, is the only viable option.

And is that to be pro-Russian? No, that needs to be pro-Western. Because I am just looking like so many others, fortunately, have done at the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would the United States — how would it have reacted, if Russia had a huge military alliance and tried to get Canada or Mexico to become members with long-range weapons standing a few kilometers from the U.S. border?

Do you think the US would have said, “Oh, they were all freely deciding to, so we think it’s OK.” Look at what they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. They could not accept weapon stations in Cuba.

So, one of the things you have to ask yourself about is there one rule and one set of interests for the Western world that does not apply to other actors? If you want to avoid Russia invading Ukraine, which all this nonsense is about repeatedly now for two or three months. Look into a new status where the East and the West and Ukraine, all of it, can sit down and discuss security guarantees for Ukraine.

President Zelensky has said it quite nicely, I must say. If you don’t want us to become members of NATO, and he says that to the West, because he feels that it has taken a long time for the West to act, and he last said that at the Munich Security Conference, I think yesterday or two days ago, by the way, interestingly a man whose country is going to be invaded any moment, leaves the country and goes to a conference to speak which he could have done on Zoom.

I mean, the whole thing doesn’t make sense, like it didn’t make sense, was it on the 18th or 17th when all the West said that they’re going to invade Ukraine, and the Russian defense minister was sitting in Damascus and Putin was receiving Bolsonaro. I mean, don’t they have intelligence anymore in NATO and Washington?

So long story short, sit down and give Ukraine the guarantees and non-aggression pact with both sides or all sides, clearly limited non-nuclear defensive defense measures along the borders, or whatever, integration in whatever eastern and Western economic organizations.

And I would be happy to see them as part of the Belt and Road Initiative with economic opportunities. There is so much Ukraine could do if it could get out of the role of being a victim, and squeezed between the two sides all the time. And that can only be done if you elevate the issue to a higher level, in which Ukraine’s different peoples and different parts and parties are allowed to speak up about what future they want to have in their very specific situation that Ukraine is in. It is not any country in in Europe. It’s a poor country. It’s a country that has a specific history. It’s a country which is very complex, complex ethnically, language wise, historically, etc.

And that’s why I started out saying confederation. I said something like a Switzerland model, something like Cantonization, or whatever, but for Christ’s sake, give that country and its people a security, a good feeling that nobody’s going to encroach upon you..

And that is to me, the the schwerpunkt [main emphasis], the absolutely essential, that is to give the Ukraine people a feeling of security and safety and stability and peace so that they can develop. I find it very interesting that President Zelensky, in this very long interview to the international press a couple of weeks ago, say I’m paraphrasing it. But he says “I’m tired of all these people who say that we are going to be invaded because it destroys our economy. People are leaving. No business is coming in, right?”

Who are we to do this damage to Ukraine and then want it to become a member of NATO? You know, the whole thing is recklessly irresponsible, in my view, particularly with a view of Ukraine and its peoples and their needs.

So I would put that in focus, and then put in a huge UN peacekeeping mission and continue and expand the excellent OSCE mission. Put the international communit, good hearted, neutral people down there and diffuse those who have only one eyesight, only one view of all this. They are the dangerous people.

Michelle Rasmussen: And what about the more long-term idea of a new security architecture in general?

Jan Oberg: Oh, I would build a kind of, I wouldn’t say copy of, but I would I would build something inspired by the United Nations Security Council. All Europe, representatives for all countries, including NGOs, and not just government representatives. I would have an early warning mechanism where the moment there is something like a conflict coming up, we would have reporters and we would have investigations we would look into, not conflict prevention.

My goodness, people don’t read books. There’s nothing about conflict prevention. We should prevent violence. We should prevent violent conflict, but preventing conflicts is nonsense, life is getting richer. There’s not a family, there’s not a school, there’s not a workplace, there’s not a political party, there’s not a parliament in which there are no conflicts. Conflict is what life is made of. Conflict is terribly important because it makes us change and reflect. I’m all for conflicts, and I’m one hundred and ten percent against violence. But people will say “Conflict prevention is something we should work, on and educate people in.” Nonsense from people who never read books, as I said.

So I would look for something like common security. The good old Palme Commission from the eighties, which built on defensive defense. The idea that we all have a right, according to Article 51, in the UN Charter. Everybody has a right to self-defense.

But we do not have a right to missiles that can go 4,000 km or 8,000 kilometres and kill millions of people far away. Get rid of nuclear weapons and all these things. It has nothing to do with defensiveness and common security, and I say that wherever I go and whoever I speak to. Get rid of nuclear weapons and offensive long range weapons.

The only legitimate weapons there are in this world are defensive ones, and they are defined by two things. Short distance, ability to go only over a short distance, such as helicopters instead of fighter airplanes or missiles.

And second, limited destructive capacity because they’re going to be used on your own territory in case somebody encroaches or invades you. But nobody wants to have nuclear weapons or totally super destructive weapons on their own territory because they don’t want them to be used to there. So just ask yourself, what would you like in Country X, Y and Z to be defended with? And that’s a definition of a defensive weapons. If we all had only defensive military structures, there would be very few wars, but they would also not be a military-industrial-media-academic complex that earns the money on this.

The whole thing here that the big elephant in the room we are talking about is, well, there are two of them, is NATO expansion, which we should never have done this way. And secondly, it’s the interest of the military-industrial-media-academic complex, as I call it, that earns a hell of a lot of money on people’s suffering, and millions of people who, at this moment while we speak, are living in fear and despair because of what they see in the media is going to happen. None of what we see at this moment was necessary. It’s all made up by elites who have an interest in these kinds of things happening or the threat of the Cold War. And even if we avoid a big war now, and I hope, I don’t pray to anything, but I hope very much that we do, thanks to some people’s wisdom, and it’s going to be very cold in Europe in the future after this.

Look at the demonization that the West has done again against Russia, and to a certain extent, of Ukraine. This is not psychologically something that will be repaired in two weeks.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yeah, and also, as you mentioned at the beginning, it has also something to do with the unwillingness in part of certain of the Western elites to accept that we do not have an Anglo-American unipolar world, but that there are other countries that need to be listened to and respected.

Jan Oberg: Yeah, and you might add, what the West gets out of this is that Russia and China will get closer and closer. You are already seeing the common declaration. We will have friendship eternally. And that’s between two countries who up to the sixties at some point were very strong enemies. And the same will go with Iran, and there would be other countries like Serbia which are turning away from the West. We’re going to sit and be isolating ourselves because, one, we cannot bully the world anymore, as we could before in the West. And secondly, nobody wants to be bullied anymore. We have to live in a world in which there are different systems. This Christian missionary idea that everybody must become like us. We opened up to China because then we hope they would become liberal democracies with many parties, and the parliament is awfully naïve. And time is over for that kind of thinking.

Michelle Rasmussen: I want to go into the other two subjects. Firstly, the question of the negotiations between Denmark and the United States in the context of the political, military and media statements of recent years alleging that Russia has aggressive intentions against Europe and the U.S. the Danish Social Democratic government announced on February 10th that a year ago, the U.S. requested negotiations on a Defense Cooperation Agreement, and that Denmark was now ready to start these negotiations. The government announced that it could mean permanent stationing of U.S. troops and armaments on Danish soil. And if so, this would be against the decades-long policy of the Danish government not to allow foreign troops or armaments permanently stationed in Denmark. And you wrote an article two days later criticizing these negotiations. Why are you against this?

Jan Oberg: I’m against it because it’s a break of 70 years of sensible policies. We do not accept foreign weapons and we do not accept foreign troops, and we do not accept nuclear weapons stationed on Danish soil. I sat, for ten years, all throughout the 1980s, in the Danish Governments Commission for Security and Disarmament as an expert. Nobody in the 80s would have mentioned anything like this. I guess the whole thing is something that had begun to go mad around 20 years ago, when Denmark engaged and became a bomber nation for the first time in Yugoslavia. And then Afghanistan and Iraq, and it means that you cannot say no. This is an offer you can’t refuse. You can’t refuse it, among other things, it’s my interpretation, because you remember the story where President Trump suggested that he or the U.S. could buy Greenland, and the prime minister Mette Frederiksen said, ‘Well, that is not something to be discussed. The question is absurd,’ after which he got very angry. He got personally very angry, and he said, ‘It’s not a matter of speaking to me. You’re speaking to the United States of America.’ And I think this offer to begin negotiations must have come relatively shortly after that, as ‘This offer is not something you should call absurd once again.’ I’ve no evidence for that. But if these negotiations started more than a year ago, we are back in the Trump administration.

And secondly, what kind of democracy is that? We do not know what that letter in which the Americans asked to have negotiations about this, when it was written and what the content of it was. But what we hear is that a little more than a year ago, we began some negotiations about this whole thing, that is behind the back of the parliament, and behind the back of the people, and then is presented more or less as a fait accompli. There will be an agreement. The question is only nitty-gritty, what will be in it.

In terms of substance, there is no doubt that any place where there would be American facilities based in sites, so whenever you’d call it, weapon stored will be the first targets in a war, seen as such in a war, under the best circumstances, seen by Russia. Russia’s first targets will be to eliminate the Americans everywhere they can in Europe, because those are the strongest and most dangerous forces.

Secondly, it is not true that there is a no to nuclear weapons in other senses than Denmark will keep up the principle that we will not have them stationed permanently. But with such an agreement where the Air Force, Navy and soldiers, military, shall more frequently work with, come in to visit, etc., there’s no doubt that there will be more nuclear weapons coming into, for instance, on American vessels than before, because the cooperation would be closer and closer.

Jan Oberg: And there the only thing the Danish government will do is, since they know that the “neither confirm nor deny policy” of the U.S., they would not even ask the question. If they are asked by journalists, they would say, “Well, we take for granted that the Americans honor or understand and respect that we will not have nuclear weapons on Danish territory, sea territory, or whatever. Now the Americans are violating that in Japan even. So, this is this is nonsense. There would be more nuclear weapons. I’m not saying they would go off or anything like that. I’m just saying there would be more undermining of Danish principles.

And then the whole thing, of course, has to do with the fact that Denmark is placing itself — and that was something the present government under Mette Frederiksen’s leadership did before this was made public — is to put 110 percent of your eggs in the U.S. basket. This is the most foolish thing you can do, given the world change. The best thing a small country can do is to uphold international law and the UN. Denmark doesn’t. It speaks like the U.S. for an international rules-based order, which is the opposite of, or very far away from the international law.

And secondly, in a world where you are going to want multipolarity, a stronger Asia, stronger Africa, another Russia from the one we have known the last 30 years, etc., and a United States that is, on all indicators except the military, declining and will fall as the world leader. This is, in my view, be careful with my words, the most foolish thing you can do at the moment, if you are a leader of Denmark, or if you leading the Danish security politics. You should be open — I wrote an article about that in a small Danish book some six or seven years ago, and said “Walk on two legs.” Remain friendly with the United States and NATO, and all that, but develop your other leg, so you can walk on two legs in the next 20, 30, 40 years. But there’s nobody that thinks so long term in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there’s nobody who thinks independently anymore in research institutes or ministries. It’s basically adapting to everything we think, or are told by Washington we should do. And that’s not foreign policy to me. There’s nothing to do with it.

Jan Oberg: A good foreign policy is one where you have a good capacity to analyze the world, do scenarios, discuss which way to go, pros and contras, and different types of futures, and then make this decision in your parliament based on a public discussion. That was what we did early, 60s, 70s and 80s. And then also when you become a bomber nation, when you become a militaristic one, when active foreign policy means nothing but militarily active, then, of course, you are getting closer and closer and closer down into the into the darkness of the hole, where suddenly you fall so deeply you cannot see the daylight, where the hole is. I think it’s very sad. I find it tragic. I find it very dangerous. I find that Denmark will be a much less free country in the future by doing these kinds of things. And, don’t look at the basis of this agreement as an isolated thing. It comes with all the things we’ve done, all the wars Denmark has participated in. Sorry, I said we, I don’t feel Danish anymore, so I should say Denmark or the Danes. And finally, I have a problem with democratically elected leaders who seem to be more loyal to a foreign government, than with their own people’s needs.

China and Xinjiang

Michelle Rasmussen: The last question is that, you just mentioned the lack of independence of analysis, and there’s not only an enemy image being painted against Russia, but also against China, with allegations of central government genocide against the Muslim Uyghur minority in Xinjiang province as a major point of contention. And on March 8th, 2021, the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington published a report The Uyghur Genocide, an examination of China’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention in cooperation with the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights in Montreal, and the next month, April 27, last year, you and two others issued a report which criticized this report. What is the basis of your criticism and what do you think should be done to lessen tension with China?

And also as a wrap-up question in the end, if you wanted to say anything else about what has to be done to make a change from looking at Russia and China as the autocratic enemies of the West, and to, instead, shift to a world in which there is cooperation between the major powers, which would give us the possibility of concentrating on such great task as economic development of the poorer parts of the world?

Jan Oberg: Well, of course, that’s something we could speak another hour about, but what we did in our in our tiny think tank here, which, by the way, is totally independent and people-financed and all volunteer. That’s why we can say and do what we think should be said and done and not politically in anybody’s hands or pockets, is that those reports, including the Newlines Institute’s report, does not hold water, would not pass as a paper for a master’s degree in social science or political science. We say that if you look into not only that report, but several other reports and researchers who were contributing to this genocide discussion, if you look into their work, they are very often related to the military-industrial-media-academic complex. And they are paid for, have formerly had positions somewhere else in that system, or are known for having hawkish views on China, Russia and everybody else outside the western sphere.

So when we began to look into this, we also began to see a trend. And that’s why we published shortly after a 150 page report about the new Cold War on China, and Xinjiang is part of a much larger orchestrated — and I’m not a conspiracy theorist. It’s all documented, in contrast to media and other research reports. It’s documented. You can see where we get our knowledge from, and on which basis we draw conclusions.

Whereas now, significantly, for Western scholarship and media, they don’t deal with, are not interested in sources. I’ll come back to that. It’s part of a much larger, only tell negative stories about China. Don’t be interested in China’s new social model. Don’t be interested in how they, in 30 to 40 years did what nobody else in humankind has ever done. Uplifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and creating a society that I can see the difference from, because I visited China in 1983, and I know what it looked like back then when they had just opened up, so to speak.

And what we are saying is not that we know what happened and happens in Xinjiang, because we’ve not been there and we are not a human rights organization. We are conflict resolution and peace proposal making policy think tank. But what we do say is, if you cannot come up with better arguments and more decent documentation, then probably you are not honest. If there’s nothing more you can show us to prove that there’s a genocide going on at Xinjiang, you should perhaps do your homework before you make these assertions and accusations.

That’s what we are saying, and we are also saying that it is peculiar that the last thing Mike Pompeo, Trump’s secretary of state, did in his office, I think on the 19th of January last year, was to say I hereby declare that Xinjiang is a genocide, and the State Department has still not published as much as one A4 page with the documentation.

So, I feel sad on a completely different level, and that is, Western scholarship is disappearing in this field. And those who may really have different views, analyses and question what we hear or uphold a plurality of viewpoints and interpretations of the world, we’re not listened to. I mean, I’m listening to elsewhere, but I’m not listened to in Western media, although I have forty five years of experience in these things and I’ve traveled quite a lot and worked in quite a lot of conflict and war zones. I can live with that, but I think it’s a pity for the Western world that we are now so far down the drain, that good scholarship is not what politics built on anymore. If it, I think it was at a point in time.

So what is also striking to me is, very quickly, the uniformity of the press. They have all written the day that the Newsline report that you referred to, was published, it was all over the place, including front pages of the leading Western newspapers, including the Danish Broadcasting’s website, etc., all saying the same thing, quoting the same bits of parts from it.

The uniformity of this is just mind boggling. How come that nobody said, “Hey, what is this Newlines Institute, by the way, that nobody had heard about before? Who are these people behind it? Who are the authors?” Anybody can sit on their chair and do quite a lot of research, which was impossible to do 20 years ago. If you are curious, if you are asked to be curious, if you are permitted to be curious, and do research in the media, in the editorial office where you are sitting, then you would find out lots of this here is B.S. Sorry to say so, intellectually, it’s B.S.

And so I made a little pastime, I wrote a very diplomatic letter to people at CNN, BBC, Reuters, etc. Danish and Norwegian, and Swedish media, those who write this opinion journalism about Xinjiang, and a couple of other things, and I sent the all our report, which is online, so it’s just a link, and I said kindly read this one, and I look forward to hearing from you. I’ve done this in about 50 or 60 cases, individually dug up their email addresses, et cetera. There is not one who has responded with anything. The strategy when you lie, or when you deceive, or when you have a political man, is don’t go into any dialogue with somebody who knows more or it’s critical of what you do.

That’s very sad. Our TFF Pressinfo goes to 20 people in BBC. They know everything we write about Ukraine, about China, about Xinjiang, et cetera. Not one has ever called.

These are the kinds of things that make me scared as an intellectual. One thing is what happens out in the world. That’s bad enough. But when I begin to find out how this is going on, how it is manipulated internally in editorial offices, close to foreign ministries, etc. or defense ministries is then I say, we are approaching the Pravda moment. The Pravda moment is not the present Pravda [newspaper], but the Pravda that went down with the Soviet Union. When I visited Russia, the Soviet Union at a time for conferences, et cetera, and I found out that very few people believed anything they saw in the media. Now, to me, it’s a question of whether the Western media, so-called free media want to save themselves or they want to become totally irrelevant, because at some point, as someone once said, you cannot lie all the time to all of the people, you may get away with lying to some, to some people, for some of the time.

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

Jan Oberg: Yeah. So the long story short is this is not good. This deceives people. And of course, some people, at some point, people will be very upset about that. They have been lied to. And also don’t make this reference anymore to free and state media. Viewers may like to hear that may not like it, but should know it, the US has just passed a law — They have three laws against China — How to intervene in all kinds of Chinese things, such as, for instance, trying to influence who will become the successor to Dalai Lama, and things like that. They are not finished at all about how to influence Taiwan, and all that, things they have nothing to do with, and which they decided between Nixon and Zhou Enlai that America accepted the One-China policy and would not mix themselves into Taiwanese issues. But that is another broken promise. These media are state media in the U.S. If you take Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, they are those, particularly the latter, who have disseminated most of these Xinjiang genocide stories, which then bounce back to BBC, etc. These are state media. As an agency for that in in Washington, it’s financed by millions of dollars, of course, and it has the mandate to make American foreign policy more understood, and promote U.S. foreign policy goals and views. Anybody can go to a website and see this. Again, I’m back to this, everybody can do what I’ve done. And that law that has just been passed says the U.S. sets aside 15 hundred million dollars, that’s one point five billion dollars in the next five years, to support education, training courses, whatever, for media people to write negative stories about China, particularly the Belt and Road Initiative. Now I look forward to Politiken [Danish newspaper] or Dagens Nyheter [Swedish newspaper] or whatever newspapers in the allied countries who would say, “This comes from a state U.S. media” when it does.

And so, my my view is there is a reason for calling it the military-industrial-media-academic complex, because it’s one cluster of elites who are now running the deception, but also the wars that are built on deception. And that is very sad where, instead, we should cooperate. I would not even say we should morally cooperate. I would say we have no choice on this Earth but to cooperate, because if we have a new Cold War between China and the West, we cannot solve humanity’s problems, whether it’s the climate issue, environmental issues, it’s poverty, it’s justice, income differences or cleavages, or modern technological problems or whatever. You take all these things, they are, by definition, global. And if we have one former empire, soon former empire, that does nothing but disseminate negative energy, criticize, demonize, running cold wars, basically isolating itself and going down.

We lack America to do good things. I’ve never been anti-American, I want to say that very clearly. I’ve never, ever been anti-American. I’m anti empire and militarism. And we need the United States, with its creativity, with its possibilities, with what it already has given the world, to also contribute constructively to a better world, together with the Russians, together with Europe, together with Africa, together with everybody else, and China, and stop this idea that we can only work with those who are like us, because if that’s what you want to do, you will have fewer and fewer to work with.

The world is going towards diversity. And we have other cultures coming up who have other ways of doing things, and we may like it or not. But the beauty of conflict resolution and peace is to do it with those who are different from you. It is not to make peace with those who already love, or are already completely identical with. This whole thing is, unfortunately, a conflict and peace illiteracy that has now completely overtaken the western world. Whereas I see people thinking about peace. I hear people mentioning the word peace. I do not hear Western politicians or media anymore mention the word peace. And when that word is not, and the discussion and the discourse has disappeared about peace, we are very far out.

Combine that with lack of intellectualism and an analytical capacity, and you will end up in militarism and war. You cannot forget these things, and then avoid a war. So in my view, there are other reasons than Russia, if you will, that we’re in a dangerous situation, and that the danger has to do with the West operating, itself, at the moment. Nobody in the world is threatening the United States or the West. If it goes down, it’s all of its own making. And I think that’s an important thing to say in these days when we always blame somebody else for our problems. That is not the truth.

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.

Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 16. februar 2022

Selv om den strategiske situation omkring Rusland og NATO fortsat er yderst farlig, udtalte Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, at der er sket en ændring. Det lykkedes Putin at fremprovokere en diskussion om Ruslands sikkerhedsbekymringer, idet han effektivt argumenterede for, at en nation eller blok af nationer ikke må forbedre dens sikkerhed på bekostning af andre.  Hun bemærkede fremadrettet bevægelse ved mødet mellem den tyske kansler Scholz og præsident Putin, selv om de transatlantiske krigshøge bliver ved med at insistere på, at Rusland kan invadere Ukraine “når som helst”. 

Idet LaRouche orienterede om en meddelelse fra den ukrainske statskvinde Natalia Vitrenko, sagde hun, at situationen i Ukraine fortsat er meget kompliceret, men at muligheden for en Minsk-2-aftale, som en del af en bredere Helsinki 2.0-diskussion kan muliggøre en ændring, hvor Ukraine bliver en bro mellem øst og vest i stedet for en krigszone. 

Det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at deltagerne i drøftelserne i slutningen af Den kolde Krig, den tidligere franske udenrigsminister Roland Dumas og den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør i Rusland Jack Matlock, offentligt har grebet ind for at “sætte tingene på plads” med hensyn til krisens oprindelse, dvs. det brudte løfte fra Vesten om, at der ikke vil ske nogen udvidelse af NATO mod øst, hvilket afslører den historiske sandhed i modsætning til de løgnagtige fortællinger, der kommer fra den transatlantiske side.

Hun opfordrede alle seere til at mobilisere så mange mennesker som muligt til at se Schiller Instituttets konference denne lørdag den 19. februar, så det bliver klart, at der er et alternativ til det økonomiske sammenbrud, der ligger bag krigskampagnen, og det er det unikke sæt af løsninger, som Lyndon LaRouche har frembragt.

I anledning af Lyndon LaRouches død den 12. februar 2019 inviterer vi dig til at møde eller opfriske dit kendskab til en af de sidste 100 års største geniers sind og personlighed. Geni uden skønhed er ikke geni overhovedet. Deltag i vores LaRouche-maraton, og tag dine venner med, både unge og gamle.

Den 10. februar 2022 — Goddag Harley; goddag Andrey.

Jeg har en lidt anderledes opfattelse: Jeg mener, at uanset hvem der er ansvarlig for gennemførelsen af sanktionerne rettet mod Afghanistan og for indefrysningen af afghanske aktiver i USA og i Europa efter Talebans magtovertagelse i august, også bærer ansvaret for følgende: Ifølge den tyske UNICEF-chef, Christian Schneider, er 1 million børn under fem år akut underernærede i Afghanistan, og deres tilstand er af en sådan beskaffenhed, at de i Tyskland ville skulle behandles på en intensivafdeling, hvilket betyder, at de under de nuværende omstændigheder sandsynligvis vil dø. Ifølge FN befinder 8,7 millioner mennesker sig i en fremskreden tilstand af sult; 24,4 millioner eller 55 % af befolkningen befinder sig i en nødsituation, hvilket betyder, at de mangler alle de basale livsfornødenheder, mens 98 % ikke har nok at spise. Flere og flere familier sælger nogle af deres børn i håb om, at de andre vil overleve, og folk sælger deres organer.

Også massemedierne i USA og Europa har efter en kortvarig medieomtale i august og begyndelsen af september, næsten intet rapporteret om denne værste humanitære krisesituation på kloden. Lederne af de NATO-lande, som trak sig så hastigt tilbage fra Afghanistan i august, vidste naturligvis, at 80 % af landets budget kom fra bistand fra donorlandene, og at kombinationen af annulleringen af disse midler, indefrysning af afghansk kapital og sanktionerne ville kvæle Afghanistans økonomi fra den ene dag til den anden.

Efter seks måneders tragedie og utallige forgæves appeller, bortset fra et par små indrømmelser for nylig, må man spørge sig selv, hvad hensigten med denne politik er? Argumentet om at Taleban først skal anerkende kvindernes rettigheder osv. synes at være absurd, når disse kvinder og deres børn er døde. Er det hensigten at sabotere Talebans evne til at opretholde en fungerende stat i et sådant omfang, at oppositionen, herunder ISIS, al-Qaeda, narkotikasmuglere, krigsherrer osv. får herredømmet?

Konsekvensen ville være en ny og blodig borgerkrig, et helvede, hvor civilbefolkningen – mellem sult, frostgrader, COVID, epidemier, osv. som polio, mæslinger, dengue-feber og diarré – vil blive knust, og millioner af flygtninge vil forsøge at søge sikkerhed i nabolandene og i Europa. Det ville være en fortsættelse af det britiske imperiums store spil af Bernard Lewis og Zbigniew Brzezinski, som har til formål at sikre den geopolitiske destabilisering af Rusland og Kina, og at forhindre den økonomiske integration af Eurasien gennem Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet ved hjælp af de gamle virkemidler som terrorisme, opiumskrige og etniske konflikter. Hvis denne politik “lykkes”, vil den blot være endnu et element i den store afsluttende akt i menneskehedens tragedie, som udspiller sig på verdenshistoriens scene, mellem Vestens modstandere og Rusland og Kina, og som nu har nået et punkt, der beskrives af {Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists} som 100 sekunder før midnat på dommedags-uret.

Der findes et modtræk til at redde Afghanistan, som jeg har kaldt “Operation Ibn Sina”. Ibn Sina, som levede for ca. 1.000 år siden, var en af de største læger i verdenshistorien, hvis {Canon of Medicine} forblev en delvis reference indtil det 18. århundrede. Ibn Sina blev født i det nuværende Usbekistan; hans far stammede fra Balkh i Afghanistan. I tider med corona-pandemien er det yderst vigtigt at huske, at det var ham, der bl.a. erkendte karantænens enorme betydning for bekæmpelsen af epidemier. Ud over at være et fremragende renæssancemenneske kan han udgøre en symbolsk figur for redningen af Afghanistan.

Operation Ibn Sina kan skabe en forandring til det bedre på to måder. For det første kan den blive et synonym for internationalt samarbejde om at opbygge et moderne sundhedsvæsen og tilvejebringelse af mad til det afghanske folk. Hvis alle nabolande, såvel som USA og de europæiske nationer, der kæmpede i Afghanistan i 20 år som en del af NATO, og som derfor har en himmelråbende moralsk forpligtelse, hjælper befolkningen ud af denne ufortjente akutte nød og samarbejder om et lynprogram for bistandshjælp, kan det værste stadig afværges.

Ud over det humanitære aspekt vil Operation Ibn Sina også have en militærstrategisk dimension. Hvis Rusland, Kina, USA og Indien, de fire nationer med den største militære og økonomiske betydning eller befolkningsstørrelse, kunne samarbejde, kunne det udvikle sig til en tillidsskabende foranstaltning til løsning af de store strategiske konflikter. Afghanistan er i modsætning til Ukraine eller Taiwan, der har strategisk betydning, ikke en af Ruslands og Kinas kerneinteresser. Det ligger mange tusinde kilometer væk fra USA, mens Indien på den anden side har en central interesse i stabiliteten i egne geografiske omgivelser. Samarbejdet mellem disse fire magter, foruden mobiliseringen af andre eksisterende formater, såsom “Troika-plus”, SCO og OIC [Organisationen for islamisk Samarbejde], med det formål at redde Afghanistan, kan være et skridt i retning af det nye paradigme i internationale relationer, uden hvilket det ikke vil være muligt at sikre menneskehedens fortsatte overlevelse.

Der er intet sted på denne jord – og det omfatter det strategisk eksplosive potentiale i de destabiliserende operationer omkring Ukraine og Taiwan – hvor menneskehedens moralske egnethed til at overleve, afprøves hårdere end i Afghanistan. Det er ikke vores sikkerhed, som vi skal forsvare i Hindu Kush, som den daværende tyske forsvarsminister Peter Struck havde hævdet den 11. marts 2004 for at motivere Tysklands deltagelse i krigen i Afghanistan, men det er vores medmenneskelighed.

Militære strateger, opfordres til at tage højde for et måske ukendt domæne for strategisk tænkning: Befolkningens moralske habitus – både deres egen befolkning og deres modstanders. Da den Franske Revolution mislykkedes på grund af den jakobinske terror, konstaterede Friedrich Schiller, at “et stort øjeblik havde fundet et lille folk”, at selv om den objektive mulighed var til stede, var den subjektive moralske kapacitet utilstrækkelig. Han skrev derefter {De æstetiske Breve} i den overbevisning, at fra nu af ville enhver forbedring på det politiske område, udelukkende være mulig gennem en forædling af den enkeltes karakter. Han mente, at “uddannelsen af evnen for ‘{Empfindungsvermögen}’, empati, er tidens mest presserende behov”, fordi det “vækker forbedringen af forståelsen”.

Ud fra dette perspektiv er overvindelsen af den “fordærvede ligegyldighed” hos dele af befolkningen, som gør dem lige så ufølsomme over for andre folks lidelser som for virkningerne af deres geopolitisk motiverede dæmonisering af den formodede fjende, en strategisk faktor af højeste betydning. “Operation Ibn Sina” bør derfor blive det flag, under hvilket alle kræfter, der ønsker at redde det afghanske folk, samles, af barmhjertighed, agapē, som ønsker at skabe et nyt paradigme i de strategiske relationer, som middel til endelig at overvinde truslen om krig, og som ønsker at forsvare vores arts menneskelighed.

Lyndon LaRouches revolutionære ideer om fysisk økonomi, ideen om de nødvendige konstante opjusteringer af den verdensøkonomiske platform, er baseret på den universelle nødvendighed af kreative opdagelser. Man kan nærme sig denne idé ved at se på LaRouches arbejde med at fremme idéerne fra især tre videnskabsmænd: Leibniz, Bernard Riemann og Vladimir Vernadskij. Anvendelserne af LaRouches arbejde blev til idéen om udviklingskorridoren i 1980’erne, og er det aktive program, der nu er kendt som “Operation Ibn Sina”, som i høj grad er en del af Schiller Instituttets Komité for Modsætningers Sammenfald.

Blandt talerne vil være Harley Schlanger og medlemmer af LaRouche-organisationen.

(Komitéen blev grundlagt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den tidligere amerikanske chefmilitærlæge i USA Joycelyn Elders, da COVID-pandemien brød ud, og der var behov for et moderne globalt sundhedssystem. Denne omfattende platform kræver, at der skabes 1,5 milliarder produktive arbejdspladser for at skaffe vand, elektricitet og anden infrastruktur til at skabe et moderne sundhedsvæsen i alle nationer på planeten.)

Panel 1 inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsens tale.
Se også Panel 2 med Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale:

Videokonferencen kan her ses på denne side og her på den internationale Schiller Instituts hjemmeside.

Talerlisten inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsen fra Danmark.

Den nuværende strategiske krise mellem USA og Rusland med dens potentielle termonukleare undergang, er en trussel mod hele menneskeheden. Der skal etableres en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som garanterer retten til sikkerhed og økonomisk og kulturel udvikling for alle nationer.

Vi må tilbageføre dommedags-uret, ved at se på årsagerne til krig:

– Den ødelæggende, hyperinflationære eksplosion af det transatlantiske, neoliberale finanssystem

– De angloamerikanske eliters dødbringende fantasi om, at de for evigt kan påtvinge verden deres “regelbaserede orden” [i modsætning til en “lovbaserede orden”.]

Schiller Instituttet afholder denne hårdt tiltrængte dialog, for at drøfte årsagerne til den store globale krise og finde løsningerne på disse.

Panel 1; kl. 16 dansk tid:

Hvem og hvad er drivkraften bag fremdriften mod en verdenskrig? Hvor tæt er vi på?

Talerlisten på engelsk:

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Keynote: Harley Schlanger (US), The Schiller Institute: “What Happens After D-Day? Will Russia Invade Ukraine?”

Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), Chairwoman, Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU): “Ukraine’s Role in Present World Affairs”

Graham Fuller (US), 25-year career as a CIA operations officer, author: “The Validity of the Concept of Spheres of Influence”

Col. (ret). Alain Corvez (France), International Consultant, former Counselor for the French Defense and Interior Ministries, “Evaluation of the Strategic Situation; a French Perspective”

Jens Jorgen Nielsen (Denmark), former Moscow correspondent for the Danish daily Politiken; author; Director, Russian-Danish Dialogue and assistant professor, communication and cultural differences. Niels Brock Business School. “Why We Need a New Security Architecture.”

James Jatras (US), diplomat, former advisor to U.S. Senate Republican leadership: “The Evolution of NATO in the Post-Soviet Period”

Q&A Session

Panel 2: kl. 20 dansk tid:

Udformning af en ny strategisk arkitektur: Den russisk-kinesiske fælles aftale af 6. februar, og det økonomiske udviklingsperspektiv for Schiller Instituttets forslag om Verdenslandbroen. 

Moderator: Dennis Small (US), Ibero-American Director, Executive Intelligence Review

Keynote: Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder and chairwoman of The Schiller Institute: “Long-Term Survival: A New International Security Architecture”

Shakeel Ahmad Ramay (Pakistan), Political Economist: “Imran Khan’s Proposal for Pakistan To Mediate the U.S. and China”

Alejandro Yaya (Argentina), Civil Institute of Space Technology: “Argentina Joins the Belt and Road Initiative”

Dr. Carlos Gallardo (Peru), President, Christian Democratic Party of Peru: “Development Is the Name of Peace in South America”

Tony Magliano (US), Internationally syndicated Catholic social justice and peace columnist. “War Is Not Inevitable! We Have a Moral Obligation To Save Afghans from Starving! The Need To Create a New, Human-Centered Paradigm”

Q&A Session

———————

Den opringelige invitation:

Schiller Instituttet afholder en international online-konference med to paneler lørdag den 19. februar, for at stadfæste denne særdeles fornuftige erklæring fra de fem atomvåbenmagter og permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som de bekræftede i en fælles erklæring den 3. januar i år. Konferencen vil også fremlægge en {løsning} på den nuværende krise: etableringen af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, der garanterer alle nationer retten til sikkerhed og til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. For at gøre dette er det bydende nødvendigt med en dialog om årsagerne til og løsningerne på den nuværende krise.

I den sidste uge af januar afholdt USA’s strategiske kommando øvelsen Global Lightning for at teste de amerikanske atomstyrkers beredskab som led i en atomkrigsplan, der har været i kraft siden 2019, og som er baseret på den antagelse, at USA og NATO ville være i stand til at overleve et atomart, første angreb fra Rusland eller Kina, for derefter at gøre gengæld, at absorbere yderligere angreb, at gøre gengæld igen osv. i en vedvarende militær konfrontation.

Præsident Putin havde i 2018 bekendtgjort Ruslands nye atomvåbensystemer, herunder det hypersoniske missil Avangard, det hypersoniske krydsermissil Kinzhal, atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige undervandsdroner og laservåben. Dette var et enormt chok for det vestlige militære etablissement.

Men præsident Putin reagerede på farverevolutionerne fra 2004-2014 og de såkaldte “humanitære” krige rettet mod alle regeringer, som var uvillige til at lade deres egne nationer blive udplyndret. De 5 milliarder dollars, der blev brugt på NGO’ere alene i Ukraine, er velkendt, hvilket i sidste ende blev til det nazistiske Maidan-kup i februar 2014, lige uden for Ruslands dørtrin.

Den 17. december 2021 fremlagde Putin to udkast til traktater til USA og NATO, hvor han insisterede på, at der ikke måtte ske nogen yderligere udvidelse af NATO mod øst (især ind i Ukraine), og at der ikke skulle stationeres offensive våbensystemer ved Ruslands grænser. I betragtning af den manglende seriøse reaktion indtil videre, har Putin bebudet “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” i tilfælde af en endelig afvisning.

En amerikansk ekspert har beskrevet, at han formoder, at Ruslands “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” kan omfatte opstilling af hypersoniske Zircon-krydsermissiler med atomvåben, der affyres fra havet ud for Washington D.C., som russiske eksperter tidligere har udtalt kunne ødelægge den amerikanske hovedstad så hurtigt, at præsidenten ikke ville have tid til at gå om bord på Air Force One for at undslippe.

Flere og flere mennesker vågner op til den kendsgerning, at der kun er de berømte hundrede sekunder før midnat tilbage på dommedags-uret.

For at standse uret må årsagerne til krig tages op til behandling: 1) Det transatlantiske neoliberale finanssystems hyperinflationære slutfase; og 2) det finansielle etablissements dødbringende fantasi i City of London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley om, at de kan gennemtvinge deres “regelbaserede orden” i en unipolær verden i al evighed.

De grundlæggende årsager går tilbage til skiftet i august 1971, der blev profetisk erkendt af Lyndon LaRouche, da Nixon effektivt afsluttede Bretton Woods-systemet ved at afskaffe de faste valutakurser og dermed banede vejen for spekulativ profitmaksimering. Dette forårsagede det stigende skift væk fra investeringer i den produktive, fysiske økonomi og hen imod spekulation i stadig mere eksotiske, derivat-baserede finansielle produkter, og nu “flyttes trillioner” til den grønne New Deal.

Set fra et fysisk økonomisk perspektiv, repræsenterer denne politik for at drive investeringer ind i industrier med den lavest mulige energi-gennemstrømningstæthed, i sidste ende en omfattende ødelæggelse af kapital, ligesom investeringer i den militære produktion af våbensystemer.

Alt for mange mennesker er forvirrede omkring finansielle værdier, som adskiller sig fra reel værdiskabelse. De har købt den illusion, at børsnoterede selskabers aktie værdier siger noget om økonomiens produktivitet – hvilket de ikke gør.

Nogle mere fornuftige røster har talt til fordel for en ny paneuropæisk sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter Rusland og Ukraine, i en ny Helsinki-aftale. Men i betragtning af den komplekse verdenssituation, truslen mod verdensfreden, der berører alle stater, og det faktum at enhvers sikkerhed er indiskutabel, er det nødvendigt at gå videre end Helsinki og skabe en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter sikkerhedsinteresserne for samtlige lande på jorden.

Et sådant forslag er netop uddybet i en artikel, som Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for nylig har offentliggjort: “100 sekunder til midnat på dommedags-uret”: Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!” Denne arkitektur skal være baseret på principperne fra den Westfalske Fred; dvs. den må garantere alle staters interesser og frem for alt deres ret til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. Bevarelsen af verdensfreden kræver en total og definitiv afstandtagen fra malthusiansk politik, og kræver universel adgang for alle nationer til de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, der er opnået. Denne nye orden – som er en forudsætning for menneskehedens overlevelse – fordrer et nyt paradigme af tænkning, der må bygge på de bedste klassiske traditioner fra alle kulturer på det højeste humanistiske niveau.

Hvem kan benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab?

Vi har et valg: Enten lader vi uret tikke videre, indtil det sidste af de hundrede sekunder er gået, og så vil der ikke være nogen tilbage til at kommentere resultatet, eller også kan vi ihukomme, at vi er den eneste kendte kreative art i universet, og sammen skabe vores fælles fremtid.

Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender (RIAC) og Schiller Instituttet (SI) indkalder til et seminar, torsdag den 10. februar, 2022, kl. 14 dansk tid om emnet:

Blandt de emner, der vil blive drøftet af et panel af seks talere, vil være:  

Hvad er årsagerne til den humanitære krise i Afghanistan?

Hvad er de geopolitiske konsekvenser af en nødlidende stat i Afghanistan?

Hvad skal der til for at vende den umiddelbare risiko for omfattende hungersnød og flygtningeproblemer?

En langsigtet løsning på den humanitære krise: de globale magters rolle.

Indlednings- og afslutningserklæringer vil blive præsenteret af Dr. Andrej Kortunov, generaldirektør for RIAC, og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, (international) formand for SI.

Andre talere vil være:

Ivan Safranchuk, direktør fra Center for Eurasiske Studier ved MGIMO-universitetet

Temur Umarov, forsker ved Carnegie Moscow Center

Jim Jatras, amerikansk diplomat, tidligere rådgiver for det republikanske parti i det amerikanske senat

Graham Fuller, 25 års karriere som operativ CIA-officer, forfatter

Seminaret varer to timer og vil være tilgængeligt på Schiller Instituttets websted.

———————

Der er også en Schiller Institut videokonference lørdag den 19. februar med titlen: 

100 sekunder til midnat på Dommedags-uret – Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!

“En atomkrig kan ikke vindes og må aldrig udkæmpes.”

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Resumé:
Før åbningsceremonien ved OL i Beijing er der topmøde mellem Putin og Xi Jinping hvor Rusland og Kina vil bekræfte det tætte venskab og nok fremlægge nye økonomiske samarbejdsaftaler. Man forbereder at gøre sig uafhængige af amerikanske dollars og SWIFT-systemet. Vestens diplomatiske boykot understreger at man ikke kan regne med Vesten.

Mette Frederiksens pressemøde på Marienborg, hvor hun annoncerede at Danmark nu er i frontlinjen imod Rusland og ikke ville have en ligeværdig dialog er en farlig kurs. Arrogance + Ignorance = Katastrofe. Man er ikke dumme men dumlærde. Man fravælger med fuldt overlæg fakta, hvis de ikke passer ind i fortællingen man forsøger at sælge. Man overser de dramatiske konsekvenser af de beslutninger man træffer som i FE-sagen, Minksagen og nu korstoget imod Rusland.

Rusland havde ikke kun fået mundtlige løfter om at NATO ikke ville blive udvidet mod Øst. OSCE-aftalen fra Istanbul i 1999 garanterede ikke kun frihed for stater til at indgå alliancer for egen sikkerhed, men også at dette ikke måtte ske på bekostning af andre landes. Der har man ikke respekteret ved udvidelsen af NATO og diskussionen om at integrere Ukraine i Nato. Vi må forhandle og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina så alle kan leve trygt og sikkert.

Hvordan kan Vesten beskylde Kina for at lave (et ikke eksisterende) folkemord i Xinjiang, når man selv gennemfører et reelt folkemord i Afghanistan gennem at fastholde sanktioner og tilbageholde Afghanistans penge i vestlige banker? 20 mio. børn sulter og mange vil dø her i vinter, hvis ikke Vesten skifter kurs.

Se interview med Liu Xing fra Aalborg Universitet på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

Nedsmeltningen af det transatlantiske finansielle system er i gang. Siden 2008 er det blevet opbygget gigantiske finansboler under 13 år med negative renter og kvantitative lempelser. Inflationen i USA er nu 7 % og den er over 5 % i EU. Det er kun begyndelsen. Den kæmpe gæld der er opbygget skal der nu betales renter på og det er der ikke råd til. Der skal betales mere og værdierne er langt mindre værd. Det kan kun gå galt.

Eneste løsning er LaRouches fire økonomiske love. Lær af Kina. Rusland skal ikke vælge mellem Europa og Asien men være bindeled mellem Europa og Kina.

Hvedebrødsdagene er måske ovre for den danske regering. Kan ikke længere gemme sig bag COVID-19. Se på verden med friske øjne inden det er for sent. Gå med i Schiller Instituttet.

Diskussion: Den danske håndtering af COVID-19 var meget bedre end mange andre steder, men det var ikke pga. af regeringen, men fordi der var en høj grad af tillid og samfundssind blandt befolkningen. Husk at mange lande i Europa ikke som Danmark er hoppet med på briternes korstog imod Rusland.

KØBENHAVN, 31. januar (EIRNS)- I dag, to dage efter at den danske statsminister Mette Frederiksen sagde, at hun ville overveje at sende våben til Ukraine, blev der indkaldt til et pressemøde på Marienborg med statsministeren, udenrigsminister Jeppe Kofod og forsvarsminister Trine Bramsen for at lancere regeringens nye Udenrigs- og Forsvarspolitiske Strategi. EIR havde mulighed for at stille et spørgsmål. Første del af pressekonferencen blev transmitteret direkte på TV2 News, og anden del, der startede med EIR’s spørgsmål, blev transmitteret direkte på TV2 Play.

Danmark er midt i beslutningen om, hvorvidt man vil følge den britiske eskaleringspolitik eller afvise den, som flere og flere europæiske lande gør. For to dage siden udtalte statsminister Mette Frederiksen til Jyllands-Posten: »Jeg vil ikke udelukke (at sende militært isenkram til Ukraine, red.), og jeg har ingen principiel modstand mod, at vi gør det. Situationen omkring Ukraine udgør nu en alvorlig trussel mod Europa, og der er en reel risiko for en væbnet konflikt på europæisk jord. Skulle situationen i Ukraine eskalere yderligere, vil Rusland også blive mødt med sanktioner af »en hidtil ukendt dimension«.« Dette var også budskabet på pressekonferencen.

Inden EIR’s spørgsmål blev ministrene spurgt, om Danmark ville sende våben og endda tropper til Ukraine. Indtil videre har Ukraines forsvarsminister bedt om dansk støtte til at håndtere cyberangreb, sagde Forsvarsministeren.

Her er Statsministerens udveksling med EIR-journalist Michelle Rasmussen:

EIR: Det er Michelle Rasmussen, Executive Intelligence Review.

I forgårs sagde Ukraines forsvarsminister Reznikov, at situationen langs grænsen til Rusland er den samme, som for et år siden. At der er ingen aktioner eller fænomener af betydning. Præsident Zelensky sagde, at USA bør holde op med at sige, at krig er umiddelbart forstående – at man ikke skal skabe panik.

Hvis Danmark sender våben til Ukraine, en politik, som er ført an af Storbritannien lige nu, vil det bare optrappe krisen, så vel som, hvis man indførte endnu hårdere sanktioner, som også vil ramme Europa, eller USA’s krigsspil, som Global Lightning [øvelse afholdt af USA’s strategiske kommando -red.}, om hvordan man fortsætter en atomkrig efter et førsteslagsangreb?

Er det ikke bedre, at have alvorlige forhandlinger med Rusland angående et muligt NATO-medlemskab for Ukraine, offensive våben langs grænsen, og at forhandle om en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur, som inkluderer Rusland, som vi burde have gjort i 1991? 

Mette Frederiksen: At vi skulle have givet Rusland indflydelse på den europæiske infrastruktur i 1991?

EIR: At efter Sovjetunionens opløsning var der lagt op til —

Mette Frederiksen: Det er helt klart, at det er kun Europa og europæere der bestemmer, hvordan vores infrastruktur skal se ud. Vi ønsker selvfølgelig at have en dialog med Rusland. Det har vi. Det har vi i NATO-sporet. Det har vi mellem Europa og Rusland. Og det ønsker vi at have fremadrettet. Vi har hele vejen igennem det her appelleret til Rusland om at vælge en diplomatisk løsning, og går dialogens vej.

Det vi samtidig siger er, hvis Rusland vælger at angribe Ukraine, så svarer vi selvfølgelig igen.

Men lad mig gentage. Hvordan Europæere vælger at indrette sig, det er et anlæggende for Europa, ikke for nogen som helst andre.

Jyllands-Posten.

EIR: Undskyld. Udenrigsministeren vil sige noget. 

Mette Frederiksen: Vi skal have flere spørgsmål. Jyllands-Posten, værsgo.