På engelsk:

Aug. 18 – With nearly all policy-makers and strategic analysts in the trans-Atlantic sector of the world in a clueless state of utter chaos and hysteria over the developments in Afghanistan, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche today convoked an urgent international seminar for this coming Saturday, August 21 to pursue the only available solution to the crisis: peace through development. The seminar will continue the prescient discussion held by the Schiller Institute on July 31, with many of the same panelists, as well as new ones.

Resumé på engelsk her, afskrift på dansk nedenunder:

Resumé:
Aug. 17 (EIRNS)—The dramatic developments surrounding the Taliban takeover of Kabul is not the end of the world, as the Western media hysterically claims, the head of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized in her weekly Schiller Institute webcast this morning. Rather, it is very good that 40 years of war in Afghanistan is ending, because that has opened the possibility of integrating Afghanistan into a regional economic perspective, through China’s Belt and Road Initiative, in which reconstruction can begin. We must take this opportunity to bring stability and economic development to the Afghan people, she argued. Russia, China and the Central Asian nations are cooperating on this endeavor; it is time Europe and the United States join in.
But! This does require a complete change in approach, she noted. The failure of this regime-change war, and the previous ones since WWII, stand exposed. The war was wrong from the beginning, as the continuing investigation by the 9/11 families into who was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks are uncovering, and as Lyndon LaRouche warned on the very day the attacks occurred. More needs to be done. And there was never a viable war plan.

Some Western political leaders are reacting thoughtfully. German CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet stated that this was the biggest failure of NATO, ever. Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod called for reflection and soul-searching. Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed out the special responsibility that the U.S. has, in President John Quincy Adams’ words, to not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Now, as presented in the July 31, 2021 Schiller Institute video conference, “Afghanistan: A Turning Point in History after the Failed Regime-Change Era,” there is a potential for a new era of real nation-building in Afghanistan, and the rest of the world, if the Western nations cooperate with the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative, along with Afghanistan’s neighbors, and drop their geopolitical goals of preventing China and Russia from playing leading roles in the world. Many Afghan development plans are already on the drawing boards, and there is great humanitarian need, starting with building a modern health system, other infrastructure and agricultural alternatives to opium production. There will be great pressure on the Taliban from the outside, with offers of economic development contingent upon how they act.

The last section of the interview was about the purpose and results of the August 14, 2021 video conference “On the 50th Anniversary of Lyndon LaRouche’s Stunning Forecast of August 15, 1971: So, are you finally willing to learn economics?” sponsored by the LaRouche Legacy Foundation (LLF).

Those watching were urged to watch and spread both that LLF video conference, and the Schiller Institute video conference on peace through development for Afghanistan. Don’t stand on the sidelines while history is being made.

Link: Schiller Instituttets Afghanistan-konference:
Spred ideen om et fælles udviklingsprogram med det samme

Link: Videokonference: På 50-årsdagen for LaRouches forbløffende prognose den 15. august 1971:
Nå, er du så endelig villig til at lære økonomi? Lørdag den 14. august eller bagefter

Afskrift:

MICHELLE RASMUSSEN: Goddag, i dag er den 17. august, 2021. Jeg hedder Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, og jeg vil lave et interview med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet.

Søndag fulgte mennesker overalt i verden intensivt den dramatiske udvikling fra time til time i Afghanistan, da Taleban overtog kontrollen over Kabul, og de vestlige diplomater og den afghanske præsident flygtede, og mange afghanere forsøger stadig at flygte.
 
Den 31. juli, for bare to uger siden, afholdt Schiller Instituttet en meget vigtig videokonference med titlen: “Afghanistan: Et vendepunkt i historien efter tiden med de fejlslagne ‘regimeskifte’-krige,” hvor du erklærede, at afslutningen på det vestlige militære engagement i Afghanistan kunne være en gylden mulighed for at afslutte geopolitikkens æra og indlede et samarbejde mellem nationer for at etablere fred gennem økonomisk udvikling.
   
Der vil også være et opfølgende arrangement denne lørdag med mange af de samme eksperter. Klik her.

Hvad er din reaktion, Helga, på begivenhederne i Kabul, og hvad skal der gøres nu?
 
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Først og fremmest er jeg ikke enig med de vestlige mediers hysteri om, at dette er verdens ende. Det første der må gøres klart er, at det afslutter 40 års krig for det afghanske folk, og hvis folk har en fornemmelse af, hvad det vil sige at leve i en så langvarig krig, alle lidelserne for civilbefolkningen, alle de frygtelige ting folk måtte udholde, hvad angår droneangreb, og angst, jeg synes først og fremmest, det er meget godt, at krigen er slut.
Og jeg tror,​​ at det tværtimod er en reel chance for at integrere Afghanistan i et regionalt økonomisk udviklingsperspektiv, som grundlæggende er defineret af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ. Der er en meget klar aftale mellem Rusland og Kina om at samarbejde om håndteringen af​​ denne situation. De centralasiatiske republikker er interesseret i at sikre, at der er stabilitet og økonomisk udvikling. Der er mulighed for at forlænge CPEC, Den kinesisk-pakistanske økonomiske Korridor, ind i Afghanistan, ind i Centralasien. Så jeg synes, det er en reel mulighed.
Men det kræver en fuldstændig ændring i tilgangen. Jeg tror,​​ at nogle mennesker har en fornemmelse af det. Tysklands CDU-kanslerkandidat, Armin Laschet, kom med en bemærkning, som jeg synes afspejler dette, at dette er NATO's største nederlag siden dets eksistens, og det er uden tvivl sandt, og at dette er en epokegørende forandring, og han brugte udtrykket "epokegørende forandring", hvilket jeg finder bemærkelsesværdigt, fordi jeg hele tiden efterlyste, hvor er de institutionelle mennesker i Europa og i USA, som erkender, at der må være en aksiomatisk rettelse af politikken, der førte til den ene fiasko efter den anden i det vestlige system.
 
Så jeg tror,​​at hvis de europæiske nationer og USA ville forstå, at dette er en enestående chance, hvis de samarbejder frem for at bekæmpe Rusland og Kina og deres indflydelse i regionen, og de går sammen om den økonomiske udvikling dér, vil millioner af flygtninge, som er i Pakistan og Iran, og mange af dem er stadig i Europa, så der er brug for et perspektiv for genopbygningen af ​​Afghanistan på en seriøs måde, da det bestemt ikke blev gjort i de sidste 20 år. Og så kan dette blive et meget positivt vendepunkt, ikke kun for Afghanistan, men også for hele verden.

RASMUSSEN: (resten er ikke korrekturlæst) Kan du forklare yderligere, hvordan dette kunne være en mulighed for USA og Vesteuropa, fremfor for at betragte Kina og Rusland, som hovedfjenden? Faktisk har nogle sagt, at tilbagetrækningen fra Afghanistan snarere drejer sig om at fokusere opmærksomheden på at bygge op til provokation mod Kina og Rusland. Kan du forklare, hvordan dette kunne være en gylden mulighed for en koalition for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling? Og hvad kunne det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ betyde for Afghanistan og hele regionen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Situationen er helt klart, at Vesten har et ansvar for at hjælpe med at afbøde konsekvenserne af 20 års endeløse krige, hvoraf Afghanistan kun udgør én, og virkelig begynderat opbygge nationer. For dette var igennem 20 år aldrig var en del af ligningen i Afghanistan-situationen.

Nu er Bælte- og Vejinitiativet åbent for alle. Dette er blevet udtalt igen og igen af præsident Xi Jinping og andre kinesiske ledere. Rusland har også igen og igen gjort det klart, at de gerne vil have et fredeligt samarbejde; Præsident Putin har mange gange, selv for nylig, talt om idéen om et integreret eurasisk kontinent fra Lissabon til Vladivostok. Og jeg tror, at dette er et perspektiv, hvor det for eksempel er Kina — hvis man ser på den økonomiske motor for europæiske nationer. Dette er det eneste område, hvor man har økonomisk vækst, og hvis USA ville opgive deres geopolitiske idé om, at verden skal være et nul-sums-spil, hvor den ene side vinder og den anden side taber — men at dette kan blive et 'win-win' samarbejde; jeg tror, at tiden nu er inde til et dramatisk kursskifte. Men det kræver: Stop med geopolitik; begynd at tænke på, at samarbejde til fordel for den anden ville være til gavn for én selv.

RASMUSSEN: Nogle siger, at den første idé om at gå ind i Afghanistan var korrekt, for at tage hånd om terrorisme, at give husly til terrorister, men at så den anden del – opbygningen af demokrati – mislykkedes. Men tror du virkelig, at det var nødvendigt at gå ind i Afghanistan? Og hvad med alle de regime-skiftekrige, der har været i gang siden afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg har sagt mange gange, og vi publicerede mange artikler i en hvidbog, allerede for 11 år siden, hvor jeg gjorde opmærksom på, at denne krig var dårligt defineret fra begyndelsen. For hvis du husker, var påskuddet for det 9/11, at bin Laden — at Taleban angiveligt gav husly til bin Laden i Afghanistan; derefter påberåbte man sig NATO's artikel V, og sådan startede hele NATO-engagementet. Men det er stadig genstand for en igangværende retssag i USA, at omstændighederne den 11. september er meget forskellige fra den officielle historie. Min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, lavede et webcast den 3. januar 2001, hvor han forudsagde, at Bush-administrationen ville blive konfronteret med en finanskrise, de ikke kunne klare, og at der derfor var fare for en "Rigsdagsbrand" som påskud for at ændre politikker. Og det er præcis, hvad der er sket den 9/11. Så dette er en helt anden historie, som stadig mangler at blive opklaret, og virkelig komme til bunds i, hvad det præcist involverede i form af korrupte elementer i det amerikanske sikkerhedsapparat. Så krigen var dårligt defineret, og hvis man helt fra begyndelsen definerer en krig på den forkerte måde, kan den ikke føre til et positivt resultat.

'Afghanistan Papirerne', der blev offentliggjort af Washington Post i 2019, er allerede en knusende beretning om, at dette ikke gik godt, at alle succeshistorierne var fuldstændig svigagtige; ledende militærfolk blev citeret for at sige, at de ikke anede hvad de lavede der, ikke vidste, hvem fjenden var, men ikke desto mindre fortsatte krigen i to år mere.

Så den krig blev startet og ført på et fuldstændig forkert grundlag. Jeg tror, at det, vi ser nu, er erkendelsen af, at alle disse udenlandske, interventionistiske krige under påskud af enten "retten til at beskytte", humanitære interventioner, regimeændringer, farverevolution – at denne politik er fuldstændig mislykket. Det førte til den værste katastrofe i NATOs i historie – jeg er enig med hr. Laschet på det punkt – og det skal stoppes. Også fordi det står klart, at "vestlige værdier" har spillet fallit med Afghanistan. Tanken om, at man kan gå ind i et andet land og med militære midler pålægge værdier, der ikke er helt så sandfærdige i første omgang — hvis man ser på menneskerettighedsspørgsmål i EU eller demokratispørgsmål, så er disse ting stort set betegnelser, der påsættes en politik, der har helt andet formål.

Så jeg synes, pointen må være at indse alt dette fuldt ud. Og jeg tror, at flere politikere, ligesom hr. Laschet, har bedt om en reel, dybdegående selvregnsagelse og refleksion over, hvad der gik galt, og jeg mener, at dette vil være meget sundt.

RASMUSSEN: Faktisk sagde den danske udenrigsminister, Jeppe Kofod, da han mandag holdt et pressemøde midt i alle de dramatiske udviklinger, at dette kræver refleksion og selvregnsagelse af hele den internationale koalition, af NATO, af alle af os, der har stået bag indsatsen i Afghanistan de sidste to årtier. At det vi ser er helt anderledes end analyserne; den afghanske hær og regeringen var måske mere en ørkenpejling end en realitet

Og samtidigt er især USA's rolle, og ændringen i USA's paradigme så vigtigt, hvor du i går, da du talte til dine medarbejdere, tog udtalelsen fra USA's president John Quincy Adams frem, hvor han sagde at “Når som helst standarden for frihed og uafhængighed udfolder sig, så vil Amerikas hjerte, hendes velsignelser og hendes bønner gøre sig gældende. Men Amerika drager ikke til udlandet for at søge efter at ødelægge monstre ”. Kan du sige mere om dette? Og også specifikt om den ændring, der nu skal til at ske i USA?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det John Quincy Adams citat du nævnte, lægger virkelig pointen frem. For med det angloamerikanske "special relationship" har USA forsøgt at adoptere det britiske imperiums model, skabe en unipolar verden og eliminere ethvert regime, der ikke følger trop med regimeskifte, farverevolution eller anden form for intervention med NGO'er. Dette er blevet tydeligt for hele verden. Og USA har heldigvis tradition for at være en republik. John Quincy Adams sagde ikke alene, at det ikke er meningen at jagte fremmede monstre, men derudover at skabe en alliance af perfekt suveræne republikker, der er forenet i at tjene alles fælles bedste. Og det tror jeg, der opfordres til. Så hvis USA virkelig ville indse, at det er i deres egen interesse — først og fremmest tjener det ikke deres egen interesse med disse udenlandske interventions-krige. De har mistet utrolig meget image og omdømme. Det gælder Vesten generelt, denne fiasko i Afghanistan har skadet Vestens omdømme generelt, men USA i særdeleshed. Så der er ingen vej frem på denne måde.

Hvis imidlertid ledende institutioner og personligheder i USA og europæiske nationer ville sige: ”OK, vi begik en fejl, og nu vil vi ændre vores syn. Vi samarbejder med Rusland og Kina om opbygningen af et nyt paradigme, hvor suverænitet respekteres, og den andens interesse er en del af ligningen”. Så kunne vi befinde os i begyndelsen af en smuk ny æra. Og jeg tror, at det er den slags diskussion, der er nødvendig lige nu.

RASMUSSEN: Hvad med Afghanistan selv? Der er mange mennesker, der er bange for, hvad Talebans kontrol vil indebære. Er der en nu med Silkevejs-perspektivet en mulighed for at undgå de excesser, der fandt sted løbet af den forrige Taliban æra — at undgå en borgerkrig, og at undgå terrorister og destabilisering af hele området, og endvidere, hvad skal der gøres ved med opiumhandlen? Er dette en mulighed for at undgå fortidens potentielle katastrofer, og hvilken type udviklingsprogram foreslår du for Afghanistan?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Først og fremmest tror jeg, at de store naboer, Rusland og Kina, er ekstremt bekymrede for hvorvidt Taleban vil opfylde deres løfte om ikke at fremme terrorisme og ikke gøre noget, der vil være i modstrid med Ruslands eller Kinas interesse. Taleban, som har overtaget kontrollen nu, har allerede udstedt amnesti for alle mennesker i den tidligere regering, de har garanteret, at der ikke vil ske nogen overlast på folk fra udenlandske ambassader, så det vil nu alt sammen være i fokus i verden. Og hvis Taliban opfylder disse løfter – og jeg er ret sikker på, at enhver form for økonomisk fordel ved Silkevejen er afhængig af, at de holder fast ved dette – så kunne man virkelig starte et økonomisk udviklingsprogram, hvorved — jeg mener, Afghanistan er et af de fattigste nationer i verden. Igennem 20 års engagement har USA og NATO, herunder den tyske Bundeswehr, ikke gjort noget for at opbygge nationen. OK, måske blev der bygget et par skoler og et par hospitaler, men for det meste er dødeligheden for børn under fem år stadig forfærdelig, fattigdommen er frygtelig; så hvis der nu er et perspektiv om at bygge infrastruktur, integrere korridorlinjerne i Afghanistan med Pakistans og Centralasiens, at nå ind i Kina, nå ind i Rusland, så kan den økonomiske udvikling starte.

Naturligvis må man starte med et sundhedssystem fordi vi stadig befinder os i en pandemi: Afghanistan har akut brug for moderne hospitaler, moderne uddannede læger, fordi denne pandemi er overhovedet ikke overvundet; så kunne man have et reelt, seriøst landbrugsprogram, der erstatter den resterende opiumproduktion, ved at give et incitament til de afghanske landmænd, hvorved de ville få det meget bedre, hvis de vil producere mad til landet og regionen. Jeg mener, vi har offentliggjort dette; vi afholdt netop denne konference, du refererede til, og derfor er alle disse programmer der. Men jeg tror, at det centrale er, at der er et internationalt samarbejde for ikke at gå glip af denne mulighed for at sætte den økonomiske udvikling i Afghanistan på dagsordenen på en seriøs måde.

RASMUSSEN: Som du siger, er nogle af disse planer allerede på tegnebrættet og venter bare på at blive gennemført, herunder i vores opdaterede rapport om Den nye Silkevej, hvor vi kommer med forslag – der er også et russisk forslag, som vi genoptrykte. Så, som Lyndon LaRouche sagde på tidspunktet for Oslo-aftalerne mellem palæstinenserne og israelerne, vil nøglen til at vinde freden være at få "skovlene i jorden" og starte byggeprocessen. Og at dette ville være den eneste måde at skabe en grund til, at de tidligere fjender arbejder sammen. Du har fremmet denne form for idé, fra Nicholas af Cusanus’ "Modsætningernes Sammenfald", og det som du efterlyste under konferencen, som vi afholdt, med henblik på at sætte det økonomiske udviklingsprogram i centrum for spørgsmålet om det politiske forlig.
 
Nu er udviklingen forløbet hurtigere end… vi ved ikke, hvad der kommer til at ske med hensyn til hvilken type magtdeling. Men disse programmer er der; vi skal have skovlene i jorden. Har du noget mere at sige om det eller noget andet om Afghanistan, før vi går videre til det næste emne?
 
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nej, du sagde det. Jeg tror, ​​den eneste ting man kan sige er, at der er en ung generation af mennesker, der har deres egne drømme, som har haft oplevelsen af ​​at rejse til udlandet, at være i kontakt med nationer rundt om i deres del af verden, og jeg tror, ​​der vil være en anden situation. Det vil ikke være som for 20 år siden. Mange ting er forandret – Kina er anderledes. Kina har nu lanceret Bælte and Vejinitiativet, hvilket er den dominerende dynamik i hele Asien. Det betyder, at perspektivet om at overvinde fattigdom, at have et anstændigt liv, som uddannede mennesker, som læger, som videnskabsfolk, som astrofysikere, som alt hvad man ønsker, det er meget mere fremme i tankerne hos den unge generation, og jeg tror, ​​at også Taleban vil opleve fordelen ved forandringerne i infrastrukturen. Fordi mennesker ikke er skabt til at konkurrere med dyr om fysisk arbejde; mennesker er der, fordi vi har et kreativt sind, vi kan udvikle videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, som gør livet bedre, hvilket gør levetiden længere. Og jeg tror, ​​at disse er civiliserede forandringer, der foregår i hele Asien.
 
Asien har – i modsætning til USA eller Europa – den opfattelse, at det kommende århundrede er Asiens århundrede, og man har en enorm økonomisk udvikling: folk tror på, at livet vil blive bedre – hvilket ikke er tilfældet i Europa eller USA. Men i Asien tror folk, at de næste generationer får et bedre liv end de nuværende. Og der er også overalt en forbindelse til gamle traditioner, til dels 5.000 år gamle historier.
 
Også Afghanistan har en historie på mange tusinde år; det var en stor civilisation omkring tidspunktet for den græske klassiske periode, og der er meget arkæologisk arbejde, som stadig skal udføres. Så forbindelsen mellem fremtiden og den store tradition – dette område var kendt for at være 'de tusind byers land' – der er meget, som nu virker gavnligt. Og jeg er faktisk optimistisk om at såfremt verdenssamfundet reagerer positivt på dette øjeblik, kan det være begyndelsen på en ny æra for regionen og for menneskeheden.
…
 
RASMUSSEN: Et af de punkter, der blev rejst under videokonferencen om Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske principper [link her], passer meget godt ind i det, vi diskuterede om Afghanistan. Jeg tror, at det var Paul Gallagher, der påpegede, at det originale Bretton Woods-system, der blev udformet af Franklin Roosevelt, skulle være baseret på afslutningen af ​​det kolonialistiske system; at det, for både at bringe politisk frihed til de tidligere koloniale nationer og økonomisk udvikling, ville afhænge af højteknologisk eksport, maskiner, traktorer, alle slags ting, fra USA, fra industrilandene, som en måde at opbygge de fattigere lande på og også som en motor for økonomisk vækst i industrilandene. Og den idé blev aldrig ført ud i livet på grund af Trumans smålige sind, som sidenhen blev manipuleret af Churchill; men hvordan ser du dette i lyset af, ikke alene Afghanistan, men perspektivet om, at vi igen mobiliserer kapaciteterne, de industrielle og også videnskabelige og teknologiske kapaciteter på steder, hvor man kan sige tidligere industrialiserede nationer, hvor der nu også er store problemer på grund af pandemien? Og som vi har talt om, skabelsen af mange job med det formål endelig at bringe økonomisk udvikling til de fattigere lande.
 
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Tja, der er stor opmærksomhed på systemernes såkaldte konkurrence mellem Vesten og Kina, fordi hvad Kina tydeligvis har opnået siden 2013, siden Xi Jinping lagde Bælte- og Vejinitiativet på bordet – dette har kun stået på i otte år – men i disse otte år har man set en utrolig udvikling af infrastruktur, det største infrastrukturprogram i menneskehedens historie. Det påvirker 150 lande.
 
Det er helt klart en måde at overvinde fattigdom på: Kina har gjort det for sin egen befolkning. Det har givet udviklingslandene et eksempel på, at det kan lade sig gøre, og det står nu meget klart, at økonomisk udvikling og økonomiske korridorer er meget bedre end at gøre udviklingslandene til hangarskibe for den amerikanske militærmaskine. Det er meget mere attraktivt at deltage i økonomiske fremskridt og overvinde sine egne problemer end at have masser af moderne våbensystemer – ligesom tilfældet er i Afghanistan, hvor hæren er udstyret med ekstremt sofistikerede våben. Brugte den afghanske hær dem? Nej! De smed dem, fordi de ikke troede på det system, der ville være forbundet med brugen af dem. Så nu besidder Taliban mange af disse moderne våben.
 
Så jeg tror, at hvis folk er seriøse og virkelig lærer lektien, så er økonomisk udvikling vejen frem; fredelig udvikling. Vi har en pandemi, vi har nye, alvorlige sygdomme, ligesom et nyt udbrud af Marburg virus; vi har en ny svamp; disse medfører alle faren for et biologisk holocaust, som min mand advarede om i 1973. For at besejre det er der behov for at få alle lande til at arbejde sammen. Så hvis europæiske og asiatiske nationer samt USA alle ville sige, at prioritet nummer et er at overvinde fattigdom for at sikre, at intet barn længere dør af sult, fordi vi har teknologien til helt at undgå det – det er ikke nødvendigt – at have et moderne sundhedssystem i alle lande.
 
Jo, omfanget af frihed, de frihedsgrader, der ville ligge i et sådant samarbejde, herunder rumsamarbejde, at sætte landsbyer på Månen, byer på Mars; at tænke i et perspektiv af to, tre generationer fra nu af; interstellare rejser: Universet er så enormt, at jeg synes at den nuværende tilstand er et levn. Det er som en dinosaur, som man først vil kunne se på et museum om nogle år; men hvis menneskeheden skal overleve, kan den geopolitiske tankegang ikke være en del af det. Så hvorfor ikke opgive det – bare afslutte det og starte en æra med samarbejde, så folk vil være stolte over at være en del af generationen, der har gjort dette fremskridt?
 
RASMUSSEN: Og hvis vi gør det rette, kunne vi have perspektivet; hvem ved, hvor mange vidunderlige opdagelser der kommer fra de børn, der vil blive opdraget i Afghanistan under bedre forhold, hvis vi gør det rette. Jeg opfordrer stærkt vores seere til at se videokonferencen om Afghanistan, som vi afholdt for to uger siden, og også den konference, som vi holder på lørdag. Og som du sagde, er vi nødt til at bruge chokket over de seneste dages udvikling til at gribe muligheden for at etablere et nyt internationalt paradigme for mennesker gennem økonomisk udvikling, og jeg opfordrer også vore seere til at se LaRouche-videokonferencen, og til at studere Lyndon LaRouches værker; for som José López Portillo, den tidligere præsident i Mexico sagde: "Nu er tiden inde til at lytte til Lyndon LaRouche kloge ord; og også at arbejde for oprejsning af LaRouche og hans medarbejdere, mht. det falske grundlag for deres fængsling, så LaRouches forslag og hans tankemetode kan tages i brug netop nu, til at foretage dette nødvendige paradigmeskifte, hvis potentiale er blevet overdraget til os med denne dramatiske udvikling.
 
Og jeg har en særlig appel til de af jer, der endnu ikke har kontaktet os: kontakt os. Sid ikke på sidelinjen, når vi har chancen for at ændre historien.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche henvender sig til et publikum af unge mennesker fra hele verden om den tankemetode, som Nikolas fra Kues opdagede.

“(Nikolas fra Kues) udviklede en tankemetode, at tænke noget helt nyt… Det var ideen om, at menneskelig fornuft har evnen til at definere en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau, end dem hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger opstod. Det tager fat på evnen til at tænke på en Enhed, der er af højere størrelsesorden og kraft end de Mange. Og når man først har trænet ens eget sind til at tænke sådan (i overensstemmelse med modsætningernes sammenfald), har man den ufejlbarlige nøgle til kreativitet, og man kan anvende denne måde at tænke på i stort set alle tankedomæner. ” — Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter og formand for Schiller Instituttet og en af​​ verdens førende Cusanus-eksperter, insisterer på, at for at komme ud af den nye, mørke tidsalder må menneskeheden lære af faderen til Den gyldne Renæssance fra det 15. århundrede, Nikolas fra Kues. Vi må begynde med den underliggende krise: den i tankemetoden.

Billede: Nicholas of Cusa. credit: Nick Thomsen, CC BY-NC 2.0

Ingen tilbagevenden til normaltilstand:

Kun et paradigmeskifte kan afhjælpe den eksistentielle krise

af Janet G. West

8. maj (EIR årgang 48, nr. 20) — Det andet panel, ”Metoden med 'modsætningernes sammenfald': Alene en samlet verdensomspændende sundhedsindsats uden sanktioner, vil kunne vende en global pandemi”, under Schiller Instituttets konference den 8. maj, samlede ledere fra USA, Europa og Sydamerika for at tackle den trefoldige krise med krig, hungersnød og pandemi. 

Ordstyrer Dennis Speed brugte to videoklip til at perspektivere diskussionen i forhold til den overskyggende fare for krig, og til at behandle hvordan krige opstår. Først var et klip fra Lyndon LaRouches tv-udsendelse fra 1999, 'Storm Over Asia', hvori han understregede, at Rusland vil kæmpe tilbage, hvis det presses op i et hjørne – "det er deri faren ligger". For mange mennesker agerer under den vildfarelse, at de kan gøre som de vil i udlandet,  "uden at det giver bagslag". Hvis London og Wall Streets kontrol over den amerikanske politik fortsætter, vil sandsynligheden øges for at Rusland vil kæmpe tilbage til grænsen af atomkrig.

Derefter et klip fra et nyligt interview med tidligere admiral Marc Pelaez (USN, fhv.), som har været kommandør for en atomubåd under Den kolde Krig, om karakteren af beslutningen om at påbegynde atomkrig. Pelaez sagde, at hvis han havde modtaget en ordre om at skride til handling, ville han have gjort det. ”Afskrækkelsen skal være troværdig,” sagde han, “Min ubåds kapacitet kunne udslette alle større byer i USA øst for Mississippi. Og det er bare én ubåd!” Hvis man  gjorde det, "vidste man imidlertid, at der ikke var noget at vende hjem til".

At løse det uløselige

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, kom med indledende bemærkninger, hvor hun henviste til civilisationskrisen i 1453 med Konstantinopels fald, da Det osmanniske Rige erobrede det byzantinske imperiums hovedstad og effektivt knuste det. Befolkningen blev brutaliseret af angriberne, og mange døde. Nicolaus Cusanus stod over for udfordringen med at forholde sig til denne krise, og hvordan det enorme had fra den ene side til den anden kunne forliges på en sådan måde, at man kom frem til en løsning på et højere niveau. Resultatet af denne inspiration var hans dialog: ''Freden i Troen' (De Pace Fidei), hvor repræsentanter fra mange nationer og trosretninger kom i samtale med Gud i en dialog om, hvordan de kunne leve i fred. 

Efter en række spørgsmål om tilsyneladende modstridende ideer og Guds svar, var konklusionen, at der kun er én sandhed – at universet er lovmæssigt, og at hele menneskeheden bærer den guddommelige gnist inden i sig; at alt menneskeliv er helligt. Så derfor, fortsatte hun, kan de tilsyneladende forskelligartede perspektiver og problemer kun løses ud fra et højere princip, og dette var 'Modsætningerne Sammenfald'; at hinandens udvikling bliver af primær interesse for én selv. Det er ud fra dette synspunkt, at hun gentog sit krav om oprettelsen af et globalt sundhedssystem, at starte opbygningen af den nødvendige infrastruktur i alle nationer, og at alle sanktioner skal elimineres. Og for at gøre det må vi tackle det moralske sammenbrud, især inden for USA.

Standarden: ’moralsk excellence’

Dr. Joycelyn Elders, tidligere cheflæge for militærets sundhedskorps i USA, talte om ideen med at genoplive ”standarden for moralsk excellence” – at gøre mere end hvad vi mener, vi er i stand til; ikke at give op, før målet er nået. Denne standard for moralsk excellence er ikke bare et godt ideal – det er en nødvendighed. Hun gennemgik statistikken: over 2 milliarder mennesker har ikke adgang til rent drikkevand; over 2,5 milliarder oplever fødevareusikkerhed, og 270 millioner mennesker står over for potentiel hungersnød. Omkring 1,2 milliarder mennesker har ikke adgang til elektricitet, og uden elektricitet kan sygdomme ikke overvindes… og [samtidig] hævde, at pandemien er et resultat af moralsk, og ikke lægelige svigt.

Eftersom uafhængighedserklæringen taler om umistelige rettigheder, herunder: "Liv, frihed og higen efter lykke," sagde dr. Elder, at vi nu skal inkludere adgangen til midlerne [for] livets opretholdelse – rent vand, rigelig mad og billig elektricitet skal være tilgængeligt for alle nationer, for uden disse ting er der ingen måde at have et sundhedssystem på eller [at opretholde] livet. Hun kaldte den nuværende politik for "ligegyldighedens selvmordsøkonomi" og afsluttede med at opfordre alle til at blive involveret, genvinde "standarden for moralsk excellence" og understregede, at apati er den værste pandemi af alle.

Dr. Khadijah Lang (USA), formand for 'National Medical Association (NMA) Council on International Affairs' og præsident for 'Golden State Medical Association'; samt Marcia Merry Baker, en ekspert inden for fysisk økonomi og medlem af EIR´s-redaktionskomité, præsenterede de succeser og udfordringer, som udbuddet af medicinsk behandling, mad, vand og sanitet internationalt står overfor. Dr. Lang diskuterede NMA's tidligere arbejde med at indsætte hold og medicinske forsyninger til Mozambique i samarbejde med lokale myndigheder for at yde sundhedspleje og bidrage til uddannelsen af kirurger. Hun beskrev de barske forhold i Østafrika med den nylige græshoppeplage, der ødelagde afgrøder efterfulgt af successive kriser, som alle ramte Mozambique hårdt. Da COVID-19 ramte, var det ødelæggende, for så kunne folk ikke engang gå ud for at skaffe mad…

Mere senere fra dette afsnit.

Vi må overvinde COVID-krisen overalt:

Pastor Robert Smith, bestyrelsesformand for den Nationale baptistorganisations udenlandske Mission talte til konferencen fra Michigan under titlen: ”'Læge, helbred dig selv': Red en nation i krise gennem kærlighed”. Han beskrev prøvelserne med at håndtere de mange COVID-dødsfald i sit eget samfund og den styrke det krævede for at opfriske os med kærlighedens kilder, kilder der er en gudgiven kerne i vores menneskehed.

Luis Vasquez talte fra Peru og præsenterede: "Glem ikke: Den globale koncentrationslejrs ovn er nu nuklear”. Som mangeårigt medlem af Schiller Instituttet, begyndte han med at fortælle, at han og hans kone for nylig var syge med en ny variant af COVID-19, og havde det ikke været for hjælp fra deres familie, var det usandsynligt, at de ville have overlevet. Under ødelæggelsen fra en nyliberal økonomi har deres nation nu ingen offentlige tjenester, ingen skoler, ingen transport, og at få COVID-19 svarer til en dødsdom. I hele Lima er der ingen ledige intensiv-senge med respiratorer; enhver intentiv-seng har en venteliste på op til 300 personer. En iltcylinder koster $1.000; en genopfyldning koster $200. ”Hvis du ikke kan betale, dør du. Dette er en holocaust … ekstremerne er nået … vi er i en global koncentrationslejr”.

Vi kan betragte de forkerte økonomiske beslutninger, der er taget siden 1974, som anstifter af denne nuværende tragedie; verdensøkonomien er et kasino på kanten af ​​konkurs. Vi må mobilisere vores forsknings- og udviklingskapacitet i alle lande; vi ved, at vi kan udrette disse ting, fordi mennesket er kreativt. Vi er alle forbundne nu, og omtanke for andre er ikke kun moralsk, men videnskabeligt sandt.

Dr. Walter Faggett (USA), tidligere cheflæge i Washington, D.C.’s sundhedsafdeling, og i øjeblikket medformand for D.C. område 8 Sundhedsråd, berettede om de succeser, de har haft med at koordinere samarbejde mellem samfundsorganisationer, kirker, universiteter og sundhedspersonel for at øge graden af​​ COVID-19-vaccination i Washington. Han fik følgeskab af Genita Finley (USA), 2. års medicinstuderende og designer af Mississippi Deltas medicinske  skoleprogram, der diskuterede, hvordan hendes program lykkedes med at bringe flere studerende ind på sundhedsstudier og hjælper dem med at overvinde problemer med deres identitetsfølelse af ikke at være "kloge nok" til at blive sundhedsarbejdere. Mississippi Delta har en af ​​de største koncentrationer af fattigdom i landdistrikterne i nationen.

Mere kommer senere.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Utilfredsheden i befolkningen vokser, og dette med rette. Vi er nu, i marts 2021, på grund af EU’s elendige ”statusresultat” for Tyskland, konfronteret med den tredje bølge af COVID-19-pandemien. Som et resultat af årtiers privatisering af sundhedssystemet var vi derfor ikke velforberedte på udbruddet, i modsætning til Jens Spahns påstand i februar 2020 – en fejlbedømmelse som vi kan takke for, at regeringen dermed alt for sent begyndte at bestille medicinske hjælpemidler, som mundbind. Derefter, i stedet for først og fremmest at tage højde for deres egen befolknings sundhed, ved bestillingen af vacciner, så pro-EU-ideologerne denne krise som en kærkommen mulighed for yderligere at integrere EU, og at afgive ansvaret til et fuldkomment inkompetent EU-bureaokrati. Frem for i det almene vels ånd at investere i at maksimere produktionskapaciteterne for vacciner, overlod man alt til det ”frie marked”.

Dette inkompetencens regnskab: Mens Kina, et land med 1,4 milliarder mennesker, indtil nu kun har haft 4636 dødsfald som følge af pandemien, og hertil kunne konstatere en økonomisk vækst på over 2 %, var der i Tyskland indtil nu 73.120 dødsfald, og i Europa 880.644 dødsfald, mens økonomierne i alle Europas lande skrumpede med flere procent, og mange mennesker mistede deres arbejde og eksistensgrundlag.

Nu hersker der en stor utilfredshed over, at enkelte parlamentsmedlemmer har tjent sekscifrede beløb på leveringen af mundbind, og Wolfgang Schäuble svinger sig op til at være den vigtigste moralske apostel og udråber denne personlige berigelse til at være en skændsel. Men er det ikke en endnu større skændsel at bedrage den samlede europæiske befolkning med en ”Green Deal”, der vil ramme Europas industrilande som en nedrivningskugle og bringe dem til fald, ruinere landbruget, ødelægge arbejdspladser, kraftigt sænke levestandarden for langt den største del af befolkningen, og kun berige de rigeste og spekulanterne? For det er lige præcis denne politik, som Schäble, Merkel, Altmeier, Scholz, Draghi, Macron, von der Leyen & Co. står for!

Denne ”Green Deal”, en politik hvor alle investeringer, fra EU og nedefter gennem medlemslandene og bankerne, kun skal gives til ”grønne” teknologier og industrisektorer, vil ende med en brutal udslettelse af industri og landbrug, og som konsekvens føre til en reduktion af befolkningen. For der findes en direkte sammenhæng mellem energigennemstrømningstætheden i produktionsprocessen, produktiviteten og det antal mennesker, som disse kapaciteter kan understøtte. Den ”store omstilling gennem afkarboniseringen af verdensøkonomien”, som Schellnhuber og WBGU (Det videnskabelige råd for globale Klimaforandringer) allerede har agiteret for i næsten to årtier, og som nu omsættes fra von der Leyens side, betyder intet andet end at vende tilbage til et førindustrielt niveau. Den største profit går dog til spekulanterne, ankerne og kapitalfondene, dvs. finansoligarkiet, som investerer i denne moderne afladshandel – for det er hvad forretningen med CO2-certifikater er. En koalition af tolv amerikanske stater under ledelse af Missouris justitsminister, Eric Schmitt, klagede d. 8. marts over denne omfattende skade på det almene vel.  De bestrider Præsident Bidens udstedte ”forordning 13.990” med titlen: ”Beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed og miljøet og genoprettelsen af videnskaben til overvindelse af klimakrisen”. Denne forordning befaler principielt det samme som EU’s ”Green Deal” eller de amerikanske demokraters ”Green New Deal”: En massiv reduktion af industri- og landbrugsproduktion, energiproduktion og -forbrug, eller en hvilken som helst anden aktivitet, som har udledning af såkaldte drivhusgasser til følge.

I et af klagens afsnit peges på det som det handler om, både i USA selv og globalt: ”Hvis dette dekret gøres gældende, vil det i mange årtier ud i fremtiden forårsage skader for hundrede af milliarder eller billioner dollars. Det vil ødelægge arbejdspladser, kvæle energiproduktionen, strangulere amerikansk energiuafhængighed, undertrykke landbruget, forhindre innovation og gøre familievirksomhederne fattige…” I klagen bemærkes det yderligere, at Biden-forordningen, ved udregningen af de ”sociale omkostninger”, fuldstændig ignorerer de indirekte følger, som reduktionen af drivhusgasserne ville have for hele verden. Selvom de tolv delstatsregeringer som klager – Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah und Missouri – er republikanske, handler det på ingen måde om partipolitisk opposition mod den demokratiske Biden-administration. Disse stater er kernen i det amerikanske landbrugsbælte, og de arbejdende landmænd her, hvoraf mange kæmper en overlevelseskamp mod kartellernes profitgrådighed, er ganske klar over verdens sultkatastrofe, der truer omkring 300 millioner mennesker verden over, og som chefen for FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram, David Beasley, igen og igen har advaret om. For Beasley var tidligere guvernør for South Carolina og er den dag i dag tæt forbundet med disse landmænd.

David Beasley berettede d. 9. marts i en video-telefonkonference med Associated Press fra Addis Abeba om de himmelskrigende omstændigheder, som han fandt på sin netop afsluttede tur i Yemen: ”Det er helvede – det skrækkeligste sted på Jorden”, den værste humanitære krise i verden som fuldkommen er forårsaget af menneskelige handlinger. I et hospital i Sana’a så han børn sulte lige foran sig, simpelthen fordi der ingen mad var. Mange er på dødens rand, selvom de sygdomme og svagheder ville være nemme at behandle, hvis midlerne var til stede. Normalt hører man gråd, larm og latter fra børneafdelingen. Men i Yemen hører man ingen gråd, ingen latter; der herskede en dødelig stilhed. Andre rapporterer berettede, at mange børn har hud som pergament og er afmagrede helt ind til knoglerne, før de dør. Yemen er helt bestemt det skrækkeligste sted på Jorden, men desværre er ret mange stater og regioner ikke langt fra en sådan situation. Syrien, Eritrea, Niger, Mozambique, Haiti, Nicaragua, Bolivia – listen over stater i den såkaldte udviklingssektor, som er ramt skrækkeligt hårdt af pandemien, af hungersnød og følgerne af den såkaldte uformelle økonomi, er lang.

Verdens fødevaremyndigheder har i år brug for 815 millioner dollars blot til Yemen for at redde millioner af mennesker fra sultedød, men lykkedes kun med at få skaffet 300 millioner. Hvad er disse latterlige 500 millioner i forhold til de 30 til 50 billioner (50.000.000.000.000), som centralbankerne ønsker at investere i EU’s Green Deal og USA’s Green New Deal over de næste 10 år, der kraftigt vil reducere industriens og landbrugets produktive kræfter? Verdensfødevareprogrammet har igen og igen advaret om, at alene i dette år trues 270 millioner mennesker akut med sultedøden. I betragtning af denne hidtil usete humanitære katastrofe er programmet ”Fra Jord til Bord” og EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi absolut skandaløse, fordi de vil reducere landbrugsproduktionen massivt pga. rent ideologisk motiverede nødtiltag. Her er grunden til, at de tyske landmænd med deres traktor-optog i flere måneder har gjort opmærksom på den truende udslettelse af landbrugets familiebrug. Den videnskabelige afdeling i USA’s landbrugsministerium har i sit økonomiske brev, nr. 30 fra november 2020, offentliggjort konklusionen af en prognose, hvor i følgerne fra EU’s landbrugspolitik indtil 2030 bliver vurderet, hvis de blev gennemført enten (a) blot indenfor EU, (b) gennem EU’s handelsregler i andre lande eller (c) globalt. I følge denne ville landbrugsproduktionen i EU skrumpe med 7-12%, verdens fødevarepriser ville stige med 9% (kun EU) og op til 89% (ved global indførelse), det samfundsmæssige udbytte ville blive reduceret med mellem 96 milliarder og 1,1 billioner dollars, og antallet af mennesker uden fødevaresikkerhed ville stige med mellem 22 og 185 millioner.

Konklusion: EU’s politik er ikke blot inkompetent, hvilket er blevet tilstrækkeligt demonstreret under corona-krisen; dens grønne ideologi ødelægger også grundlaget for vores landbrug, og er i lyset af hungerkatastrofen sågar absolut uansvarlig, for at sige det mildt.

BüSo kræver i stedet:

1. Den øjeblikkelige opbygning af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert land på denne Jord, på et niveau som Tyskland var på før privatiseringen.

2. En fordobling af den globale landbrugsproduktion, således at, i betragtning af den voksende verdensbefolkning, sult og fattigdom kunne elimineres for alle mennesker.

3. At gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien gennem en global Glass/Steagall-lovgivning.

4. Et nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, som kan stille produktive kreditter til rådighed for investeringer i den reelle økonomi.

5. Skabelsen af 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser for at genopbygge verdensøkonomien efter pandemien og seriøst begynde at overvinde underudviklingen i de såkaldte udviklingslande.

6. Samarbejde med Rusland og Kina ved udbygningen af Den nye Silkevej i Sydvestasien og Afrika, for dermed at fjerne årsagen til flygtningekrisen, og samtidig skabe en varig fredsorden.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

24. februar 2021 (EIRNS)— Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og international leder af Schiller Instituttet og enke efter den kendte amerikanske økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche, bekendtgjorde i dag, at hun, gennem sine advokater, har sendt et brev til Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Comittee (LPAC) og komiteens kasserer Barbara Boyd, hvori hun kræver, at de »omgående ophører med og afholder sig fra, både nu og i fremtiden«, at »gøre brug af LaRouches navn, billede og andre potentielt forvirrende og lignende begreber«. Brevet erklærer, at en sådan brug »sandsynligvis vil skabe forvirring blandt forbrugere, eftersom de kan blive forledt til at tro, at du [Boyd] (som person), LPAC og/eller de varer eller tjenester, som udbydes, i et eller andet omfang, er forbundet med, på licens fra, eller godkendt af vores klient [Helga Zepp-LaRouche]«. Blandt de påkrævede ændringer er, at Boyd og LPAC »omgående tager alle nødvendige skridt til at ændre navnet på jeres politiske aktionskomité, og navnene på enhver tilhørende enhed, til et, der ikke indeholder udtrykket »Lyndon« »LaRouche« eller noget forbundet med eller afledt deraf, og indvilliger i at afstå fra at bruge rettighedskrænkende udtryk nu og i fremtiden på nogen hjemmeside, firma-e-mails, brevhoveder, reklamer, eller andet marketingsmateriale eller korrespondance.«

For at belyse baggrunden for dette tiltag og sætte det i en konkret sammenhæng, fremsatte Fru Zepp-LaRouche følgende erklæring:

»Det, der siden 2004 har været den officielle hjemmeside for den politiske aktionskomité, der blev grundlagt af min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC), har fået sit indhold overtaget af en gruppe individer forbundet med Barbara Boyd, aktionskomiteens kasserer, og sat i en retning, jeg betragter som værende i direkte modsætning til kernen i den politik, min mand stod for. Mens min mand stadig var i live, var han ansvarlig for den overordnede politiske retning for aktionskomiteen. Men efter hans død i februar 2019, har Fru Boyd og hendes samarbejdspartnere uden mit samtykke overtaget indholdet af hjemmesiden og aktionskomiteens aktiviteter som helhed og bevæget sig i en retning, som efter min mening misrepræsenterer både mine og Hr. LaRouches holdninger.

»Mine gentagne krav om, at aktionskomiteen skulle følge LaRouche-bevægelsens politik og ikke sætte LaRouches navn i forbindelse med politiske holdninger, der var og er i direkte modstrid med vores egne standpunkter, og som tog sin begyndelse i aktionskomiteen umiddelbart efter LaRouches død, blev afvist op til det punkt, hvor Fru Boyd og en gruppe af individer, der delte hendes holdninger, fremlagde et dokument i november 2020, hvori de proklamerede deres »uigenkaldelige« uafhængighed af lederskabet i LaRouche-bevægelsen, mig selv inklusive, der blev grundlagt af min mand for over 50 år siden.

»Mens de lovpriste visse af Lyndon LaRouches ideer, og fremviste videofilm med ham, så afveg aktionskomiteens politiske holdninger i stigende grad fra LaRouche-bevægelsens og min afdøde mands politik, eksempelvis ved at udelukke enhver substantiel vurdering af den internationale strategiske situation, for i stedet, næsten udelukkende, at fokusere på amerikansk indenrigspolitik, og frem for alt på emner, der var på linje med Donald Trumps politik. De undlod i stigende grad at publicere artikler og videoer, som var kritiske over for Trump, så som hans lovprisning af den finansielle boble på Wall Street og hans Kina-kritiske politik, der kom til at dominere hans præsidentskab. Her er et eksempel.:

»I en video der blev lagt ud den 26. januar 2021 på LPAC’s hjemmeside med overskriften »Få kampagnen for en rigsretssag til at give bagslag, byg en bevægelse for at redde republikken« udtalte Barbara Boyd: »Hvis man har den holdning, at mennesker er dyr, og at man kan have et socialt belønningssystem, og det er faktisk, hvad vi er ved at etablere herhjemme med ”Cancel Culture”-bevægelsen – altså, hvis man opfører sig på en bestemt måde, så får man social kredit for at gøre x, y, z, og w; men hvis du er ondskabsfuld eller kommer med dumme kommentarer, eller træder ved siden af, så får man negativ kredit. Det er det, de gør i Kina. Det er, hvad man gør i ethvert totalitært samfund«.

»Disse holdninger reflekterer alene Fru Boyds meninger, hverken LaRouches eller LaRouche-bevægelsens. Jeg er totalt uenig med en sådan karakteristik af Kina, og Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte gentagne gange gennem hele sit liv synspunkter i diametral modsætning til en sådan karakteristik.

»I takt med den voksende misrepræsentation af LaRouches politiske standpunkter, følte jeg og et stort flertal af medlemmerne i LaRouche-bevægelsen, både i USA og internationalt, at vi ikke havde andet valg end at støtte dannelsen af en ny organisation og en tilhørende hjemmeside: »The LaRouche Organization« (TLO), som blev grundlagt i december 2020, for at sikre, at LaRouches navn og ansigt kun forbindes med hans virkelige politik og holdninger. Klik her: The LaRouche Organizations homepage Forskellen mellem TLO og aktionskomiteen ses tydeligt ved f.eks. at sammenligne de intentioner, der kommer udtryk i den grundlæggende udtalelse »Hvem vi er«, som siger:

»»Det eneste formål med The LaRouche Organization (TLO) er at sprede Lyndon LaRouches idéer og kendskabet til hans livsværk, hans metode til analytisk og videnskabelig tænkning, med den hensigt at realisere de løsninger på de mange kriser, menneskeheden nu står over for, som han fremlagde.«

»Sæt dette op imod de »marchordrer«, der blev lagt op på aktionskomiteens hjemmeside den 14. februar under overskriften »Din rolle i »Ny Politik««: »Kæmp for det Republikanske Parti; tving forræderne og »de svage« ud, og før det tilbage til Abraham Lincolns tradition.«

»Fru Boyd og hendes samarbejdspartnere lancerede et nyt design for aktionskomiteens hjemmeside i februar 2021, som bemærkelsesværdigt udelader to sider eller emner, der tidligere var der:

»For det første den utroligt rige dokumentation af de 40 års organiseringsaktiviteter som Lyndon LaRouche og hans internationale samarbejdspartnere var involveret i på tværs af fem af planetens kontinenter. Hvad enten det var intetionen eller ej, så mener jeg, at man, ved at fjerne den historie, giver det falske indtryk, at Hr. LaRouche kun bekymrede sig om, hvad der foregik i USA. Det går imod hans passionerede engagement for menneskeheden som helhed.

»For det andet, så fjerner aktionskomiteens nye hjemmeside også den rolle Hr. LaRouche og hans internationale bevægelse har spillet i skabelsen af det nye paradigme omkring Den Nye Silkevej. LaRouche begyndte allerede i 1970’erne at skrive adskillige økonomiske programmer for Afrika, Asien, Latinamerika og Europa, og brugte en god del af sit liv på at arbejde og føre kampagne både i og for udviklingen af disse lande.

»Fru Boyd og hendes samarbejdspartnere har enhver ret til at etablere en politisk aktionskomité, der udtrykker Fru Boyds holdninger; men jeg mener, at de gør afdøde Lyndon LaRouche en stor uret ved at misrepræsentere hans holdninger – både gennem det, der bringes og det, der udelades – samt ved at forbinde hans navn med deres egne bestræbelser. Af alle disse årsager har vi entreret juridisk bistand for at stoppe aktionskomiteens brug af Lyndon LaRouches navn og ansigt, og for at bevare hans enorme arbejdes integritet.«

Læs LaRouche-organisationens grundlæggende dokument her: LaRouche-organisationen er grundlagt

For yderlig information:
I USA: press@laroucheorganization.com eller +1-551-209-3978
I Danmark: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk
Klik her: The LaRouche Organizations homepage

c

I sin ugentlige dialog advarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at de totalt unødvendige dødsfald og lidelser i Texas og andre amerikanske delstater på grund af en polarkoldfront giver et tegn på hvad der vil ske, hvis den ”store nulstilling” og dens grønne New Deal ikke stoppes. Disse dødsfald er ikke resultatet af en "naturkatastrofe", men en advarsel om hvad for en fremtid vi står overfor, hvis nedlæggelsen af​​ kul- og atomkraftbaseret elektricitetsproduktion ikke tilbagerulles. Den nye EIR-rapport, ”The Great Leap Backwards” ("Det store spring bagud"), giver både en analyse af de tydelige farer ved at vedtage en grøn dagsorden, og et alternativ baseret på hendes afdøde mands, Lyndon LaRouches, videnskabelige idéer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche diskuterede også, hvordan kampagnen for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina udsætter menneskeheden for truslen om atomkrig på et tidspunkt, hvor samarbejde ikke kun er bydende nødvendigt, men også opnåeligt. Hvis NATO insisterer på sanktioner mod Rusland over den meget opblæste Navalny-affære, burde nationer som Tyskland, Frankrig og Italien forlade NATO. Tilsvarende viser EU’s manglende evne til at beskytte sine borgere mod COVID-pandemien ved igen at forkludre leveringen af ​​vacciner, at denne form for overnational institution ikke er i stand til at sørge for borgernes behov – en fiasko, der også ses i de sandsynlige ødelæggende virkninger af dets kampagne for en europæisk Grøn New Deal, hvilket kunne føre til en nedbrydning af det europæiske energinet.

Hun stillede de økonomiske og strategiske tragedier, der udvikler sig i de transatlantiske nationer, i modsætning til det optimistiske potentiale i de tre samtidige rummissioner til Mars. Det faktum, at De forenede arabiske Emirater startede sit rumprogram for kun seks år siden, giver håb om at, med internationalt videnskabeligt samarbejde, kan nationer bevæge sig hen imod en fredelig udforskning af vores univers, med enorme fordele for alle.

Afskrift på engelsk:

Deaths from Power Outages in Texas Give a Foretaste of Things To Come with the Green New Deal

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. It’s February 17, 2021, and Helga, we have an extremely dramatic development, which seems ironically to coincide with the release of our Special Report, and that is the cold front that has hit Texas, leaving between 3 and 4 million people freezing in the dark. This is really quite dramatic, isn’t it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, it is actually very horrible, because already 26 people died. Now, this is incredible, and you have the state of Texas, where the wind turbines froze up, the solar panels were covered with snow, so the energy production went down from an average of 25,000 MW to only 12,000 MW, and naturally you have blackouts, not only in Texas, but now there are rolling blackouts in 14 other states in the United States.

Now, this is absolutely unnecessary, and it’s not a natural catastrophe. People should not look at it this way, because if you had normal coal-generated energy and nuclear energy, you would not have this situation, so people should not say this is a “natural” catastrophe. Because I would rather say, if we want to have a good note about it, we should take it was a warning from St. Peter, a warning sign what could happen with the weather if you don’t have the energy required to deal with it.

Since we have this new report out, “The Great Leap Backward—LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal,” and the Great Reset, there we have warnings in it, that this will lead to blackouts and the blackouts could be even more dramatic. We have the case of the EU, where studies were made by the scientific advisory service to the German Parliament, already nine years ago, that you could have a collapse of the entire European energy grid, and that would have much more devastating consequences that even this. But this is bad enough. I think 4 million people in Texas, in the U.S., and 5 million people in the north of Mexico are without electricity. Now, that means people can die in the cold, they can die of the effects of it in various ways, and I think it’s quite important that the former governor of Texas, Rick Perry, who was also the Energy Secretary in the Trump administration, blasted this in a very powerful way, saying that if you cut out coal, if you cut out nuclear energy, then you are completely dependent on an ideologically based energy policy, and people are dying! And that is what would happen if you have an energy policy defined by such people as AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] and the like.

So, this is a very serious warning, and I can only advise people to get the Special Report EIR has put out, because the consequences of what the Great Reset would do, the Texas developments give you a meager foretaste of the kind of economic collapse which would result as a consequence of the implementation of this policy. And this could lead to very dramatic developments, social chaos; it would have a devastating effect on the strategic situation, because some parts of the world are not so stupid—Japan, for example, when they had a snowstorm, I think it was last December, the Energy Minister immediately said that Japan must turn back on all of its nuclear plants; and obviously, Russia, China, India, they are all massively investing in the production of fission energy, of the third generation fission energy, and naturally, very much emphasis on fusion power [research]. But the idea that the world can live without coal plants, modern coal plants which are absolutely environmentally friendly, I think this is really an illusion and must be corrected immediately.

SCHLANGER: One of the things I found most interesting, is that Rick Perry, in his discussion also mentioned the advances of nuclear fusion, so that’s a very good sign that there are at least some people thinking.

But Helga we have another problem that this comes up against, which is the absolute dysfunction of the political parties in the United States, with a feud going on in the Republican Party which broke out this week; with the Democrats somewhat chaotic and stuck with nothing but the Green New Deal. How does this look to you?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It looks very worrisome, because also the fact that Kamala Harris is now conducting foreign policy with President Biden resting in Camp David. This has caused the raising of quite some eyebrows, because normally a Vice President participates maybe, in overseas phone calls, but here, Kamala Harris is conducting foreign policy all by herself. So the question is, in what condition is President Biden? Naturally, the situation in the Republican Party is one of utmost chaos.

And I think the only way how this can be addressed, is that we have to organize with The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute to really promote, absolutely, the solutions of my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, and hopefully large segments of the population will understand that a change of the paradigm is absolutely necessary. At this point, the only voice of reason is really coming from The LaRouche Organization and the policies promoted by my late husband. But it needs a broad mobilization of the population to change the course of these developments.

SCHLANGER: One of the things that The LaRouche Organization is doing is conducting a series of dialogues, such as the one from last Saturday on U.S. Russia policy. [https://laroucheorganization.nationbuilder.com/forum_worsening_u_s_russian_relations_reverse_them_with_new_paradigm_or_face_nuclear_war] It is clear that the war machine that was never removed under President Trump is now back on all gears, targetting Russia and China. Where do you see this headed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is extremely dangerous. We had the Atlantic Council Paper, “The Longer Telegram,” so-called, basically referring to the “long telegram” paper by George Kennan from 1946, now referring to the need to have regime change against China, especially targetting Xi Jinping to be toppled. Now, if you put yourself in the shoes of such a government as China, and you hear that coming from the largest nuclear power, and probably still the largest economy in the world, it has consequences. It leads to a hardening of positions. And in a certain sense, this is going on against Russia, with the Navalny campaign. So I think it’s quite interesting that Prof. Lyle Goldstein, who is from the Naval War College, he made a couple of warnings, both in the radio and also in the Washington Times, basically saying that this is leading to a situation where there is practically a warlike situation between the United States and Russia, and that the people who are pushing the Navalny campaign should be aware of the fact, is it really in the interest of the West to have a very sizable nuclear power like Russia to have chaos, or is it not in the interest of the Western countries, that the nuclear weapons of Russia should be under the control of a stable, unified force—I mean, just imagine, you have a civil war in Russia and then these nuclear weapons would get into the hands of some strange, terrorist kind of forces!

I think that there is actually the need to really be aware of that, and come to the conclusion that this whole policy of sanctions against Russia is not functioning; this was, for example, just made as a statement by the head of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy [https://www.ifw-kiel.de/], Mr. Gabriel Felbermayr, who said that the whole idea of sanctions against Russia does not function, because you don’t get countries like China, or India, or other partners of Russia to cooperate, so therefore, the only forces which are hurt by the sanctions, is, in this case, emphatically Germany. So, this whole policy of geopolitical confrontation can only lead to a complete catastrophe, if it is pursued.

SCHLANGER: There’s also a very sharp warning coming from Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, about the policies of the EU, which are definitely part of this anti-Russian grouping.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. He said that if this is stopped, if these sanctions are not stopped, that Russia is prepared to break off all relations to the EU. Now, there was a rather stupid article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, basically pooh-poohing it, saying this is just meant to cause people to now say, “Oh, we should do something now that this doesn’t happen.” But these liberals, and the FAZ is full of them, they don’t understand the connection between cause and effect, but these policies, as I said, they lead to dramatic changes.

I mean, if you put yourself in the shoes of Russia and China, what is the natural consequence of these policies coming from the U.S., from the EU, from Great Britain? Already in October 2020, at the annual Valdai conference, Putin raised the possibility—this is not the first time it was raised, but he raised it publicly at this Valdai conference—the possibility of a Russian-Chinese military alliance. And this was brought up again on Feb. 4, this year, in a meeting between Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, and Sergey Lavrov, discussing this option. Now, Putin in some context, also said it’s not necessary, but obviously, it would be a major change in the strategic situation. What it would do is, it would protect China, if China would sort of come under the nuclear umbrella of the Russian nuclear forces, which are sizable, they’re extremely modernized; Putin had introduced these new weapons systems, the hypersonic missiles, the nuclear-powered submarines—all weapons systems which sort of make the previous plans for a global missile defense system by the U.S. and by NATO obsolete; obviously, all these countries are working high-speed in their own hypersonic missiles, so it’s a dangerous arms race.

But, it would mean, if China would come under the nuclear umbrella of Russia, it would completely change the situation for good; it would basically make a limited nuclear attack on China impossible, unless you want to have World War III all the way. It would basically allow China a greater flexibility in dealing with the problems in the South China Sea, in respect to Taiwan. It would definitely have an incredible signal effect on all the countries participating in the Belt and Road Initiative. It would basically give them assurance that there can be a peaceful win-win cooperation.

Now, obviously, the efforts by the U.S. is to counter that, and that was going on already with the Trump administration, Pompeo and Esper, to build the Quad, that is, the Indo-Pacific alliance, trying to pull India into an alliance with the United States against Russia and China. But that is the kind of geopolitical games which really is what led to World War I and World War II, and I think it is really something we have to overcome: Because if this kind of geopolitical maneuvering is going on, the Damocles Sword of nuclear extinction hangs over the world. And people should really wake up.

The only consequence for European nations is to stop the sanctions campaign against Russia, to stop supporting Navalny, who is—it’s a typical Western intelligence-promoted operation for regime change in Russia. I think his support in Russia is very little. He has maybe a few hundreds of supporters—that looks big when they go on the street—but in reality it’s a very tiny fraction of the Russian population, and as we discussed previously, Ahurkov, one of the campaign managers of Navalny had begged the British second in command in the Moscow Embassy for money so they could do these operations. This is really something which should not happen! Regime change policy is a complete interference into the sovereignty of a country, and it is what Obama and Tony Blair were doing, the so-called “humanitarian interventions,” “spreading democracy”; democracy has gotten a very bad name as a result. And what should happen instead, is that the European nations, like Germany, France, Italy and others should leave NATO and rethink what is their security interest. I think we need to discuss a new security architecture, and that must represent the security interests of every single country on the planet, if we want to overcome the danger of nuclear war.

So, I think the consequence of this is to really leave the kind of NATO alliance, which has become obsolete in any case, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and right now, the idea to expand NATO as a global force, is really—it will lead to World War III if it’s not stopped.

SCHLANGER: You mentioned China possibly going into an alliance with Russia: The Chinese made a threat that they may withhold rare earth materials that are necessary for aircraft construction and other kinds of defense contracting. How serious is that threat?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s being seriously looked at. I think the Chinese government has started an investigation, exactly of what the effect would be, as you say, on the military sector, on the production of fighter jets, and if this escalation increases, one could actually see that happening. That would be a sort of nuclear bomb, but it would be one of these signs of a prewar situation if it happens.

SCHLANGER: And speaking of pre-war, we’re seeing a number of developments in Southwest Asia around Yemen, also around Syria with the Israeli strikes on Syria, threats to Iran. How does this situation look from your standpoint?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The situation in Yemen is a complete tragedy, and also I can only say the world community which allows this to happen—I mean, the Yemen population is the worst humanitarian catastrophe in years; it’s escalating; everybody knows it, nobody does anything decisive about it. Right now you have 2 million Yemeni children under the age of 5 who are in acute malnutrition; 400,000 of those are in acute severe malnutrition, which is acute danger of starvation. Now how easy would it be to tell the Saudis, “you open the ports, you allow the entrance of food aid,” and if the EU and the United States and some other countries would really put their foot down, it could be remedied, practically in a week! The fact that this is not happening, I really think that the EU policies on the question of refugees, what they have done with Frontex [EU’s border guard] backing and participating in the pushback operations against refugees, all of these policies are completely inhuman, and I think any nation in Europe that wants to have a decent policy should leave the EU! The EU and NATO, right now, are really alliances which are completely against the interests of the member states, and there is no need to have a bureaucracy in Brussels.

Look what they did in terms of getting vaccines: Ursula von der Leyen is a complete failure; this woman was a problem when she German Defense Minister. Now her record as the so-called President of EU Commission is a disaster. Why does she not resign? She should resign! And I think the European nations should leave the EU and form an alliance as republics of “fatherlands” as de Gaulle was calling for it, and you can have a multinational cooperation for the development of Africa, for the reconstruction of Southwest Asia, and you don’t need a supranational bureaucracy.

These things have to be remedied, and these policies are clearly not in the interests of the European nations. And in the case of Yemen, I really appeal to all of your viewers—that is, you—to help to change the policy in respect to this genocide which is going on before our very eyes.

SCHLANGER: Now, speaking of the EU, we have the man from the British royal yacht Britannia, who is now moving into power in Italy, Mario Draghi, former head of the European Central Bank: This is just another disaster, and he’s committing himself to the entire policy of so-called “monetary integration.” Is this going to go over in Italy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We have to see. Right now, you have the Lega being in the government, and they have one minister post; I think one big test case will be what happens to the Messina Bridge and also the Taranto steel plant, which Draghi basically wants to shut down, and the EU wants to shut down: This steel plant is the production facility which could actually produce the amount of steel needed for the Messina Bridge [to Sicily], which obviously would completely change the dynamic in terms of the Mezzogiorno, bringing real development to Southern Italy and Sicily. And the Lega basically wants to convince Draghi to go ahead with this bridge. Let’s see how this plays out: Draghi made his first speech in the Senate which was unfortunately, everything one could expect. He made the absurd statement saying that the more there is European integration, the more Italian, the Italians become. He also called for Schumpeter-like “creative destruction,” saying that some industries are not worth saving. So this is exactly what one could expect from somebody who has been in the ECB for many years, and demanding all kinds of “reforms” which created the problems in which Italy right now finds itself. So this does not look good.

SCHLANGER: To conclude, we want to go back to this question of Lyndon LaRouche’s solutions, and you’ve been speaking very enthusiastically about the development of the space program in the United Arab Emirates. We now have a Chinese mission on Mars, and as of tomorrow, there will be U.S. rover landing on Mars. How significant is this? This really does represent—when you talk about the Texas situation being the foretaste of the bad things that could come from the Great Reset, doesn’t this project around Mars give us a foretaste of the good things that could come out of international scientific cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously. Look, for the Mars missions—I’m still most impressed by this U.A.E. operation, because this was a Mars mission which was only started, I think six years ago; so, in an incredible speed, they caught up, at least with Japanese help, but nevertheless, and they have now an spacecraft in Mars orbit. This shows you that any developing nation—after all the Gulf States only discovered oil less than 30 years ago—and turned from total desert states into, in some cases, states which are really doing quite remarkable things, in terms of for example, the Emirates have an island which they irrigated and turned into beautiful gardens and forests. And when my husband and I were in Abu Dhabi in 2002, he made a speech there on the future of oil; this was organized by the Zayed Center. And he basically said, look, forget oil as a fossil fuel, it’s too precious and should be used for chemical production, for pharmaceutical production, and use the revenue to invest in the production of water, that will green the deserts. [https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2002/eirv29n23-20020614/eirv29n23-20020614_006-the_middle_east_as_a_strategic_c-lar.pdf]

And he advised basically to go for innovation and leapfrog—and this is exactly what the Emirates have done, and other Gulf States are going in a similar direction. They are cooperating with China on the Belt and Road Initiative, and now you have this Mars mission.

Now, if you think what incredible technologies are opened up with space research and space travel, we have seen it many years ago with the Apollo Project, where it’s often cited that every cent investment brought back fourteen cents in terms of value as computers, as all kinds of spinoff products. But we are now on the verge of getting fusion power as a propulsion, which is the only way how human beings could safely get to Mars. There is discussion about studying the weather patterns, the underground water, the traces of life. And obviously, not only manned Mars missions are what is being looked at, but also a village on the Moon, a city on Mars, creating the conditions for longer term existence of man on these planets, as a stepping stone for future interstellar travel. Now, that means that the character of humanity will completely be transformed, because it’s very clear that once you undertake such endeavors, you cannot have a geopolitical war on Mars, or else you will not live, and you will not exist.

And the kind of international cooperation among astronauts which we have seen on the International Space Station (ISS), that is the model for the future cooperation among nations, like the United States, Russia, China, India, Europe—the best policy of Europe is their work on ESA, the European Space Agency, where its head, Mr. Jan Wörner, is enthusiastically speaking about the village on the Moon all the time; and ESA has just put out a request for young people to be trained as astronauts. That program should be enlarged. Europe should have a much, much larger space program, and if a small country like the Emirates can have a Mars mission, why cannot Germany have a Mars mission on its own? You know, Germany right now is in place 27, in terms of the number of people being vaccinated; the Emirates are in place 6 or 7.

So there’s something right which the Emirates are doing, and something fundamentally wrong what Germany is doing and the EU is doing. However, this is the future, and if mankind is supposed to live as an immortal species—and that was a notion which was coined by my late husband—because we are different from other species, because we have creative reason. We can solve any problem through scientific and technological breakthroughs, by discovering new laws of the universe. And since our mind is the most advanced part of that universe, there is all the reason for optimism that once we attune our own existence and our own practice with the laws of the universe, our chances to become the immortal species is absolutely there. But it does require space travel as a precondition, and I think this idea of nations working together to discover the beautiful secrets of the universe, that gives you a taste of what the future of man can look like, when we decide to become adults.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, it’s always good to end with a healthy dose of optimism, as you just did. For our viewers, let me remind you: You can get the new report “A Great Leap Backward—LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal” on why we have to defeat the Great Reset and the Green New Deal, go to https://schillerinstitute.com and get an invoice for it.

And Helga, I guess that’s what we have now, so we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And join the Schiller Institute!

6. februar (EIRNS) —Følgende er en oversættelse af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedartikel i det tyske tidsskrift Neue Solidarität, nr. 6, den 11. februar 2021:

Forholdet til Amerika vil ikke være let endnu et stykke tid fremover. I betragtning af de forskellige strategidokumenter mod Rusland og Kina samt udsagn fra førende militærofficerer lyder præsident Bidens meddelelse i hans første udenrigspolitiske tale – ”Amerika er tilbage” – som en skjult trussel. Under hans ledelse sagde han, at de dage, hvor USA vil ”lægger sig fladt ned”, når de står over for Ruslands aggressive handlinger, er forbi, og Kinas aggressive tvangsforanstaltninger vil blive imødegået. Titlen på hans tale var ”Amerikas plads i verden”, og ifølge Biden er denne plads overalt i verden. Regeringer såvel som ansvarlige borgere overalt i verden skal straks begynde at reflektere over, hvordan de vil reagere på de erklæringer om politisk hensigt, der er hørt i forbindelse med Bidens tiltrædelse.

De mest chokerende udsagn kom fra adm. Charles Richard, chef for den Amerikanske Strategiske Kommando, der skrev i februarudgaven af USA Flådeinstitutetts Proceedings:

”Der er en reel mulighed for, at en regional krise med Rusland eller Kina hurtigt kunne eskalere til en konflikt, der involverer atomvåben, hvis de opfatter, at en konventionel krigs nederlag ville true regimet eller staten. Derfor må det amerikanske militær flytte sin hovedantagelse fra ’brug af atomvåbner er ikke mulig’ til ’brug af atomvåbner er en meget reel mulighed’ …. ”

Det burde være klart, at admiral Richard her taler om 3. verdenskrig, hvilket sandsynligvis ville betyde tilintetgørelse af menneskeheden. Som MIT-atomvåbenekspert Theodore Postol blandt andet gentagne gange og overbevisende har hævdet, er den afgørende forskel mellem konventionelle krig og en atomkrig faktisk det, at en atomkrig ikke forbliver begrænset. Men NATO’s utopiske fraktion mener tværtimod, at en begrænset atomkrig kunne blive ”vundet”. Og hvilke ”regionale konflikter” kunne man overveje? En konflikt ved den russiske grænse på grund af Aegis-baserede missilforsvarssystemer i Polen og Rumænien? Eller vedrørende det østlige Ukraine, hvor Europa bliver krigsskuepladsen? En konflikt mellem Israel og Iran eller en eskalering af spændingerne omkring Taiwan?

Admiral Richards uhyrlige bemærkninger skal betragtes på baggrund af adskillige forskellige strategiske papirer og doktriner, hvor det meste perfide er et dokument udgivet af Atlanterhavsrådet den 28. januar. Dokumentet er underskrevet ”Anonym”, som er ”en tidligere senior regerings embedsmand med dybdegående ekspertise og erfaring med at beskæftige sig med Kina,” ifølge beskrivelsen i forordet af Frederick Kempe, lederen af Atlanterhavsrådet. Dokumentet på 85 sider, der er beskrevet som et af de vigtigste, Rådet nogensinde har offentliggjort, har titlen ”Det længere telegram: Hen imod en ny amerikansk Kina-strategi (The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy)”, i eksplicit henvisning til dokumentet ”Lang telegram (Long Telegram)” fra 1946, der også blev offentliggjort anonymt i sin tid af George Kennan, hvor han opfordrede til en inddæmningspolitik mod Sovjetunionen.

Denne nye anonyme forfatter opfordrer åbent til et kup imod præsident Xi Jinping og hans ”indre kreds” for at erstatte ham med oppositionsledere inden for det kinesiske kommunistparti. Da styrtningen af hele det kommunistiske parti med sine 91 millioner medlemmer ikke har nogen chance for at få succes, siger han, at den amerikanske strategi skal forblive ”laserfokuseret” på Xi Jinping og sigte mod at opsplitte CCP-ledelsen, hvor højtstående partimedlemmer er uenige i Xis politiske retning og hans uendelige krav om absolut loyalitet. Man skal hjælpe disse kredse i CCP-ledelsen med at komme til magten, der i modsætning til Xi Jinping ikke ønsker at implementere deres egen kinesiske model for en international orden, men vil underkaste sig den USA-dominerede verdensorden. Xi har ifølge ”Anonym” til hensigt at projicere Kinas autoritære system over hele verden og udgør ikke længere et problem kun for den USA-ledede liberale internationale orden og amerikanske forrang, men et alvorligt problem for hele den demokratiske verden.

Lad os forstille os følgende tænkeeksperiment. Hvordan ville den tyske regering reagere, hvis en førende russisk tænketank offentliggjorde en undersøgelse, der opfordrede til at kansler Merkel og hendes inderkreds skulle væltes med laserlignende præcision, for at hjælpe med til, at en fraktion i CDU, der ville være underordnet Moskvas interesser tager magten, mens chefen for de strategiske våben samtidig talte om, at en atomkrig er sandsynlig? Der ville være et hidtil uset oprør i hele Tyskland! Det bør ikke overraske nogen, at chefredaktøren for Kinas Global Times, Hu Xijin, reagerede på artiklen af admiral Richards med en opfordring til Kina om, at opbygge et atomarsenal på 1.000 atomvåben for at gøre Kinas anden-strejke-kapacitet troværdig.

Både i Atlantic Council-dokumentet og i det officielle papir fra USA’s Udenrigsministeriums Kontor for politisk planlægning (Office of Policy Planning) med titlen ”Elementerne i den kinesiske udfordring (The Elements of the Chinese Challenge)” er det klart, at det er succesen med den kinesiske økonomiske model og hastigheden af dens teknologiske innovation, der betragtes som truslen mod amerikansk dominans i verden. Det var en forkert beregning at antage, at Kinas integration på verdensmarkedet, ved at tilslutte sig WTO, automatisk ville føre til, at nationen ville vedtage den vestlige neoliberale demokratimodel, siger Udenrigsministeriets papir. For Kina opbyggede også sin egen “marxist-leninistiske” model af en autoritær stat, domineret af “partiets ekstreme fortolkning af kinesisk nationalisme.” Derudover fortsætter det, at Kina er fast besluttet på at skabe en ”national foryngelse”, der skal kulmineres i transformation af den internationale orden.

Vi kan selvfølgelig ikke kommentere på alle de ekstremt fjendtlige beskyldninger i de to papirer, da Udenrigsministeriets dokument er 72 sider langt. Sammenfattende kan det siges, at stort set alle anklager, der påstås mod Kinas politik, er en projicering af deres egne politikker og intentioner. Der gøres ikke noget forsøg på at forstå Kina ud fra dets 5.000-årige historie og kultur, og der erkendes heller ikke, hvor stor en civilisationspræstation det var for Kina at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af ekstrem fattigdom i løbet af de seneste årtier. Fra dette perspektiv betragtes naturligvis Silkevejsinitiativet ikke som en økonomisk politik, der tillader udviklingslande at overvinde deres underudvikling for første gang nogensinde, men som bevis på Kinas intentioner om at opnå overherredømme.

I betragtning af det Nationale Sikkerhedsagenturs samlede overvågning af ikke kun dens egen befolkning, men siden 11. september 2001 hele verden og censur af endog den daværende siddende præsident for USA (Donald Trump) fra TV-netværkerne og IT-giganterne i Silicon Valley, kræver det en meget speciel form for optik for at beskylde Kina for at have spioneret på og overvåget sine borgere. Virkeligheden er, at digitalisering i Kina har muliggjort meget effektiv kontaktsporing i coronaviruspandemien, og at det sociale kreditsystem har overvældende populær støtte, fordi belønningen med positiv adfærd for samfundet også gavner hver enkelt.

Fælles for begge dokumenter er, at deres forfattere genfortolker absolut alt om kinesisk kultur, som i tusinder af år har sat interesse for det fælles gode over individets interesse, og som strømmer fra et dybtliggende behov for en harmonisk udvikling af alle, og de gør det til den vestlige ordens fjendebillede.

Det er ikke det kinesiske kommunistparti, der søger verdensherredømme, men snarere at den unipolære verdensordens nyliberale etablissement frygter, at det vil miste sit overherredømme og har bevæget sig kilometer væk fra de universelle principper, med hvilket Amerika blev grundlagt, og som det hævder at repræsentere. Og hvad Biden-administrationen synes om respekt for andre landes suverænitet er indlysende i dens modstand mod Nord Strøm 2-gasprojektet.

I øvrigt tjener hele hurlumhejet omkring Vladimir Putins påståede forgiftning af Alexey Navalny, som er støttet af vestlige efterretningsagenturer, det samme formål, om at sætte en farverevolution i gang og derved skabe en opposition inden for Putins inderkreds, der kunne bruges til at fjerne ham fra embedet.

Alle ansvarlige og tænkende mennesker opfordres til gennem deres mobilisering at bidrage til at forhindre, at Europas regeringer trækkes videre ind i den bebudede kampagne mod Kina og Rusland. Kansler Merkel understregede korrekt i sin tale til World Economic Forums online-begivenhed, at hun afviste enhver form for blokdannelse imellem USA og Kina, hvor Europa derefter skulle vælge side, og sagde, at den multilateralismes time var kommet.

I lyset af admiral Richards farlige udsagn må de europæiske lande ikke kun udtrykkeligt distancere sig fra en sådan politik, de skal også trække sig ud af NATO og søge en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der afspejler deres befolkningers interesser. Det, der står på spil, er Europas overlevelse.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Billede: DOD/Lisa Ferdinando

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

Hele programmet med taler af bl.a. Harley Schlanger:

As with September 11, 2001, the strategic realities of world politics were suddenly altered by the violent suppression of the challenge to the results of the United States Presidential elections on January 6.

However the attack on the Capitol actually occurred, the response to the attack, in the form of new draft bills calling for the re-impeachment of President Trump (despite the fact that Trump’s term ends in only twelve days;) the statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that “Trump gave Putin the greatest gift” through the lethal attack; and Pelosi’s letter imploring the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, to, in effect, illegally assume the powers of the Presidency with respect to thermonuclear war, have worsened everything, and only further alarmed all responsible world leaders. A higher concept of humanity, and therefore a higher concept of self-government, must now guide the American Republic, and the world. These concepts exist, and were often discussed by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. Today, Schiller Institute founder and chairman Helga Zepp-LaRouche, joined by Harley Schlanger and Diane Sare, will discuss how any citizen, anywhere in the world, who seeks to reverse the impending doom being brought about by the failed trans-Atlantic “world order,” should one think in this time of crisis.

As President Trump continues to fight to overturn the biggest election fraud in U.S. history, he has an opportunity to turn the tables on those who have attempted to destroy him and wreck his presidency over the last four years. While the enemies of the U.S. in the City of London and Wall Street are moving to turn the U.S. into a banana republic, and are trying to divert attention away from their treachery by blaming Russia and China, and calling banker’s puppet Joe Biden a Communist (!), their system is collapsing.

Helga Zepp LaRouche urged President Trump to outflank them, break out of the rigged game, by accepting Putin’s offer for an emergency summit, to change the dynamic from war and collapse to cooperation against today’s corporatist fascists. With the Davos billionaires desperately scheming to use a would-be Biden administration to impose Green fascism and push for new war provocations, there is an alternative solution: work with Russia and China, and adopt Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws. She again reiterated her conviction that immersing oneself in great classical culture, especially the works of Beethoven, one can find the inner strength and beauty needed to win this world historic battle.

I en forsmag på, hvad der vil være i fokus på Schiller Instituttets konference denne weekend, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag under sin ugentlige dialog, at et underliggende tema vil være at tage fat på den “forkerte metodiske tankegang”, som kendetegner de fleste politiske diskussioner i den vestlige verden. Man kan ikke løse problemer ved at anvende den samme fejlagtige metode, som var årsagen til disse problemer. Derfor er det så vigtigt at studere de bedste tænkere fra fortiden, der iværksatte kulturelle renæssancer og videnskabelige revolutioner – såsom Nicolaus Cusanus, Leibniz og Lyndon LaRouche – for at finde løsninger på de farlige kriser, der truer med at ødelægge civilisationen i dag.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede de vigtigste emner, som vil blive diskuteret i løbet af de fire konferencepaneler.

Du kan tilmelde dig konferencen her for at modtage linkene og opdateringer.

Du kan også bare se YouTube-videoerne her.

Afskrift på engelsk: 

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly webcast and dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s Dec. 9, 2020.

As most of you already know, there’s tremendous chaos in the world: The U.S. election has not yet been decided. There are legal cases; there are ongoing investigations. And worldwide, there’s a significant amount of chaos, with threats of war, efforts to try to contain China coming from NATO and certain crazed circles of warmongers in the United States. In the midst of this, the Schiller Institute is going to be holding a conference to present some solutions to the world, to address the cause of these crises and some solutions. The conference is titled, “The World after the U.S. Election: Creating a World Based on Reason.” Helga, why don’t you give us a little sense of what this conference is about, and why people should go to https://schillerinstitute.com and sign up to participate. It’s an online conference, this Saturday and Sunday. So, Helga, go ahead.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, the other title, or the concept of the conference is a notion coming from Nikolaus of Cusa. Many people don’t know who he is, but he is actually the most important thinker in Europe in the 15th century, and he is generally regarded to be the father of modern science and also the father of the modern nation-state, and this will be discussed at the conference. But he has developed a method of thinking called “the coincidence of opposites,” and that is the approach we want to take to all four panels, because I think, while you can discuss many of the problems of the world, ranging from the COVID crisis, the hunger crisis, all of these strategic crises, the main problem is that most people look at these things with a wrong method of thinking, in a nominalist way, in a positivist way, on the level of sense-certainty, what their feelings are. But, to find a solution to these problems requires a different method of thinking, namely, the coincidence of opposites, that the human mind’s reason is able to create a solution on a higher level than the level on which the problems developed. This was also Albert Einstein’s view, who basically famously said, you can never find a solution to a problem on the same level where it developed.

And the whole idea is that we have to find a way of establishing a level of reason so that all the many problems which the world is faced with right now can actually be addressed and solved.

Now, after having made that short preface, the first panel of this conference will be the strategic implication of the U.S. election and everything which is happening around it. If you go by the Western mainstream media, and it does not really make a difference between the U.S. media and the European media, you would think this election is settled, that Trump is just making a lot of trouble by not accepting a foregone conclusion that Biden won. But we know that the situation is very much different: I mean, first of all, despite the fact that many of the court cases and suits were rejected, there is a new one, which I think is quite significant, and that is that the state of Texas is suing the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania — some of the swing states — that there were so many irregularities that they are demanding that these elections be repeated.

Now, we don’t know yet what the Supreme Court will do, but the reality is, and since we have been following this situation not in a passive way, but in a very active way: We had on Nov. 28 an International Investigative Commission for Truth in Elections (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2020/11/28/international-investigative-commission-on-truth-in-elections/); they formed an opinion, and they came to the conclusion that there were so many irregularities, there were thousands of people who made affidavits that they saw unbelievable amounts of manipulations; there is a famous video where you actually see where basically ballot stuffing is going on; then there are all these allegations that the voting machines were rigged and many states bought these machines so that the upcoming election could be rigged. All of these things are out there, and since everybody knows that if there is not a fair election possible in the United States, you can really kiss democracy good-bye in the rest of the world, because if the most powerful country in the world can have such an incredible situation, what about all the small states around the world?

This will be the issue in the first panel, and many other issues will go into it. We will discuss the urgent need, there are these appeals to President Trump that he must use the time he still has — no matter what comes out of the election — to pardon Assange, whose life is in great danger. He’s sitting in jail in Belmarsh, in Great Britain, where there is a COVID outbreak, so he is already weakened, and he must be immediately brought to the United States, but with guarantees for his life by the President himself. Also Snowden should be pardoned. And they have a lot to say about the background to Russiagate, the background of this coup; this will all be discussed, and, naturally also, the role of the prosecution against my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, because he was gone after, by the same apparatus as what we see now in motion against President Trump, he said if this is not stopped, nobody is safe. And he was a presidential candidate, and they threw against him the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex, or what people call the “deep state”: this is really the Anglo-American intelligence community which is acting right now against Trump.

So that is still a question which must be resolved and it’s simply a question of justice. And I think there will be a lot of discussion in this first panel, which really bears on the future of the entire world, because the outcome of that will be decisively a question of war and peace.

SCHLANGER: A very important aspect of that the very technologies, the cyber-technologies which are being investigated as possibly involved in rigging the election, are controlled by the same networks that ran Russiagate! That operated against President Trump in his effort to change from the post-Cold War order of the neocons and neoliberals, into a different kind of relationship with Russia and China. And so, in a sense, the first panel will then be followed directly by a second panel which will take up the question of the implications of the vote fraud: Why was this done against Trump? Who was doing it? And what kind of world order are they trying to create, and how it is that we can create a new strategic architecture to escape the danger of World War III. I think this is a crucial aspect of the first panel and the second panel representing a kind of unity, don’t you, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, because the second panel will discuss the strategic crisis which everybody should know is really severe. And while Trump clearly has made some things which have been very upsetting, like his blaming of China for the coronavirus, which is not supported by scientific facts at all, nevertheless — and I know the Chinese by now are quite infuriated about all the accusations against them, so it may look like relations between the United States and China have soured quite a bit; but, if you know the actual apparatus which would be coming into the White House with Biden, these are all people, or many people who have already been in the Obama Administration and have a profile of the endless wars, the interventionist wars, the confrontation with Russia and China. So, while the Trump situation may not look so good as it looked at the beginning of his administration in respect to China, I still think the possibility that they would resolve this is much better with Trump.

And everybody who is not ideologically completely prejudiced, should really understand that the world is in such a terrible crisis — you have hunger, you have epidemic, you have a blowout of the financial system pending — that to solve all of these problems does require that the two largest economies of the world work together: The United States and China. And right now, you have the entire move by NATO into the Indo-Pacific, trying to encircle China, encircle Russia. So there’s the modernization of nuclear weapons going on. And all of that means that we are really in a very dangerous situation which could go out of control at any moment.

Then, the whole motion by the central banks to eliminate the last remnants of sovereignty from governments by going for the so-called “Great Reset,” meaning they want to create a “post-corona crisis world” by digitalizing all the currencies, by computerizing all payments, which basically would mean they will really do what the bankers in Jackson Hole were discussing in 2019, more than a year ago, that they want to shift the power of control entirely to the central banks, even more than it has been up to now.

Now, we have solutions against that which were defined by my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche: We have to have a totally new credit system, and we need to go back to a Glass-Steagall separation of the banks; we need a New Bretton Woods, as it was intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and we need to have a new security architecture. So that will be all discussed by very important experts from different countries in the second panel. So in a certain sense, while the first panel discusses why is this election brawl in the United States so fierce; the second panel will give you the strategic background of why all of this is happening.

SCHLANGER: I’m speaking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, about a conference the Schiller Institute is sponsoring this weekend, the 12th and 13th of December. It’s online, you can register for it. It’s up on the screen right now, (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20201121), or go to https://schillerinstitute.com to do so. And as Helga is emphasizing, this conference will be offering solutions, not just throwing up our hands, saying “everything’s chaotic.”

Now, the third panel is I think one of the more important for that, because, we’re seeing a continuation of problems that predate the coronavirus in terms of the collapse of healthcare systems, not just in the developing sector, but in the advanced sector; and also the spread of hunger in what used to be the colonial area of the world, so that the World Food Program director is warning of 30 million or maybe 70 million people dying of hunger if steps are not taken right now.

But Helga, there seem to be people of good will and good conscience who are stepping forward to address this, and some of them will be addressing the conference.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this is a very important initiative, called the “Committee of the Coincidence of Opposites.” This was à proposal I launched already in June. The idea is that in order to find a solution to the problems you mentioned, you have to bring the different social groups together, like the farmers: It is an outrage that U.S. farmers have top harvests, but they cannot deliver it to the places where the food is needed! The farmers go bankrupt because the cartels prevent them from getting the kind of price they need, and that has to be remedied.

So there is right now a world famine! The head of the World Food Program, David Beasley has just corrected his previous prognosis that there would be the danger of 30 million people dying. He said, if there is not a dramatic change, the danger is that in 2021, there will be 270 million people starving to death. And that is going on already in places like Yemen, Sudan, Northeast Nigeria, and many other places, people are already in immediate danger of starving by the millions! That is not an exaggeration. Naturally, you won’t hear that from the mass media, because they’re busy putting out lies about Trump and the U.S. election, but this is the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of World War II.

And we want to bring together medical associations, doctors, nurses, medical research facilities, partnerships with Africa; transport medical supplies, but also food. Now, Phillip Tsokolibane, who is a member of the Schiller Institute from South Africa has issued an urgent appeal to President Trump that he must commit the U.S. military to help. Because the logistical problem is so big, there are many countries where you don’t even have dirt roads to the villages, but people are starving and you have to bring all of this aid to the most remote areas of the world.

That will be discussed, and as you say, there are some people who have come forward who want to be part of the solution to that, and we want to create an environment which makes it clear this has to be done, because this is a test of the morality of mankind: Can we act when it would be possible, and actually quite easy to do? So that will be a very, very important panel, right there.

SCHLANGER: And the fourth panel will take up what you raised at the very beginning of our discussion, the method of thinking which enables people to be manipulated. The fact that you have, besides the mass media, the social media, the education system, the role of the military-industrial complex, people have a hard time staying focussed on much of anything. And this is an opportunity to bring up the whole question of culture: This is the Year of Beethoven, the 250th anniversary of his birth, and the theme of “Think Like Beethoven,” is something that Lyndon LaRouche introduced years ago, about how you can elevate the quality of thinking so that you can take in all of these subjects and look for solutions from the standpoint that the universe is coherent, and it’s man’s reason which can guide us.

What do you think will be most important from this fourth panel?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Lyndon LaRouche has always said that a society must learn to think like the great composers or the great poets, classical artistic composition. And that is, I think very important, because culture is not some luxury thing that you do, when you have a lot of leisure time, but it’s a way of life, it’s a way how to identify of your own life, and how you look at humanity. The celebration of Beethoven gives a perfect opportunity to really develop this idea of classical composition, of organizing your thoughts like a composer: You have an idea, you develop it, you exhaust it, and you arrive on a higher level, and you conclude it.

This is very different from modern-day talk shows, where one word gives the other, and people have an endless stream of opinions. This is more the Socratic method of finding the truth by exhausting an argument. And naturally, beauty is very important: In this world which is so full of ugliness and distress and violence, all these things which we know in our environment, we have to go back to the most elevated periods of the past, the Greek classic, the Italian renaissance, the German classical period, and other great periods of human history, and find in each society the most advanced ideas and then have those communicate with each other in order to create a new renaissance.

I think this is eminently possible, and it’s very important that, especially the young people are involved in discussing this. Because if the youth are elevated, the future of humanity is beautiful; if the youth are bogged down in suicides and dope addiction, and violent videogames, and all of these things, nothing positive can come out of it, so we will try to have young people also discuss the merits of Shakespeare, of music, especially Beethoven, naturally, but also Schiller and other great ideas.

So I think the last panel is very important, because it will give you the kind of moral outlook which only can come from truth, beauty, and the good. And that was always the basis for great periods in history, because you have to know what at least the unity is of the good, the beautiful, and the truthful because that is the key to all other areas.

SCHLANGER: And of course, being able to break out of the group-think that’s imposed by the media and social media is key to freeing yourself so you can be creative, and that’s the basis for happiness.

So that’s this weekend, and it’s extremely timely, because it’ll be taking place on Saturday and Sunday, just before Monday, when the Electoral College is supposed to meet. And of course, that’s not definitive now, what’s going to come out of that. But for us to have clear-headed, creative capabilities unleashed by this conference will help us deal with whatever comes up, starting on Dec. 14th.

So, Helga, just again, appealing to all of our viewers to sign up, and organize others to join the conference, to be able to participate. Helga will be there in most of the panels; I will be participating. But it’s important that you realize this is an opportunity for you to prepare yourself to function as a true citizen, both a patriot of your country and as Schiller talked about, a citizen of the world.

Helga, anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I hope to hear from you on the weekend.

SCHLANGER: OK! We’ll see you this weekend, and then we’ll be back again next week, with our regular, weekly dialogue.

Billede: Kinas fusionskraft reaktor Tokamak HL-2M

Dec. 6 (EIRNS)—Her følger en engelsk oversættelse af Helga Zepp-LaRouches leder i den tyske avis Neue Solidarität, den 10. december 2020. (https://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2020/50/hzl.htm)

The question that should preoccupy every thinking person, is how the international community can draw the lessons from the experience of Covid-19, and how we can ensure that we will never again be so unprepared for any new pandemic that could break out at any time. What we need to change, in order to overcome the underdevelopment and poverty that now threaten hundreds of millions of people with hunger and pandemics, should be an existential question for everyone.

A number of reasonable people, emphatically including economists, agree that many Asian countries were better able to contain the pandemic than the West, and acknowledge that China in particular managed to achieve a growth rate of 4.9% in the third quarter of 2020, while there was a decline of about 2% in the U.S. and 4% in European countries. The locomotive of the world economy clearly lies in Asia, especially since 15 Asian countries, representing roughly one-third of the world population and of global economic output, achieved a considerable breakthrough on Nov. 15 with the signing, after 8 years of negotiations, of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The RCEP is a success for China in particular, insofar as U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo failed to persuade Asian countries to end cooperation with China.

Italian economist Michele Geraci, a former under-secretary in the Economics Ministry, immediately recognized and explained the economic advantages for European companies of investing, for example, in one partner country to the RCEP, and then being able to export at 0% duties to the 14 other RCEP signers in triangular trade. In that way, European companies can participate in the largest growth zone of the world. That applies emphatically, of course, to German companies, that depend on expanding markets. But that awareness has not yet sunk in, in Germany.

If someone talks hair-raising nonsense in a back room, that’s his business. But if someone does it in the pages of a daily newspaper, which influences the opinion of at least part of the population, it calls for a public commentary. The ideologically-driven ideas that Professor Thomas Straubhaar of Hamburg University spouts in Die Welt under the headline “China’s New World Order Endangers Germany’s Economic Model” clearly belong to the second category. This article could be used in any lecture as a demonstration of the inability of the reductionist method to arrive at the correct insight. He writes: “One by one, the individual pieces of Chinese policy come together in a coherent mosaic. The contours of a new world (economic) order are visible, one that is dictated and dominated by Beijing. What is becoming apparent should set off alarm bells in Germany.” https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article221738982/Handelspolitik-Chinas-neue-Weltordnung-gefaehrdet-Deutschlands-Geschaeftsmodell.html

What the Professor, whom we shall henceforth appropriately call Mr. Sträubhaar (i.e., “Hair-Raiser” — instead of Straubhaar), thinks he can deduce from the individual pieces, from the mosaic, is totally ahistorical and two-dimensional, located in a certain sense in Euclidean space. Therefore, the mosaic pieces are quickly transformed into “dominoes” in his article, such as Hong Kong, which he claims threatens to be the first to fall into Beijing’s hands. The historical background that Hong Kong was the spoils given to the British Empire as a result of the Opium Wars, and that forces of that Empire today, such as the Henry Jackson Society in London or the National Endowment for Democracy, have been quite blatantly involved in long-standing attempts to launch a color revolution in Hong Kong, such “contours” are not part of his “coherent mosaic.” But perhaps the Professor would get the point in terms of Taiwan, if Mrs. Merkel were not overjoyed to find out that Russia was, let’s say, delivering weapons to Bavaria, in order to equip the Alpen mountain troops for an armed conflict with the German Army?

“With its ‘Belt and Road Initiative,’ Beijing intends to create nothing less than a Eurasian economic space from the Yellow Sea on the east coast of China to the cliffs of the Atlantic Ocean in Europe, which also radiates out to Africa.” There you have it: the ultimate crime! China dares to do what Leibniz had proposed back in the 17th century, namely, that the two civilizations on the far ends of Eurasia, Europe and China, develop the region that lies between them! An economic space, which encompasses all of Eurasia, and even “radiates” to Africa would, he writes, “hit the core of the German economic model and destroy it.” But not if the German economic model consists of promoting growing markets and ever-richer customers! But if it only consists of protecting the transactions of the Wirecard company over the years, then, investments in infrastructure projects are indeed a huge danger, because they tie up for so long so much attractive liquidity, which could otherwise be put to splendid use in speculation!

The fact is that China, with its infrastructure investments in Africa and other parts of the developing sector, is not only pursuing its own interests, but also giving these countries for the first time the chance to shake off the legacy of the colonial era. Instead of actually lifting Africa out of poverty through investments, the European Union would evidently rather use Frontex (border guards) to carry out so-called “pushback operations,” to repel the refugees attempting to cross the Mediterranean into Europe, for which staff members are now on trial.

The German business model is not threatened by China’s focus on innovation, but by the EU’s self-destructive ideology of the Green Deal, which forces high-tech industrial sectors, that require high energy flux densities in order to produce, to convert to costly alternatives. China is investing in nuclear energy, particularly in fusion energy, and has just completed the installation of the HL-2M Tokamak fusion reactor in Chengdu, and can now begin with the testing of all systems and components. But Germany is squandering its research capabilities on whatever is “green,” and therefore lowers productivity.

Finally, Professor Sträubhaar writes: “If the Chinese mosaic is decoded [he obviously can’t escape his reductionist way of thinking], what is exposed is the definitive end of an American world economic order, that remained valid for over 70 years, and provided Europe, and especially Germany, with an economic success never thought possible.” The idea that the rise of China automatically means the decline of America could only occur to someone who sees the world as a zero-sum game. So he is left with the only desperate alternative of having to choose one or the other side, and thus either treat China as an arch-enemy or lose the U.S. military protective shield.

However, there is a much more optimistic perspective than that of geopolitical confrontation, which inevitably leads to the Thucydides trap, and thus, in the age of thermonuclear weapons, to the destruction of mankind. The fact that the neo-liberal model has left the health system of the West so unprepared for the pandemic, while China and other Asian countries handled it much better, could lead us to the conclusion that we have something to learn from China and Asia. After all, China has just achieved its goal of overcoming extreme poverty in the entire country by 2020.

We, in Germany and in the other European nations, could do away with the “green” dictatorship of the EU bureaucracy, apply once again the original German business model, that was based on scientific and technological progress, and accept China’s offer to cooperate with the New Silk Road initiative in the industrialization of Africa, South-West Asia and the Balkans. That would create the preconditions for hundreds of millions of potential refugees to contribute to building their own countries rather than risking their lives by fleeing. It would also create growing markets of several billion people with increasing purchasing power, which would in turn offer long-term prospects for the German economy.

Although Europeans have a distorted view of the situation because of the lock-step reporting by mainstream media, it is not to be ruled out that a genuine citizens movement will prevail in the United States and defend the Constitution and the U.S. Republic against the machinations of the military-industrial complex. In that case, the current anti-Chinese hate campaign would be replaced by the realization that cooperation among the world’s two largest economies is not only in the interest of the United States and China, but is also necessary to avert the “worst humanitarian crisis since the founding of the United Nations” and the acute starvation facing 270 million people, as the head of the World Food Program David Beasely has warned. It is only by working together that we will be able to overcome the existential problems of mankind, such as hunger, poverty, pandemics, energy and raw materials security, earthquake warning systems and anti-asteroid defense, just to name a few. And that is in the interest of our entire species.

We as a species are distinct from all other living beings in that our entire existence proves that we have always been able to discover creative solutions to seemingly hopeless conflicts, because we are able to think on the level of reason. This also means that our species can be trusted to establish a future order of economic, political and cultural coexistence that allows us to focus on the common aims of mankind rather than wasting resources on wars and other Aristotelian forms of trench warfare.

Billede: Tokamak_HL 2M Mlcumi, CC BY SA 4.0.jpg Wikipedia Commons.

Mens kampen for at stoppe valgsvindlen, der er udformet til at gøre krigshøgen Joe Biden til præsident, går ind i den tredje uge, kommer City of Londons rolle atter ind i billedet. I sit resumé, der blev præsenteret i hendes ugentlige dialog om kampen for at vende bedrageriet, afslører Helga Zepp LaRouche Lord Malloch-Brown – bestyrelsesformanden for firmaet Smartmatic der fremstiller afstemningsmaskiner – som en vigtig britisk operatør, med bånd til regimeskifte-fanatiker George Soros, der har været en førende bagmand i den beskidte kampagne mod Trump. Smartmatic er blevet identificeret af Trumps advokat Sidney Powell som genstand for hendes efterforskning af, hvordan bedrageriet blev kørt mod præsident Trump; firmaet er blevet afvist af flere nationer, på grundlag af hvor let det kan programmeres til et bestemt udfald af et valg.

Hun roste NSA-whistleblowerne Bill Binney og Kirk Wiebe som “absolutte helte” i deres mangeårige forsvar af personlig frihed mod overvågningsstaten og ukrænkeligheden af retfærdige lovlige valg, og støttede opfordringen til Trump om at tilbyde benådninger og frit lejde i USA til Edward Snowden og Julian Assange for at hjælpe med at udrense overvågningsstaten og dens aktiver indenfor ‘Big Tech’.

Hun dissekerede også City of Londons rolle bag bestræbelserne på at etablere et globalt fascistisk bankdiktatur, der giver bankfolk kontrollen over regeringers finanspolitik, og hvordan disse bankfolk har til hensigt at bruge denne magt til at vedtage en dødbringende international miljøpolitik, ‘Green New Deal’. Hun opfordrede seerne til at registrere sig til Schiller Instituttets onlinekonference den 12.-13. december, som vil præsentere en oversigt over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at trække verden tilbage fra en geopolitisk, neoliberal march imod krig og depression, og etablere et nyt paradigme for fredeligt samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater.

Skriv under her.

Kombinationen af kriser, som vi står over for nu, har nået sådanne hidtil usete proportioner, at det ser ud til at overskride de psykologiske grænser for hvad, der er tåleligt. Sundhedseksperter overalt i verden advarer om, at det kan tage yderligere ni måneder, før alle nationer kan blive forsynes med en vaccine – og selv da vil tilgængeligheden ikke være garanteret. I mellemtiden kan yderligere en million mennesker miste deres liv på grund af COVID-19.

Men et langt større antal liv er truet af den hungersnød, der nu breder sig i udviklingslandene som et resultat af nedgangen i landbruget og sammenbruddet af den såkaldte uformelle sektor af økonomien. Mange lande er allerede destabiliseret af eksisterende sociale spændinger, som pandemien nu har forværret. Denne dynamik kan muligvis vokse massivt i de kommende måneder.

Den Internationale Arbejdsorganisation (ILO) har rapporteret et kæmpe fald på 10,7% i den globale arbejdsindkomst i de første ni måneder af indeværende år, hvilket beløber sig til 3,5 billioner dollars, og et tab på op til 500 millioner arbejdspladser ved årets udgang. I de avancerede økonomier er konkurser, kortere arbejdstid og afskedigelser – der truer så mange på deres eksistens – i det mindste midlertidigt afbødet af regeringers nødhjælpsprogrammer. Men de fleste udviklingslande er totalt ude af stand til at finansiere lignende programmer. I lande med de såkaldte “lavere mellemindkomster” udgjorde indkomsttabet 23,3% i andet kvartal og 15,6% i tredje kvartal, og prognoserne for det fjerde er langt mere pessimistiske.

I betragtning af at mere end halvdelen af befolkningen i afrikanske lande syd for Sahara, selv før COVID-19 brød ud, ikke havde en velafbalanceret og tilstrækkelig næring, er nyheden fra Vice.com om, at fødevarepriser i hele Afrika er steget med 250%, virkelig katastrofal. Som lederen af Verdensfødevareprogrammet (WFP), David Beasley, nu i flere måneder har advaret om, truer en hungersnød af “bibelske dimensioner” med at dræbe op til 300.000 mennesker om dagen. Phillip Tsokolibane, Schiller Instituttets samarbejdspartner i Sydafrika, har udsendt en presserende appel om en international mobilisering for at bekæmpe sult i Afrika. “Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, hvad der vil ske – DET FINDER STED allerede”.

Det er klart, at stillet over for en sådan tragedie, er det kun regeringer, der arbejder sammen, der kan gennemføre de nødprogrammer, som er nødvendige for at redde mange millioner menneskers liv. Desværre har de sidste måneder vist, at det er geopolitisk konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, som står på Vestens dagsorden og ikke samarbejde; og for blot at nævne et eksempel om de 5 milliarder dollars, som WFP akut har brug for, så har den kun modtaget 750 millioner. Hvad kan der gøres? Skal vi bare se passivt til, at tragedien udspiller sig foran vores øjne?

Som svar på den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede, der var præget af katastrofer svarende til nutidens, udviklede Nicholas af Cusa, den store tænker i det 15. århundrede, og opfinderen af moderne videnskab og den suveræne nationalstat, en ny metode til tænkning, Coincidentia Oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald, der, som han understregede, repræsenterede en helt ny tilgang til problemløsning. Det var idéen om, at det menneskelige sind – i skaberens levende billede – er i stand til at definere det højere niveau, hvor alle tilsyneladende uløselige modsætninger kan løses. Ifølge Nicholas er det menneskelige sind i stand til at tænke som ‘den ene’, som besidder en højere magt end ‘de mange’. På samme måde observerede Albert Einstein, at problemer ikke kan løses på det samme niveau, som de opstod på.

Sankt Nikolaus Hospital, Cusanusstift, Bernkastel-Kues, Rhineland Palatinate, Tyskland

Tænkning i henhold til ‘modsætningernes sammenfald’ er den metode, der må anvendes til at løse den krise, som truer hele menneskeheden i dag. Vi er nødt til at definere en løsning, der imødekommer de relevante individer og interessegruppers eksistentielle behov på lige fod. Denne tilgang er konkret brugbar med hensyn til pandemien.

Det er denne verdens unge mennesker, hvis fremtid mest er truet af kombinationen af pandemien og den økonomiske krise, skønt de på ingen måde var ansvarlige for dem. Derfor er vi nødt til at udvikle fremtidsprospekter for dem, som både løser det egentlige problem og giver dem en konkret opgave. Vi vil kun være i stand til at navigere i COVID-19-pandemien, og lignende fremtidige pandemier, hvis der etableres et moderne sundhedsprogram i hvert eneste land i verden; programmer, som i princippet svarer til Hill-Burton-standarden i USA, de tyske og franske sundhedssystemer, før de blev privatiseret, eller det system, der viste sig så vellykket i Wuhan, Kina.

Det første skridt i denne retning kunne tages ved at oprette partnerskaber mellem eksempelvis universitetsklinikker, hospitaler og medicinske fakulteter i USA og europæiske lande og lignende institutioner i Afrika. For at opbygge et moderne sundhedssystem er der ikke alene behov for medicinsk kapacitet såsom hospitaler, infrastruktur, vand, elektricitet osv., Men også et stort antal veluddannet medicinsk personale.

I denne henseende bør sådanne partnerskaber uddanne unge i USA, Europa og afrikanske lande, hvoraf nogle er arbejdsløse, til, for det første, at blive medicinske assistenter og derefter medicinsk personale efter Roosevelts model, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). Det allerførste skridt er at uddanne unge, så de kan indsættes i samfundene eller landsbyerne og demonstrere de folkesundhedsforanstaltninger for befolkningerne, der er nødvendige for at bekæmpe pandemien. I Tuskegee (Alabama), Tennessee, St. Louis (Missouri) og andre steder i USA er der allerede et sådant samarbejde med lokale institutioner, som også involverer klinikker og lokale politistyrker i de forskellige tillidsskabende foranstaltninger, såsom hjemmebesøg, hvilket er af ekstraordinær betydning i betragtning af befolkningens generelle usikkerhed og (ofte omfattende) kampagner mod at bære masker, afvisning af vacciner osv.

I de afrikanske partnerskabsprojekter kræver fælles træning og indsættelse af amerikanske og europæiske ungdomshjælpere med afrikanske unge også tillidsskabende foranstaltninger, der kan udføres af medicinsk personale såvel som repræsentanter for kirker eller katastrofe-hjælpeorganisationer. Sådanne programmer skal først fokusere på distribution af medicinske forsyninger og let transportable fødevarer, såsom mælkepulver, tørret og konserveret kød osv.; og derefter udvides hurtigst muligt til at omfatte uddannelse i opbygning af infrastruktur, landbrug og industrielle projekter.

I de sociale brændpunkter i amerikanske byer eller europæiske forstæder, hvor voldelige gadekampe af forskellige årsager har fundet sted for nyligt, og hvor unge udsættes for en lang række af farer, såsom stoffer, alkohol, bandekriminalitet, internetafhængighed og en fornedrende modkultur, ville sådanne uddannelsesmuligheder være det alternativ, de behøver for at finde en socialt påkrævet og fremtidsorienteret opgave. I USA ville en sådan kreativ ikke-voldelig direkte handling følge i den historiske tradition af Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s borgerrettighedsbevægelse. Det skal huskes, at Amelia Boynton Robinson, borgerrettighedsaktivisten, der bragte Dr. King til Selma, Alabama, og som blev tævet af politiet og efterladt til at dø på Edmund Pettus-broen under den berygtede “Bloody Sunday” i marts 1965, var vicepræsident for Schiller Instituttet i 25 år.

Dette er ikke stedet at diskutere kompleksiteten af de sociale brændpunkter, det være sig i de amerikanske byer, hvor vold er brudt ud, især i kølvandet på mordet på afroamerikaneren George Floyd, eller i de franske forstæder, hvor virkningerne af pandemien dramatisk har forværret den mangeårige sociale uro. Selvom disse sociale konflikter utvivlsomt er instrumenteret af visse kræfter til deres egne politiske formål, er det ikke desto mindre presserende at fjerne de reelle årsager til den unge generationers fortvivlelse og rodløshed. En sådan grunduddannelse til medicinsk assistent kunne i mange tilfælde være udgangspunktet for yderligere faglig uddannelse som sygeplejerske, læge eller medicinsk videnskabsmand.

I dette øjeblik med ekstrem polarisering og vold på gaden vil en ”Komité for Modsætningernes Sammenfald’ også kunne genetablere en forbindelse til Mahatma Gandhi’s ikke-voldelige tradition, der besejrede det Britiske Imperium i Indien; denne metode, samt Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s borgerrettighedsbevægelse, var i stand til at bringe ellers helt modsatte politiske kræfter sammen i direkte civile aktioner.

Denne komité skal samle mennesker med forskellige kvalifikationer, der gennem et, i første omgang, mindre men veludformet eksempel kan demonstrere, hvordan man skal tackle problemet på en sådan måde, at det også kan bruges som et pilotprojekt for storstilede regeringsprogrammer, der forhåbentlig vil følge efter inden for kort tid.

Alt imens det haster med at uddanne nok medicinsk personale over hele verden til at opbygge et verdenssundhedssystem, må det gå hånd i hånd med at overvinde sultpandemien. Det er en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden, at mange millioner mennesker i udviklingslandene (bogstaveligt talt) er i fare for sulte, som et resultat af fødevaremanglen, massivt forstærket af pandemien, (en af de mest ulidelige former for død, ifølge tidligere FN-kommissær for menneskerettigheder Jean Ziegler), alt imens landmændene i USA og Europa kæmper for deres økonomiske overlevelse. Nogle har været nødt til at slå deres besætninger ned, fordi kartellerne har skabt slavelignende forhold i kødforarbejdningsindustrien, hvilket førte til den gentagne fremkomst af COVID-19-udbrud. Det er også uacceptabelt, at landmændene, der producerer vital næring for hele samfundet, drives til konkurs af bankerne og kartellernes maksimale profitpolitik og af ideologiske, såkaldte “grønne” begrænsninger.

Repræsentanter for landmændene bør derfor slutte sig til disse medicinske teams for at organisere nødhjælp med passende fødevarer til krisezoner og begynde at træne andre unge mennesker i at udvikle landbrugskapaciteten i udviklingslandene. Sammen med afrikanske landmænd kunne de begynde at etablere moderne landbrug, hvilket naturligvis kræver udvikling af infrastruktur, vand- og elforsyning osv. Der er entusiastiske unge og ældre landmænd i USA, Tyskland, Frankrig eller Italien, der, i en sådan krisesituation, ville betragte det som en del af deres mission i livet at hjælpe med at overvinde en hidtil uset nødsituation med et sådant program.

USA og Europa har brug for en sammenslutning af pensionerede medicinske arbejdere, berørte enkeltpersoner og sociale og religiøse organisationer, der arbejder sammen [i regi af] denne komité for at etablere dette uddannelsesprojekt. En del af deres opgave er også at rejse de donationer, der kræves fra internationale og mellemstore virksomheder, fra bestyrelsesmedlemmer, der ikke kun forstår, at disse projekter er en humanitær nødvendighed, men at det også er i deres egen interesse at opretholde en bæredygtig verden.

Så snart disse projekter antager konkret form, vil de udløse den form for entusiasme, som alle store pionerprojekter kan generere, på trods af situationens alvor, og de vil give fremtidsudsigter til mange unge, der ellers ville blive trukket ind i sociale oprør og voldelige aktiviteter.

Som nævnt kan et sådant privat initiativ (direkte civil aktion) i Mahatma Gandhis tradition for ikkevoldelige handlinger og Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ikke i sig selv løse den gigantiske udfordring, der ligger foran os. Men det kan give et praktisk eksempel på, hvordan mennesker med god vilje kan gribe ind i en ellers desperat situation og pege i retning af den nødvendige løsning. Disse konkrete eksempler vil derefter tilskynde regeringer, eller lægge pres på dem, til at gå sammen og gennem et nyt kreditsystem skabe rammerne for permanent at overvinde underudviklingen i udviklingslandene.

På den måde ville Nicholas of Cusas idé om, at en løsning kan findes på et højere niveau, der tager hensyn til alle de involveredes interesser, finde en konkret anvendelse i dag. Dette initiativ vil bidrage til kampen mod pandemien, det vil definere en meningsfuld opgave for unge mennesker, og det vil hjælpe med at forbedre akutte nødsituationer i økonomisk ugunstigt stillede regioner i USA og Europa samt afrikanske lande. Det vil også fremhæve landbrugets vitale betydning under en hungersnød og redde folk fra at sulte. I en situation, hvor mange mennesker føler sig magtesløse over for århundredets katastrofe, vil komitéen give hvert enkelt menneske mulighed for at bidrage med noget for at overvinde krisen.

Skriv under her.

Billede: Gerd Altmann fra Pixabay

Se alle fire paneler her.

Ordstyrer Dennis Speed dedikerede konferencen til to af LaRouchebevægelsens langvarige medlemmer, Ted Andromidas og Phil Rubinstein, der døde for nyligt. Derefter blev der afspillet en video med et uddrag af en tale af Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019).     

   DENNIS SPEED: For at påbegynde vores første panel i dag er det mig en ære at introducere Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet.   

   HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg hilser jer, hvor end I befinder jer på Jorden, og lad mig i dette meget farlige øjeblik i historien fortælle jer om formålet med denne konference. Hvis menneskeheden skal formå at overvinde den nuværende trussel mod vores eksistens, så må denne konference – samt mobilisering af netværk over hele verden, som er i kontakt med os – skabe en vigtig intervention, der kan trække verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand, atomkrigens afgrund, og dermed – og dette er ikke en overdrivelse – den mulige udslettelse af den menneskelige art! 

Formålet med denne konference i Schiller Instituttet er at foreslå koncepter og løsninger til den indeværende hidtil usete krise. Vi har – som aldrig før – en kombination af en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol, hungersnød, den største økonomiske krise siden afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, et verserende finansielt sammenbrud og – mest fatalt – risikoen for en ny verdenskrig, samt, sidst men ikke mindst, en dyb kulturel krise. På grund af den enorme størrelsesorden af disse forbundne kriser, kan der ikke være separate løsninger for disse problemer, eller delvise aspekter heraf. Hvad, der er behov for, er et helt nyt paradigme, en løsning på et højere niveau end det, hvorpå alle disse kriser brød ud. Vi er nødt til at skifte til et nyt niveau for tænkning; noget, som Nikolaus Cusanus kaldte »Coincidentia Oppositorum«, modsætningernes sammenfald. 

Hvorfor befinder vi os på randen af krig, og hvorfor kan den nuværende konfrontation meget hurtigt blive en ny verdenskrig? Det korte svar er, fordi det britiske imperium hellere risikerer udslettelsen af den menneskelige art end at lade imperiet erstattes af et system med suveræne republikker. Lige siden præsident Trump til deres overraskelse vandt valget i 2016, har et ubarmhjertigt kupforsøg udfoldet sig, tilskyndet af MI6 i samarbejde med Obama-administrationens efterretningsapparat. Russiagate, som vi vil høre om fra [fhv. teknisk chef for USA’s Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur NSA] Bill Binney, en indsats for en bedragerisk rigsretssag, og et igangværende oprør fra dem, som Trump selv benævner det militær-industrielle kompleks og »den dybe stat« – herunder med voldelige optøjer. 

Ikke alene lovede Trump i 2016, at han ville arbejde for at genoprette forholdet til Rusland – hvilket Russiagate som helhed var designet til at modvirke – men fra Det britiske Imperiums synspunkt var hans præsidentembede et uheld, som aldrig skulle have været tilladt. Tag i betragtning, hvad I netop har hørt i videoklippet med Lyndon LaRouche, hvilket stadig er sandt i dag. Det grundlæggende strategiske spørgsmål i dag er, at der i det væsentlige er to politikker, som står i grundlæggende modsætning til hinanden: Den ene er Det britiske Imperium og den anden er forbundet med principperne i USA’s uafhængighedserklæring og indledningen til USA’s forfatning.    

Den grundlæggende konflikt   

Hele historien igennem de sidste 250 år i den såkaldt vestlige verden og derudover skal ses i perspektivet af denne grundlæggende konflikt. Det britiske Imperium forligede sig aldrig med tabet af deres mest dyrebare koloni. De forsøgte at vinde den tilbage med krigen i 1812, samt i borgerkrigen, hvor Storbritannien åbenlyst var allieret med Sydstaterne. Efter at de indså, at de ikke kunne vinde Amerika tilbage militært, besluttede de at undergrave det amerikanske etablissement for at få dem til at vedtage modellen for Det britiske Imperium fra det britiske Round Table og Fabian Society til H.G. Wells ’»Open Conspiracy« og læren fra William Yandell Elliott, mentoren for et helt samfund af anglofile fra Kissinger til Samuel Huntington og Zbignew Brzezinksi. Med administrationerne under Bush junior og senior samt Obama – Clinton var i det mindste opmærksom på problemet – lykkedes den britiske overtagelse af amerikansk politik endelig. »Project for a New American Century« (Projektet for et nyt amerikansk århundrede), PNAC,  var etablissementets svar på Sovjetunionens sammenbrud og havde sigte på endelig at realisere Bertrand Russels utopi for et verdensimperium: en unipolar verden, hvor alle genstridige regeringer efterfølgende skulle elimineres gennem farvede revolutioner, regimeskifte, interventionistiske krige eller direkte mord, som i tilfældet med Gaddafi. 

Og her var så Trump, der ønskede at normalisere forholdet til Rusland, afslutte de uendelige krige, bringe de amerikanske tropper hjem, og som i starten af hans periode endda talte om venskab med præsident Xi Jinping. 

Der er også andre udtryk for det samme forsøg på at etablere en unipolær verden. I løbet af de seneste år og måneder har der i stigende grad været en acceleration i geopolitiske konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina, der sigter mod at isolere Rusland og inddæmme Kina,  regimeskifte imod præsidenterne Putin og Xi Jinping, samt fuldstændig økonomisk afkobling fra Rusland og Kina – til trods for de strategiske realiteter – for at tvinge verden tilbage under den unipolære »regelbaserede« orden, der køres under kontrol af det angloamerikanske »særlige forhold«. 

Det seneste aspekt af dette er operationen omkring den påståede forgiftning af Navalny med den kemiske nervegift Novichok – berømt fra Skripal-sagen – som angiveligt dokumenteret af et specielt laboratorium i det tyske forsvar i samråd med det britiske laboratorium i Porton Down, Salisbury, som spillede en meget mærkelig rolle i Skripal-affæren. Forskerne bag udviklingen af Novichok, Leonid Rink og Vladimir Uglev, sagde grundlæggende, at hvis der var brugt Novichok, ville Navalny være død, og alle andre mennesker, der havde haft kontakt med ham, ville være blevet forurenet. Så det er totalt latterligt. Hvis Putin ville have Navalny dræbt, hvorfor skulle han så lade flyet lande i Omsk? Hvorfor ikke bruge tiden på hospitalet der til at dræbe ham? Hvorfor ikke nægte ham at blive fløjet til Tyskland? 

En meget tvivlsom rolle i dette spilles af »Cinema for Peace Foundation«, der betalte for et special-team af læger og hyrede et dyrt chartret fly i flere dage. Hvis man ser på, [hvem der sidder i] den internationale komité for denne organisation, finder man Gary Gasparov, David de Rothschild, brødrene Klitschko, Joschka Fischer og andre. Af en eller anden grund bragte Merkel denne sag op på EU- og NATO-niveau. Berygtede høge som Norbert Röttgen, krævede øjeblikkeligt – som en vred, knurrende hund, der blev sluppet løs –  »Lad os nu ophæve Nordstream II«. 

Så hvis man ser på »cui bono« (hvem har gavn) i denne sag, er det tydeligvis ikke Putin. Det gavner klart den side, der ønsker økonomisk afkobling fra Rusland og Kina. At afkoble Rusland og ramme Tyskland på samme tid. 

Forhøjet international spænding   

Igennem de seneste uger har der været en acceleration i antallet af militære flyhændelser, der var tæt på at udvikle sig til ulykker, hvilket er et udtryk for den øgede internationale spænding. Et par eksempler ud af mange:    

Et amerikansk kampfly kom ind i luftrummet i det nordlige Kina, hvor PLA (People Liberation Army, den kinesiske hær, red.) holdt en øvelse med skarp ammunition. Kineserne reagerede ved at opsende to missiler fra to forskellige steder til i det sydkinesiske hav. I forbindelse med en NATO-øvelse, der blev afholdt samtidigt i alle NATO-medlemslandene, fløj B-52-bombefly over Østersøen og blev stoppet af en skarp »intercept« af to russiske Su-27-kampfly. Der var også »intercept« af et RC-135 rekognosceringsfly over Sortehavet. Der blev også opsendt et russisk MiG-31-kampfly fra Nordflåden for at afskære et P-3C Orion maritimt patruljefly fra det norske luftvåben over Barentshavet. Rusland har rapporteret om et dusin sådanne begivenheder på en måned.  

Nogle af disse »intercepts« var på meget tæt hold. Hvis der bliver begået en menneskelig fejl, kunne det øjeblikkeligt udløse en større optrapning. Folk skal reflektere over det faktum, at hvis verdensfreden på nuværende tidspunkt afhænger af en pilots flyveevner, befinder vi os i store problemer. 

Husk på, at alt imens alt dette finder sted, males fjendebilledet af Rusland og Kina hver dag i stadig mere uhyggelige farver, og virkeligheden vendes på hovedet; en farvet revolution og et nazistisk kup påbegyndt af Obama, Biden og Victoria Nuland mod Ukraine fordrejes til en fortælling om, at »Rusland ændrer grænserne til Krim med magt«; Putin forgifter sine modstandere; Kina er ansvarlig for spredningen af coronaviruspandemi og den økonomiske skade forårsaget af nedlukninger; kineserne står bag optøjer i amerikanske byer. Hvor kommer alt dette fra?  

De økonomiske udviklingsplaner af Xi og LaRouche    

I september 2013 i Kasakhstan annoncerede præsident Xi Jinping politikken for Den Nye Silkevej, som hurtigt skulle blive det største infrastrukturprogram i historien. Schiller Instituttet offentliggjorde straks derefter en 360-siders rapport, »Den nye silkevej bliver til verdens-landbroen«, en opdatering af vores økonomiske platform gennem 40 år om, hvordan man overvinder fattigdom og underudvikling i udviklingslandene. Vi var meget begejstrede, fordi der var store lighedstræk mellem Xi Jinpings politik og livsværket fra min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, og vores bevægelse, som allerede i 1975 foreslog at erstatte IMF med Den Internationale Udviklingsbank, idéen om at have en reel udviklingspolitik i udviklingslandene.    

LaRouche nedsatte allerede i 1973 en biologisk arbejdsgruppe til at undersøge, hvordan IMF-betingelserne – ved at sænke levetidsstandarden for hele generationer over en lang periode – ville øge faren for en genopståen af gamle og opståen af nye sygdomme, såsom den nuværende pandemi. 

Han udviklede Oasis-planen for Sydvestasien i 1975. Vi udarbejdede en første udviklingsplan for Afrika i 1976. I 1982 arbejdede vi med Mexicos præsident López Portillo på en plan for at udvikle Latinamerika. En 40-årig udviklingsplan til udvikling af Indien. Det strategiske forsvarsinitiativ i 1983, som var et koncept for at overkomme militærblokkene – NATO og Warszawa-pagten – samt at udnytte den hertil forbundne videnskabelige udvikling til en gigantisk teknologioverførsel til udviklingslandene. Rapporterne »Den Productive: Trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien« (1988) og »Den Eurasiske Landbro« (1991) indeholdt de mange versioner af LaRouche’s genopretningsprogram, herunder hans forskellige programmer til genopretning af USA, som fremført i forbindelse med hans præsidentkampagner. 

I Lyndon LaRouches opfattelse af fysisk økonomi er tanken, at den eneste kilde til rigdom er individets kreativitet. Opdagelsen af nye universelle fysiske principper anvendt som videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt i fremstillingsprocesserne, hvilket leder til en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne og kapacitet. Dette kræver en voksende befolkning, en større grad af arbejdsdeling, en stigning i den relative potentiel befolkningstæthed samtidig med stadigt højere energigennemstrømningstætheder.   

En sådan opfattelse af økonomien vedrører naturligvis menneskebilledet. Menneskeheden ses som den hidtil eneste kendte kreative art i universet. Menneskelig kreativitet er den mest magtfulde geologiske kraft i et anti-entropisk univers under udvikling. Og det er denne kraft, der fremskynder denne udvikling på anti-entropisk vis. 

Med Xi Jinpings Nye Silkevej er verdens næststørste økonomiske magt nu i overensstemmelse med denne idé om, at overvinde underudviklingen i udviklingslandene. Dermed trækkes der også tråde tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts hensigt og hvad det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system kunne være blevet til, hvis ikke Roosevelt var død i utide. Idéen om, at fred i verden som helhed kun er muligt, hvis alle menneskers levestandard forøges. 

Dette var kontroversen mellem Roosevelt og Churchill; at stille det amerikanske system for politisk økonomi til hele verdens rådighed, i modsætning til det britiske koloniale system med dets opretholdelse af de øverste klassers privilegier på bekostning af flertallet af befolkningen – såvel de britiske undersåtter som dem, der blev underlagt i kolonierne. 

Det var forbløffende: Snart udvikledes det største infrastrukturprogram i verdenshistorien nogensinde. Med en enorm udviklingshastighed havde man snart seks store økonomiske korridorer, togforbindelser, dæmninger, broer, industriparker. I starten af 2017 var der mere end 130 bilaterale og regionale transportaftaler, 365 internationale vejruter, 4200 direkte flyvninger, der forbinder Kina med 43 Bælte og Vej-lande og 39 godstogsruter mellem Kina og Europa. I april 2017 besøgte præsident Xi Mar-a-Lago, og i maj 2017 afholdtes Bælte og Vej-Forum, som jeg var så heldig at deltage i. Og jeg oplevede, hvad der var sket. Hvordan verden havde ændret sig og blev inspireret af ånden i Den Nye Silkevej. 

Hvad denne ånd indebærer, er et perspektiv for udviklingslandene om for første gang at overvinde underudvikling. Det er muligheden for at overvinde geopolitik ved at lægge et win-win-samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater på bordet. Kina agtede eksplicit ikke at erstatte USA som en hegemon, men at respektere den anden parts sociale system, ikke-indblanding i de interne anliggender. En vision om den ene menneskehed og Xi Jinpings opfattelse af et fællesskab omkring menneskehedens fælles fremtid. 

I mellemtiden har der været gentagne tilbud fra Kina om at åbne Bælte og Vej-Initiativet for alle; at have win-win-samarbejde. De har gentagne gange tilbudt USA et stormagts-forhold. Det kom, der aldrig rigtigt et svar på. I november 2017 aflagde Trump et besøg i Beijing – det, som kineserne kaldte et »statsbesøg-plus« – med tilbuddet om et fuldstændigt indblik i Kinas 5000 år gamle historie. Præsident Trump talte på det tidspunkt mange gange om »Min ven, præsident Xi Jinping«. 

Det Britiske Imperium slår tilbage   

Alt dette fandt sted, og der var så godt som ingen dækning af Den Nye Silkevej i de store massemedier i over fire år! Men bag denne mur af tavshed foretog det militærindustrielle kompleks forberedelserne til en komplet geopolitisk modreaktion. Hvad, der udviklede sig, var et vildt og voldsomt modangreb – af kræfter i Det britiske Imperium – for at forhindre, at »den internationale orden efter 2. verdenskrig« – dvs. opretholdelsen af den koloniale, malthusianske kontrol over udviklingssektoren, og principperne om den »regelbaserede orden« – ville blive undermineret ved, at Rusland og Kina tilbød dem adgang til industriel og videnskabelig udvikling såsom atomkraft, infrastruktur, eller endda at springe til de mest avancerede teknologier ved at tilslutte sig »Rum-Silkevejen«. 

I december 2017 var der offentliggørelsen af den amerikanske nationale sikkerhedsstrategi NSS under ledelse af H.R. McMaster, den daværende fungerende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, som for første gang på en meget skarp måde definerede Rusland og Kina som geopolitiske rivaler, og udtaler:  

»Kina og Rusland udfordrer amerikansk magt, indflydelse og interesser og forsøger at udhule amerikansk sikkerhed og velstand. De er fast besluttede på at gøre økonomierne mindre frie og mindre retfærdige, at udvide deres militær og at kontrollere information og data for at undertrykke deres samfund og udvide deres indflydelse«.    

NSS-doktrinen krævede en genovervejelse af politikken i de foregående to årtier. Dette refererer til accepten af Kina i Verdenshandelsorganisationen WTO og Fukuyamas erklæring om »historiens afslutning« – troen på, at ved at integrere Rusland og Kina i de vestlige institutioner, så ville de til sidst tilslutte sig den liberale model for økonomi og det vestlige demokrati. I stedet udviklede Kina en model meget tættere på det originale amerikanske system: En meget dirigistisk politik med kinesiske karakteristika – men genoplivede samtidigt Kinas 5.000-årige historie. NSS-doktrinen antog, at »Deres inklusion ville gøre dem til godartede aktører og pålidelige partnere. I det store og hele viste denne forudsætning sig at være falsk«, konkluderes det. 

Tilbuddet fra Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI) til udviklingslandene – og endog de EU-medlemmer, hvis økonomiske udvikling er blevet undertrykt af EU-Kommissionen, såsom de øst- og sydeuropæiske lande – om at deltage i BRI-projekterne, blev betragtet som »at skabe indbyrdes splid mellem vores allierede og partnere«. Dette ville alt sammen underminere amerikanske fordele, og derfor vil USA’s opgave være at »sikre, at amerikansk militærs overlegenhed varer ved«. 

Rusland og Kina blev betragtet som en langt mere alvorlig trussel mod USA end global terrorisme. De »udvikler avancerede våben og kapaciteter, der kan true vores kritiske infrastruktur og vores kommando- og kontrolinfrastruktur«. Kina og Rusland kaldes »revisionistiske magter«, idet det hævdes, at Kina ville forsøge at fordrive USA fra Indo-Stillehavs-regionen, udvide rækkevidden af sin statsdrevne økonomiske model og omorganisere regionen til sin egen fordel.    

Og Rusland – hvilken forbrydelse – »søger at genoprette sin stormagtstatus« (efter at Jeltsin med succes havde samarbejdet med det vestlige oligarki for at gøre Sovjetunionen til et tredjeverdens råvareproducerende og eksporterende land, og blev fornærmet af Obama som værende blot en »regional magt«. De beskylder Rusland for at forsøge at genoprette »indflydelsessfærer nær dets grænser«, fordi de ønskede at udvide NATO op til Ruslands grænser. Dette blev betragtet som generende.    

Kort sagt: »de bestrider vores geopolitiske fordele og forsøger at ændre den internationale orden til deres egen fordel«. Derfor konkluderer dokumentet, at USA og dets allierede skal bevare den militære overmagt, og overbevise modstanderne om, »at vi kan og vil besejre dem – ikke bare straffe dem – hvis de angriber USA«. 

Farlige ændringer i militærdoktriner   

Blot en måned senere, den 19. januar 2018, annoncerede Pentagon »National Defense Strategy«, et dokument, der stadig er klassificeret; denne gang under ledelse af forsvarsminister James Mattis. Det hævder:    

»Det er i stigende grad klart, at Kina og Rusland ønsker at forme en verden, der er i overensstemmelse med deres autoritære model, idet de får vetoret over andre nationers økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige beslutninger«.    

Dokumentet understreger opbygningen af et militært beredskab til »en mere dødbringende fælles styrke«, der prioriterer beredskab til krig, afskrækker aggression i tre nøgleregioner – Indo-Stillehavet, Europa og Mellemøsten – modernisering af nøglekapaciteter, herunder atomstyrker, krigskamp-evner i rummet, cyberspace, kommandokontrol og efterretningssystemer, missilforsvar osv. 

I februar 2018 fulgte Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), der viderefører Obama-administrationens modernisering af atomvåbnene indenfor alle tre ben af »triaden« og tilføjede »supplementer«, som inkluderer udrulningen af sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft, hvilket de hævder, ikke vil reducere tærsklen til atomkrig – som alle ved, at det gør – men som de hævder, vil hæve denne tærskel – og udstyre et mindre antal Trident ubåde med sådanne sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft og også hav-lancerede krydsermissiler med atomsprænghoveder. 

Med frigivelsen af disse doktriner skete der også pludselig et skift i alle større transatlantiske tænketanke, som havde ignoreret BRI i fire år. Nu vedtog de alle linjen om, at Kina bliver den strategiske rival. 

I februar 2018 udsendte den tyske tænketank MERICS en undersøgelse kaldet »Authoritarian Advance« (autoritativ fremgang), som, i tråd med amerikanske tænketanke, pressede på med linjen om, at Kina er et autoritært land; Silkevejen er bare en gældsfælde; det sociale kreditsystem spionerer på egen befolkning. Dette er optrappet til den indeværende forstærkede McCarthyisme vendt mod kinesiske studerende, professorer, medier og diplomater i USA. 

En måned senere, den 1. marts, annoncerede præsident Putin nye atomvåbensystemer, det hypersonisk  Avantgardmissilkompleks, det hypersoniske Kinzhal-krydsermissil, et nyt interkontinentalt missil med en hastighed på 20 gange lydens hastighed med fremragende manøvredygtighed, og som derfor kan udmanøvrere alle eksisterende luftforsvar og missilforsvarssystemer og gøre dem overflødige, herunder atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige drone-ubåde og laservåben. 

I de to et halvt år siden har USA’s forsvarsministerium gennemgået en total omorganisering i henhold til de nævnte doktriner. De tilføjede en ubåd med ballistisk missil i Ohio-klassen, som nu inkluderer et eller flere missiler, bevæbnet med W76-3-sprænghoveder med lav sprængkraft og atomvåben-bærende B-52-bombefly, der flyver inden for rækkevidden af russisk og kinesisk luftforsvar. En amerikansk rumkommando blev etableret, og en amerikansk rumstyrke blev oprettet. Rumdoktrinen gør det klart, at målet er amerikansk dominans for at forhindre Kina i at definere nye regler i rummet. Den nye øverstbefalende for US Space Force, hærgeneral James Dickinson, sagde i en nylig tale:    

»Selvfølgelig vil vi forsøge at undgå konflikter, men for at gøre det helt klart: Hvis afskrækkelse ikke lykkes, er vores ordre klar. Vi vil vinde. Jeg vil koncentrere mig om at udvikle, fremme og acceptere en kultur med rumkrig«. 

Alle disse forandringer i militærdoktrin skete i tæt koordinering med briterne. Flere uger efter at NPR blev frigivet, var den britiske minister for de væbnede styrker, Mark Lancaster, i Washington og understregede, at NPR’s politik, NSS, NDS, også var den britiske regerings politik, og at de to programmer var tæt afstemt med stærk vægt på modernisering af alle disse stridskræfter. 

Ud over Pence, der holdt den første store anti-Kina-tale i henhold til disse idéer i 2018, er det Bolton, om hvem Trump korrekt sagde, at hvis han ikke havde smidt ham ud, ville sjette verdenskrig allerede være indtruffet, FBI’s direktør Christopher Wray, National sikkerhedsrådgiver Robert O’Brien, direktør for handels- og fremstillingspolitik Peter Navarro, justitsminister William Barr, og især udenrigsminister Michael Pompeo, der har stået i spidsen for kampagnen mod Kina.    

Pompeo, der i begyndelsen af juli i år i London mødtes med de selvsamme britiske kredse, der indledte russiagate-historien og kuppet mod Trump, tweetede, at det er »fantastisk at være tilbage i London for at bekræfte »det særlige forhold«, som vi deler med vores nærmeste allierede«. Pompeo satte sig derved åbenlyst i selskab med Kissinger, som den 10. maj 1982 fremsatte disse berygtede bemærkninger i Chatham House: »Som national sikkerhedsrådgiver holdt jeg det britiske udenrigsministerium bedre informeret og tættere engageret end det amerikanske udenrigsministerium«. 

Går vi i søvne ind i Tredje Verdenskrig?    

Så i betragtning af al denne militære sabelraslen og opbygning, herunder den nylige militære rapport fra Pentagon, som skildrer Kinas militære magt fuldstændigt ude af proportion i forhold til USA’s fokus på den »asiatiske pivot«-politik, der har været på plads siden Obama administration, og rækken af 400+ militærbaser, som USA har bygget i en ring omkring Kina, og NATO’s nylige bestræbelser på at udvide sin globale politik til Indo-Stillehavet, går vi så i søvne ind i tredje verdenskrig? 

Ja og nej.    

Nej, fordi nogle af militærstrategerne åbenlyst nærer en illusion om, at en regional atomkrig kan vindes; hvilket Rusland igen og igen har advaret imod, og har designet sin egen militære doktrin med henblik på at ødelægge denne mulighed for enhver tænkende modstander. Dette blev gentaget den 2. juni i år, hvor Rusland igen offentliggjorde de betingelser, hvorunder det ville blive tvunget til at gå over til en politik med at bruge atomvåben først. 

Ja, søvngængeragtigt, for som Lyndon LaRouche skrev i en artikel, hvori han diskuterede metoderne til den britiske manipulation af befolkningen i hele verden, »The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy«:    

»I en ordentlig republik (og lige nu har vi ikke en ordentlig republik) – hvilket kræfterne omkring Benjamin Franklin og George Washington forstod korrekt – er den største enkelte kilde til potentiel fare for republikken en slags fremmedgørelse af borgeren fra en rationel forståelse af de nationale politiske spørgsmål, som er fremherskende i USA i dag. Dette spiller, som vi snart vil demonstrere, direkte ind på Toynbee-syndromet«.  

Se, det er i sandhed det største problem. At vi befinder os på randen af 3. verdenskrig; noget, der kunne udløses når som helst, og for hvilket, de militære doktriner er baseret på illusioner om at kunne vinde en mulig regional atomkrig, og at krigen vil kunne stoppes, når der først er taget atomvåben i brug. Jeg tror, at alle, der har beskæftiget sig med skrifter fra sådanne personer som Ted Postol, klart kan se, at når man først har taget atomvåben i brug, så vil hele arsenalet blive brugt. Det er denne fremmedgørelse af den almindelige borger, der ikke er opmærksom på dette, ikke bekymrer sig om det, som gør folk så ekstremt modtagelige for Russiagates synkroniserede propagandakampagner. Og nu, med hensyn til Kina, som den systemiske modstander, og den samtidige internationale dæmonisering af såvel Trump som Putin og Xi.  

Hvad må der gøres?  

Vi er nødt til at vække folk op til den overhængende fare for tilintetgørelse. Vi er nødt til at mobilisere verden over for at topmødet med præsidenterne for de fem permanente medlemmer i FN’s sikkerhedsråd finder sted i denne måned. Disse præsidenter og premierministre må vende tilbage til der, hvor Franklin D Roosevelt – som de alle tidligere har omtalt positivt – ikke var i stand til at realisere sin hensigt med den originale Bretton Woods-aftale. De skal erklære deres hensigt om at afslutte kasinoøkonomien, etablere en global Glass/Steagall-lov, etablere et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem for at tilvejebringe langfristede, lavt forrentede kreditter til genstart af økonomierne i de industrialiserede lande, og give kredit til et seriøst industrialiseringsprogram for udviklingslandene; hvilket naturligvis må starte med opbygningen af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land på planeten, så denne og fremtidige pandemier kan besejres.  

Undersøgelserne, som Schiller Instituttet udviklede, om hvordan »Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« [Fig. 1]  i kombination med et lynprogram til realisering af fusionskraft og et internationalt samarbejde om koloniseringen af Månen og Mars [Fig. 2], som præsident Trump har understreget i sit Artemis-program, kan etablere den nye økonomiske platform, hvorved alle nationer kan drage fordel af en højere produktivitet i økonomien.  

Den reelle velstand, som vil blive skabt af sådanne stormskridt i produktivitet, vil meget hurtigt kompensere for de angivelige tab forårsaget af et stop for stadigt større våbenhandel. Men i modsætning til sidstnævnte vil det øge samfundets reelle velstand i stedet for den slags primitiv akkumulering af den fysiske økonomi, forårsaget af den militære opbygning.  

Når der først er enighed om at erstatte geopolitisk konfrontation med win-win økonomisk samarbejde til menneskehedens fælles bedste, findes der et grundlag for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Præsident Trump har gentagne gange udtalt, at han betragter en ny aftale om atomvåben med Rusland som det største udestående problem i verden. Topmødet bør derfor bekendtgøre, at det er hensigten at forlænge den nye START-traktat, samt atter at bekræfte princippet om at udelukke atomkrig.  

Verden står helt klart ved en korsvej, og det er op til disse fem ledere at sikre, at der ikke vælges en blindgyde, der fører til den egentlige afslutning på historien.  

Tag ikke det værste, men det bedste fra alle store kulturer  

Vi er nødt til at tilføje endnu en dimension. Vi må afvise den afstumpede populærkultur, som alle imperier til alle tider har brugt til at fordumme befolkningen, hvor man kontrollerer den ved at fornedre deres impulser, præcis ligesom romerne gjorde ved at lade masserne samles for at se drab  i cirkus og blive medskyldige i beslutningen om, hvorvidt gladiatorerne skulle leve eller dø. Og vi må drage vores konklusioner af det faktum, at Biden afslørede fordærvet af hans egen modkultur ved at forsøge at gøre sig mere attraktiv ved at samarbejde med sådanne »stjerner« som Cardi B, hvis video, WAP (Wet Ass Pussy), afslører et menneskesyn, som oligarkiet er mere end glade for at befolkningen har, fordi en befolkning, der er så fornedret, aldrig vil udfordre deres magt.  

Hvis menneskeheden skal undslippe den truende katastrofe, har alle store kulturer i verden brug for at frembringe deres bedste traditioner, de højeste idéer fra deres filosoffer og digtere, deres komponisters mest forædlede kompositioner, de smukkeste kunstværker indenfor maleri, skulptur og arkitektur. Vi bør alle blive inspireret af de skatte, som menneskeheden hidtil har produceret og begynde at tænke som patrioter og verdensborgere som en helhed. Ikke kun på planeten Jorden, men som medlemmer af den samme art, der snart vil bo sammen i en beboelse på Månen og en by på Mars. De fem ledere på det kommende topmøde må have modet til at formidle en storslået vision om fremtiden for den menneskelige art, for de millioner af genier, der endnu ikke er født, og som de er nødt til at beskytte ved at skabe et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer. Og de må tænke og handle på niveau med »Coincidentia Oppositorum«, modsætningernes sammenfald.  

Afslutningen 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede det første panel som følger:  

»Som svar på spørgsmålet fra Virginia om, hvordan vi kan få folk til at se til stjernerne og løfte sig op over den nuværende fornedrende kultur, og jeg synes virkelig, at det er det vigtigste spørgsmål af alle, for det er min absolutte overbevisning, at enhver politik, uanset hvad den måtte være, udgår fra folks menneskesyn. Hvis man har et fornedret menneskesyn, eller hvis man tror, at kun nogle mennesker tilhører en elite, eller at andre mennesker kan betragtes som kvæg, der kan decimeres, som heloterne i Sparta eller slaverne i Rom, så dikterer dette menneskesyn alle aspekter af ens politik.  

»Så derfor mener jeg – i kombination med dette P-5 eller topmøde mellem fire stormagter, uanset hvilket det måtte være – at der er behov for et topmøde. Hvad der er brug for, hvad der absolut må inkluderes, er en renæssance af klassisk kultur. Dette er meget vigtigt, og jeg har nævnt det allerede, men jeg ved, at mange afroamerikanere synes, at hun er en stor stjerne, denne Cardi B. Men for mig er dette den absolutte inkarnation af slaveri, at acceptere en fornedret sindstilstand, og hvad vi i stedet har brug for – og jeg ved, at folk er meget ejendommelige med hensyn til deres musiksmag – men vi er i Beethoven-året (Beethovens 250-års fødselsdag, red.), og hvis man sammenligner den slags musik med den absolut ophøjende, forædlende ånd fra Beethoven og mange andre klassiske komponister – så burde det være indlysende, at hvis menneskeheden ikke løfter sig ud af dens nuværende tilstand nu, ved at gå tilbage til de største traditioner i hver kultur, så tror jeg ikke vi vil nå det.  

På den anden side er stor kultur absolut tilgængelig, og i morgen vil vi høre en smuk opførelse af sådan musik, og jeg vil gerne have folk til at reflektere over, at vi ikke løser disse problemer, med mindre vi ændrer den måde folk tænker på. Jeg er enig med Friedrich Schiller – og det er grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet er opkaldt efter ham – at det kræver stor klassisk kunst for at gennemføre æstetisk uddannelse, moralsk forædling af mennesker. Jeg kan fortælle jer, at hvis man ser på nutidens unge mennesker; hvis ikke vi forbedrer dem moralsk, hvis vi ikke gør noget, har vi ikke et snebolds chance i helvede for at komme ud af denne krise. Så spørgsmålet om kultur er den absolutte forudsætning for at løse alle disse kriser«. 

Se alle fire paneler her.

Panel I: Se det engelske afskrift nedenunder. Her er talerlisten:

1. Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland), grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet

2. Andrey Kortunov (Rusland), generaldirektør for Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender

3. Dr. Edward Lozansky (US), American University i Moskva; Moskow State University

4. Martin Sieff (USA), senior korrespondent for udenrigsanliggender, UPI; Senior Fellow, American University i Moskva

5. James Jatras (USA), tidligere rådgiver, det amerikanske senats republikanske lederskab

6. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

7. Marco Zanni (Italien), formand, Europa-Parlamentets gruppe for identitet og demokrati

8. Oberst Richard H. Black (USA ret.), Tidligere leder af hærens strafferetlige afdeling i Pentagon; tidligere statssenator, Virginia

9. William Binney (USA), tidligere teknisk direktør, National Security Agency og Kirk Wiebe, tidligere Senior Analyst, National Security Agency

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

Hele konferencen:

Dato: Lørdag og søndag den 5.-6. september 2020

Tid: kl. 16 – 24 dansk tid, eller fra arkivet bagefter.

Sted: Hvis du tilmelde dig her, får du et link sendt direkte til din e-mail.

Ellers vil vi lægge YouTubes live stream på vores danske hjemmesides forside.

Paneler: Talerlisten findes nedenunder

PANEL II (Lørdag 21:00 – 24:00 dansk tid)
Videnskabens rolle i skabelsen af menneskehedens fremtid:

PANEL III (Søndag 16:00 – 20:00 dansk tid):
Bælte- og Vejinitiativet bliver til Verdenslandbroen & Franklin D. Roosevelts uafsluttede projekt:

PANEL IV (Søndag 21:00 – 24:00 dansk tid):
Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer: Klassisk kulturs rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød:

Tilmelding: Klik her for at tilmelde dig og modtage talerlisten og opdateringer

Ellers kan den ses her: www.schillerinstitut.dk eller www.schillerinstitute.com 

Kontakt: for mere information: Michelle Rasmussen +45 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk

Foreløbigt konferenceprogram:

Arrangementet udsendes live på Zoom og YouTube. Der vil være simultantolkning på spansk, fransk og tysk på Zoom-platformen.

 (Det følgende er en delvis liste over talerne. Hvert panel indeholder rigelig tid til spørgsmål og svar.)

PANEL II (21:00 – 24:00 ): Videnskabens rolle i skabelsen af menneskehedens fremtid
1. Jason Ross (USA), videnskabsrådgiver ved Schiller Instituttet

2. Dr. Bernard Bigot (Frankrig), generaldirektør for den internationale termonukleare eksperimentelle reaktor (ITER), tidligere direktør for den franske kommission for alternativ energi og atomenergi (CEA)

3. Sergey Pulinets (Rusland), Principal Research Scientist, Space Research Institute, Det Russiske Videnskabsakademi

4. Dr. Stephen O. Dean (USA), præsident, Fusion Power Associates (10)

5. Michael Paluszek (USA), Princeton Satellite Systems

6. Philip Tsokolibane (South Africa), head of LaRouche South Africa

7. Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa), CEO, Stratek Business Strategy Consultants, former board chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation

6. Spørgsmål og svar

PANEL III (16:00 – 20:00): Bælte- og Vejinitiativet bliver til 'Verdenslandbroen': Franklin D.
Roosevelts uafsluttede projekt
1. Dennis Small (USA), latin-amerikansk redaktør, EIR

2. Dr. Natalia Vitrenko (Ukraine), præsident for Progressive Socialist Party, tidligere parlamentsmedlem og præsidentkandidat

3. Michele Geraci (Italien), tidligere minister for økonomisk udvikling

4. Hassan Daud Butt (Pakistan), tidligere projektdirektør, CPEC; Administrerende direktør for Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Board of Investment & Trade

5. Marcelo Muñoz (Spanien), grundlægger og præsident emeritus for Cátedra China, dekan for spanske forretningsmænd i Kina

6. Dr. Björn Peters (Tyskland), fysiker, iværksætter og politisk rådgiver inden for energi, bæredygtighed og råvarer

7. Spørgsmål og svar, del 1

8. Dr. Joycelyn Elders (USA), tidligere chef for USA's sundhedsvæsen m.m.

9. Marlette Kyssama-Nsona (Republikken Congo), farmaceutisk kemiker, politisk leder af Panafrican League UMOJA og specialist i folkesundhedsspørgsmål

10. Spørgsmål og svar, del 2

PANEL IV 21:00 – 24:00): Opbygning af tillid i internationale relationer: Klassisk kulturs
rolle og bekæmpelse af global hungersnød
1. Jacques Cheminade (Frankrig), leder af Solidarite & Progres, tidligere præsidentkandidat

2. Marcia Merry Baker (USA), EIR-redaktionen

3. Bob Baker og amerikanske landbrugsledere:

Ron Wieczorek, South Dakota cattle rancher, LaRouchePAC
Nicole Pfrang, Kansas Cattlemen’s Association Secretary-Treasurer, cattle rancher
Mike Callicrate, Colorado, cattle rancher, Owner, Ranch Foods Direct:
4. Paul Gallagher (U.S.), EIR Editorial Board

5. Fred Haight (Canada), Schiller Instituttet

6. Michael Billington (US), chef for asiatiske anliggender, Executive Intelligence Review

7. Spørgsmål og svar

8. Beethoven-messe i C-dur, opførelse af Schiller Instituttets kor i New york
City.

Mange mennesker rundt om i verden, som er uvidende om, at en løsning til de mangfoldige kriser i den nuværende verden potentielt eksisterer, reagerer med stadigt større fortvivlelse og radikalisering på den ene eller anden måde, eller trækker sig tilbage til deres privatsfære. Mistilliden til regeringer og førende institutioner i størstedelen af verden har aldrig før været så stor. På et og samme tidspunkt er vi konfronteret med en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol, et økonomisk sammenbrud udløst, men ikke forårsaget, af pandemien, et kommende kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem og den stigende fare, ikke blot for en ny kold krig, men for at det utænkelige rent faktisk kunne ske, og en tredje, denne gang atomar, verdenskrig kunne bryde ud. Vi er i sandhed konfronteret med et systemisk sammenbrud – enden på en epoke.

Det bliver nu stadigt tydeligere for mange kredse rundt om i verden, at Lyndon LaRouches advarsel i 1971 var absolut profetisk: at Richard Nixons ophævelse af Bretton Woods-systemet, ved at erstatte de faste valutakurser med et internationalt system for flydende valutakurser, og åbningen af vejen til monetarisme, ville føre til faren for en ny fascisme, depression, pandemier og krig. Det er også klart, at hvis vores verden skal undslippe disse meget reelle farer, så må vi implementere en presserende reorganisation af verdens finansielle og økonomiske system i den fysisk-økonomiske tradition fra Leibniz og Hamilton, som LaRouche har været fortaler for i årtier.

Lyndon LaRouche har i lang tid opfordret til en firemagts-aftale mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien, som det bedste udgangspunkt for at påbegynde et sådant nyt paradigme. I dag er den eneste synlige struktur, som, realistisk set, hurtigt kan føre i denne retning, en konference blandt de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd, som foreslået af Præsident Putin i januar. De fem atommagter har et særligt ansvar for at blive enige om principper, som kan garantere menneskehedens overlevelse på lang sigt. Dette er særligt presserende i lyset af det faktum, at vores verden, med ophævelsen af så mange internationale traktater om våbenkontrol og andet, er faretruende tæt på at styrte ind i lovløshedens æra.

Men disse fem nationer må understøttes af et kor af andre nationer, individer og institutioner fra hele verden, som må kræve, at de trækker verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand. Dette topmøde må tilskyndes til at adoptere følgende:

– En mekanisme til at løse alle internationale problemer gennem dialog og diplomati.

– Et Nyt Bretton Woods-system – i overensstemmelse med Franklin D. Roosevelts intention og uddybet af Lyndon LaRouche – med det eksplicitte formål, at overvinde fattigdom og underudviklingen af de såkaldte udviklingslande, og som må begynde med skabelsen af et moderne sundhedssystem i alle lande.

– En aftale om at gøre programmet »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« til grundlaget for sikringen af de mest moderne standarder i infrastruktur og industriel udvikling for alle lande på kloden.

– En ny sikkerhedsarkitektur baseret på verdenssamfundets fælles økonomiske interesser, hvilket indebærer sikkerhedsinteresserne for hver enkelt nation. De farvede revolutioner og destabiliseringer, som i øjeblikket orkestreres af det Britiske Imperium og dets bankerotte finansinteresser, mod regeringer, som de ikke kan lide, må have en ende – dette inkluderer blandt andet destabiliseringen af Donald Trumps, Xi Jinpings og Vladimir Putins regeringer.

– Et internationalt samarbejde i et forceret program for at bemestre fusionsenergi, et internationalt samarbejde indenfor rumfart for at bygge en by på såvel Månen som Mars, og et videnskabeligt samarbejde om forståelsen af liv.

– En aftale for at påbegynde en sand kulturel dialog, hvor hver kultur og civilisation forpligter sig til at lære om de bedste traditioner og universelle bidrag af andre, som grundlaget for fred og forståelse, og en ny verdensomspændende renæssance.

Der er præcedens for sådan en tilgang. Efter 150 år af religiøs krigsførelse i Europa, hvilket kulminerede i Trediveårskrigen, blev alle grupper, der tidligere havde bekriget hinanden, enige om vedtagelsen af Den Westfalske Fred. De indså, at hvis kampene fortsatte, så ville der ingen være nogen tilbage, som kunne nyde sejren. Den aftale etablerede det moderne grundlag for alle internationale love blandt nationer. Det er nu på tide, at basere international lovgivning på den lovmæssighed der findes i det fysiske univers. Det er det eneste sprog, som har evnen til at eliminere enhver misforståelse og tilsyneladende interessekonflikter på et lavere niveau.

Schiller Instituttets kommende konference vil stræbe efter at bidrage med idéer hen imod dette mål.

Tilmelding: Klik her for at tilmelde dig og modtage talerlisten og opdateringer

Ellers kan den ses her: www.schillerinstitut.dk eller www.schillerinstitute.com 

Den 12. juli (EIRNS) — Dette er den redigerede oversættelse af den ledende artikel fra den 11. juli, skrevet af Helga Zepp-LaRouche og bragt i det tyske ugemagasin Neue Solidaritätden 16. juli 2020.

 Menneskeheden er for tiden konfronteret med en hidtil uset udfordring: Har vi den moralske habitus til at overleve? Dette altafgørende spørgsmål hænger sammen med, hvorvidt tilstrækkeligt mange hovedaktører på verdensscenen er i stand til at hæve deres tankegang til et højere niveau af fornuft i tide, eller om de vil klynge sig til deres respektive ideologier og handlingsmønstre. I sidstnævnte tilfælde truer den ekstreme spænding, der følger af kombinationen af optrapningen af coronavirus-pandemien, nedgangen i den fysiske økonomi, det systemiske kollaps af finanssystemet og den voksende geopolitiske konfrontation blandt stormagterne, med at føre til et sammenbrud, som kunne udvikle sig til socialt kaos og en ny verdenskrig.

 Hvad der er behov for nu, er ikke en mangfoldighed af små skridt og foranstaltninger til at tackle alle de forskellige kriser, men et veritabelt ‘Grand Design’, realiseringen af en vision for menneskehedens fremtid med en omfattende løsning, hvor der tages hensyn til hele menneskehedens interesser. Åbningen for denne mulighed er relativ kortvarig. I januar i år foreslog den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin et topmøde mellem statsoverhovederne for de fem permanente medlemmer (P5) af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. USA, Kina, Frankrig og Storbritannien er allerede enedes om at holde et sådant topmøde. Putin understregede, at formålet med dette topmøde, 75 år efter afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, skal være at etablere en fredsorden – at sikre at en lignende katastrofe aldrig mere indtræffer.

 Den dramatiske krise i forbindelse med pandemien og den efterfølgende nedgang af realøkonomien, kombineret med faren for et verdensomspændende systemisk finansielt sammenbrud, udgør en enestående mulighed for at skabe grundlaget for en ny verdensøkonomisk orden baseret på et nyt Bretton Woods-system. Et Bretton Woods-system i overensstemmelse med Franklin D. Roosevelts oprindelige intention om at overvinde underudviklingen i udviklingslandene, og skabe grundlaget for fred ved at forbedre levestandarden for alle mennesker på denne planet.

 I et web-interview den 8. juli med ‘Center for National Interest’ understregede den russiske ambassadør i Washington, Anatoly Antonov, den vigtige rolle, som et sådant topmøde kan have som et alternativ til scenarier med uforudsigelige konsekvenser:

 ”Vi har videregivet vores forslag til dagsordenen til vore partnere. De inkluderer centrale spørgsmål, der påvirker global politik, sikkerhed og økonomi…

 ”Verden er nødt til at etablere et demokratisk system med relationer, der bygger på princippet om udelelig sikkerhed, lige muligheder for udvikling og søgen efter en afbalancering af interesser mellem deltagerne i international dialog”.

 Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov understregede i en tale den 10. juli til ‘Primakov Readings’-forummet, at et af punkterne på dagsordenen for P5-topmødet må være uantageligheden af atomkrig:

 ”Vi… er især bekymrede over amerikanernes afvisning af at bekræfte det grundlæggende princip om, at der ikke kan være nogen vindere i en atomkrig, som derfor aldrig må slippes løs. Selvfølgelig vil vi fremme dette emne – uantageligheden af en atomkrig, umuligheden af at vinde en sådan – i forbindelse med det kommende topmøde mellem de fem”.

 Ambassadør Antonov citerede også Putins tale ved paraden på ’Sejrsdagen’ den 24. juni:

 ”Vi forstår vigtigheden af at styrke venskab og tillid mellem nationer, og er åbne for dialog og samarbejde om de mest presserende spørgsmål på den internationale dagsorden. Blandt dem er oprettelsen af et fælles pålideligt sikkerhedssystem, noget som den komplekse og hurtigt skiftende moderne verden har brug for. Kun i fællesskab kan vi beskytte verden mod nye farlige trusler”.

 En verdensomspændende ’New Deal’

 Den uventede meddelelse fra den britiske premierminister Boris Johnson om hans hensigt om at gennemføre et investeringsprogram i traditionen fra præsident Franklin Roosevelt, det vil sige en ‘New Deal’ (selv om det nævnte beløb på 5 mia. pund kun er et lille første skridt i den rigtige retning), tilvejebringer et meget nyttigt fælles ‘fodslag’ med de fire andre statschefer, som alle tidligere har henvist til Roosevelt.

 Hvad der er brug for i dag, er netop Roosevelts program fuldt ud: Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, en industriel udviklingsplan – denne gang i global størrelsesorden – en ‘New Deal’ for hele verden – og et kreditsystem, en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale. Et af de første skridt bør være internationalt samarbejde om at udvikle et verdensomspændende sundhedssystem – dvs. et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land – mindst til den standard som Kina demonstrerede i Wuhan under bekæmpelsen af udbruddet af pandemien.

 Dette topmøde, der skal finde sted senest i september, vil med stor sandsynlighed være den sidste chance for at skabe et tillidsfuldt grundlag for en strategisk nyorientering af internationale relationer mellem atombevæbnede magter, som kan sætte kursen for at overvinde den globale økonomiske krise. Hvis denne mulighed glipper, truer ikke alene den giftige tone, der er blevet anslået mellem især USA og Kina, med at eskalere til en uoprettelig konflikt, alt imens den truende fare for en anden bølge af pandemien efterfulgt af fornyede økonomiske nedlukninger kunne smadre den sociale fred fuldstændig i mange af de berørte lande.

 ‘Leibniz Instituttet for Økonomisk Forskning’ (IWH) i Halle har advaret om, at virkningerne af den første nedlukning af Tyskland vil føre til en bølge af konkurser, som igen vil skabe vanskeligheder for adskillige sparekasser og for banker med tilgodehavender i størrelsesordenen hundredvis af milliarder. En sådan ny bankkrise ville sidenhen blive efterfulgt af en endnu dybere recession, advarer instituttet. Og Tyskland er stadig i en relativt stærk position.

 Diskussionen indenfor den transatlantiske nyliberale elite er formet af antagelsen om, at der under disse omstændigheder vil komme et kraftigt fald i de internationale aktiemarkeder på mindst 20-30% og en stigning i dødeligheden fra en anden bølge af pandemien, som vil blive lagt præsident Donald Trump til last. Dette vil garantere etablissementets intention om at sikre hans nederlag ved valget i november. I betragtning af den ubarmhjertige kampagne, som kræfterne i det britiske imperium har gennemført i tre og et halvt år i deres kupforsøg – fra “Russiagate”-svindlen til proceduren med rigsretssag og det nuværende vanvid med ødelæggelse af statuer – vil City of London og Wall Street sandsynligvis ikke tøve med at lade et sådant kraftigt fald på aktiemarkederne finde sted.

 Selvom præsident Trump i de tidlige stadier af udbruddet af coronavirus-pandemien roste den kinesiske regerings energiske indgriben i byen Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen, og understregede sit venskab med præsident Xi Jinping, ændrede han holdning fra den 18. april og gik derefter – fra 30. april – over til at beskylde Kina for spredningen af virusset på verdensplan. Denne påstand blev først fremsat af de tidligere chefer for MI6, Sir John Sawers og Sir Richard Dearlove, og Henry Jackson-selskabet i London, som i en åbenlys provokation udfordrede Kina til at betale 9 billioner dollars i erstatning! Det er blevet afvist som ubegrundet selv af amerikanske medicinske eksperter. En WHO-delegation er i øjeblikket i Wuhan for at undersøge virussets oprindelse og pandemiens kronologi.

 Det britiske imperium er ude i tovene

 De samme britiske imperialistiske kræfter, som står bag kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, betragter hans hensigt om at etablere gode forbindelser med Rusland såvel som hans oprindeligt positive forhold til præsident Xi som en dødbringende trussel mod deres geopolitiske interesser – og har nu i årevis i stigende grad bestræbt sig på at begrænse Kinas fremgang. Det er motivet bag Pentagons ‘Nationale Forsvarsstrategi’-dokument fra 2018, der definerer Kina og Rusland som de største strategiske rivaler i ”stormagtskonkurrencen”. Forsvarsminister Mark Esper understregede denne politiske orientering i en ‘Meddelelse til Styrken” den 7. juli, hvor han sagde, at Kina skulle gøres til “den løbende trussel” i “alle vores skoler, programmer og uddannelser”.

 Det britiske imperiums politik – præget af det Britiske østindiske Kompagni og dets koloniale politik, opiums-krigene mod Kina, Prins Philips Verdensnaturfonden og nu om dage Mark Carneys ‘Green New Deal’ – har været baseret på malthusiansk befolkningsreduktion. Ud fra dette synspunkt gør Kinas ‘Nye Silkevejs’-politik – som for første gang giver udviklingslandene muligheden for at overvinde underudviklingen – dem til en “strategisk konkurrent”. Og selvfølgelig er der konkurrence mellem disse systemer.

Når man ser på verden ovenfra, er det klart at samarbejde mellem de to største økonomier i verden, USA og Kina, er uomgængeligt, hvis menneskeheden skal overvinde denne pandemi og andre forestående pandemier, såvel som sult, fattigdom og underudvikling i den såkaldte Tredje Verden. Set fra det britiske imperium – dvs. de oligarkiske finansielle interesser, der baserer sig på at maksimere fortjenesten for deres egen klasse, og befolkningskontrol for alle andre – har det siden det Britiske østindiske Kompagnis Thomas Malthus’ tid haft topprioritet at forgifte det amerikansk-kinesiske forhold.

 Den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov har netop advaret om, at USA’s tilbagetrækning fra nedrustningstraktaterne har øget risikoen for en global atomkonfrontation markant. Og han har sagt, at han håber at denne eskalering ikke når det punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage. Den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi har for sit vedkommende udtrykt sin bekymring for, at forbindelserne mellem USA og Kina har nået det laveste punkt siden etableringen af forbindelser mellem de to nationer.

 Topmødet mellem de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som præsident Putin har foreslået, er sandsynligvis – af alle de her nævnte grunde – den sidste chance for at sætte et helt andet program på dagsordenen, for at forhindre at de stigende følger af pandemi, sult, økonomisk sammenbrud og et finansielt krak vil gå deres gang. Hvis ikke denne kurs forandres, kan krigsfaren, som følge af det deraf hurtigt efterfølgende kaos, blive ustoppelig.

 Alle mennesker med god vilje og alle lande over hele verden bør betragte det som værende i deres egen interesse at gøre sit yderste for at støtte dette topmøde.

På engelsk:

In reviewing events of the last week, Helga Zepp LaRouche kept returning to the need for an open discussion of the “larger picture” shaping events.  For example, with the Corona pandemic, the danger of “politicization” has caused many to ignore the real threat to humanity as it continues to spread, while the hedonism unleashed in the culture has made many indifferent to the suffering of millions living in countries with little or no health care system.

In contrast, she quoted from a statement by Putin from April, when asked if he fears that his statements of concern over the pandemic will lead people to conclude that he is “part of the conspiracy.”  In his answer, Putin came back to the image of man which must underlie policy, saying that for him, “life is the highest value”, and must be protected.

Combine this statement from Putin with the efforts in China to save lives during the hot period of the pandemic there; then look at Boris Johnson’s statement of endorsing FDR’s New Deal approach, and President Trump’s powerful assertion of the passion for a sovereign republic of the Founding Fathers in his speech at Mt. Rushmore — and what is clear is that a summit today could bring these nations together around the ideas of the American Revolution, FDR’s New Deal, and LaRouche’s Four Laws.  This is why the Brits and their allies are trying to rally behind the Russian Bounty fraud, which she called “the most ridiculous story I’ve ever heard.”

We must change the dynamic, she concluded, by creating a “chorus of voices demanding a summit.”  She emphasized the importance of the growing international youth movement in order to do this.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Introduktion til Helgas tale:

DENNIS SPEED: Mit navn er Dennis Speed, og jeg vil byde jer velkommen til dagens internationale konference og webcast.

Vi vil begynde dagen med et videoudklip med den afdøde økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche, fra 2011. Han var hovedtaler på et panel ved en konference i Schiller Instituttet – det var i Tyskland – og navnet på panelet ved denne lejlighed var: ”At redde vores civilisation fra afgrunden: Klassisk kulturs rolle. En nødvendighed for menneskeheden.”

LYNDON LAROUCHE (uddrag): Hvad er det ved mennesker som gør, at de ikke bare er endnu en dyreart, klar til at blive slagtet (at uddø) når deres tid er kommet?

Svaret er et lidet kendt spørgsmål. De fleste mennesker har ikke den fjerneste idé om hvad svaret er! Rent faktisk er vores samfund styret af folk, der ikke har nogen som helst idé om hvad menneskeheden er! Det eneste de kan finde på, er en eller anden beskrivelse af et slags dyr, med dyriske karaktertræk af nydelse og smerte og lignende, som måske kontrollerer dette dyrs adfærd…

Navnet for den specifikke kvalitet, som vi kender fra mennesket, og som ikke eksisterer i nogen anden kendt levende art: Det er en egenskab af kreativitet, der er absolut enestående i menneskeheden. Og hvis man ikke er kreativ, og hvis ikke man forstår kreativitet, så har man endnu ingen billet til overlevelse! Fordi kreativitet vil ikke redde dig, medmindre du bruger den.

DENNIS SPEED: Lad mig sige noget om Schiller Instituttet, og hvad vi har gjort med denne række af tre konferencer, som begyndte i april dette år. Disse konferencer var viet til idéen om at skabe et firemagts-topmøde – Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA. Der er forskellige processer, der allerede har været i stand til at bevæge sig i denne retning. Faktisk er der, blandt de mange ting som vi vil snakke om i dag, et nyt forslag, som blev fremsat af Præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland, i denne retning [for et topmøde med de 5 permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd: USA, Rusland, Kina, Storbritannien og Frankrig –red.]… Idéen om et firemagts-topmøde er ikke eksklusiv. Det betyder ikke at andre ikke kan involvere sig…

Lad mig også sige, for især folk i USA, at krisen, der har påkaldt sig folks opmærksomhed, som udstillet i den sociale og politiske krise i Amerikas gader, er blot ét udtryk for en bredere, international proces. Og det er grunden til, at vi i dag begynder med det første panel for at give dette bredere overblik, og tillade dig og andre at blive en del af en international operation for at forandre denne situation…

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet – det var tilbage i 1984. Hun er selvfølgelig også hustru til den afdøde økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche, som døde i februar 2019. Hun spillede en vigtig, afgørende rolle i en række samtaler og dialoger med den kinesiske regering i perioden fra 1993 til 1996; som påbegyndte den proces, der blev til det vi nu kalder den Nye Silkevej. Og vi er glade for og stolte over at præsentere hende til jer nu, for at tage denne dialog op igen. Panelet som helhed har titlen: ”I stedet for geopolitik, en ny form for statsmandskunst”. Så, det er altid en ære at præsentere Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Efter denne svære start er jeg så meget desto gladere for endelig at have forbindelse til jer. Og jeg vil tale om alternativet til en mørk tidsalder eller faren for en ny verdenskrig. Og selvom det for de fleste på dette tidspunkt er utænkeligt, så…[manglende lyd] ….medmindre vi på relativt kort sigt lykkes med at erstatte det håbløst bankerotte finanssystem med et New Bretton Woods-system, nøjagtigt som oprindeligt tilsigtet af Franklin D. Roosevelt, det vil sige skabe et kraftigt instrument til at overvinde underudviklingen i den såkaldte udviklingssektor.

 Jeg ved ikke, om I hørte, hvad jeg sagde før, fordi der var nogle tekniske problemer, men jeg sagde, at selvom de fleste ikke kan forestille sig at det kan forekomme, så truer verdens nuværende orientering mod stadig flere konflikter, både internt i mange stater i verden, men også på et strategisk niveau, med at eskalere til en stor ny verdenskrig, en tredje verdenskrig, som på grund af eksistensen af termonukleare våben ville betyde udryddelse af den menneskelige art; det ”store drab”, omend det er ment på en lidt anden måde end vi netop hørte Lyn på dette videoklip.

 Selvom det er helt forbløffende, hvor mange vildledte mennesker der stadig mener, at COVID-19-pandemien enten ikke er værre end influenza, eller blot er en konspirationsteori af Bill Gates, er det langt mere sandsynlige perspektiv desværre, hvad epidemiolog Dr. Michael Osterholm har sagt: at vi stadig har en utrolig lang vej foran os. Indtil nu er 10 millioner mennesker blevet inficeret, en halv million er døde af COVID-19, og vi har stadig ikke nået toppen af den første bølge. De så godt som ikke-eksisterende sundhedssystemer i mange udviklingslande er allerede håbløst overbelastede. Pandemien har hensynsløst afsløret det faktum, at det neoliberale økonomiske system ikke kun afhænger af billig produktion i den såkaldte Tredje Verden, men har skabt slavelignende arbejdsbetingelser selv i USA og Europa, som det kan ses af udbruddet af virusset på de mange slagterier i Europa og USA.

 Den økonomiske nedlukning har sat fokus på skrøbeligheden i det der kaldes ”globalisering”. I USA forsvandt ca. 40 millioner job på tre måneder; på utrolig vis pumpede centralbankerne over 20 billioner dollars ind i det finansielle system, og forskellige regeringsstøtteprogrammer kunne dårligt nok dække de tidsindstillede bomber, der stadig tikker indtil udløbet af de kortvarige arbejdsprogrammer. IMF forventer i øjeblikket, at den globale produktion vil falde med 4,9% i år, og kun Kina forventes at have en stigning i produktionen på 2%, hvilket naturligvis er meget mindre end det plejer at være, men ikke desto mindre er voksende. Sektorer som flytrafik, forplejning, turisme, bilindustrien, har lidt store fald, nogle af dem på lang sigt, men også et stort antal mellemstore virksomheder frygter, at de ikke vil overleve en anden bølge og en anden økonomisk nedlukning. Resultatet ville være en enorm stigning i arbejdsløshed, fattigdom og prisdeflation, mens centralbankernes likviditetspumpe samtidig skaber hyperinflationsbobler. Redninger af store systemiske virksomheder og banker såvel som politisk eksplosive redningspakker vil være yderligere desperate muligheder for regeringer at gennemføre, men vil ikke kunne forhindre et sammenbrud af det globale finanssystem. Et styrt ned i kaos og anarki ville følge.

 I mellemtiden ville en fortsættelse af den nuværende politik ikke alene føre til øgede dødsfald som følge af pandemien, men vil absolut ikke gøre noget for at imødegå sultkatastrofen, som David Beasley fra Verdens Fødevareprogram advarer om snart vil tage livet af 300.000 mennesker om dagen.

 Dem der muligvis mente, at en mørk tidsalder kunne udelukkes i vores moderne tid, befinder sig i et realitetschok. Og sidst, men ikke mindst, den hedonisme, der udøves af demonstranter, der forveksler frihedsprivilegier med frihed, minder om flagellanterne og beskrivelserne fra det 14. århundrede, som de er fremstillet i Boccaccios skrifter og Brueghels malerier.

 På denne baggrund kan det forventes, at forsøgene – der oprindeligt blev anstiftet af de britiske hemmelige tjenester – på at fjerne præsident Donald Trump fra embedet ved et kup, rigsretssag eller mord – sådan var overskriften på den britiske publikation The Spectator, den 21. januar 2017 – eller ved et ”Maidan”-kup, som præsident Putin advarede om i 2016 – disse vil blive intensiveret. Iscenesættelsen af forargelsen som følge af mordet på George Floyd, foretaget af voldelige grupper finansieret af George Soros, er en del af denne kampagne. Årsagen til den ubarmhjertige fjendtlighed fra det neoliberale etablissement og de etablerede medier på begge sider af Atlanterhavet mod Trumps efter hans, for dem, uventede valgsejr, var, og er stadig, den intention han udtrykte i begyndelsen af sin valgperiode om at etablere gode forbindelser med Rusland og et godt forhold til Kina. Og selvfølgelig Trumps løfter om at afslutte sin forgængeres ”uendelige krige” og at bringe amerikanske tropper hjem.

 Hvad der derefter fulgte, var en tre og et halvt års heksejagt mod Trump. Krigsråbet “Rusland, Rusland, Rusland”, baseret på årsager, for hvilke der ikke eksisterer skyggen af bevis, blev efterfulgt af et forsøg på en rigsretssag, atter efterfulgt af det ikke mindre ondsindede krigsråb “Kina, Kina, Kina”, skønt der er lige så lidt hold i anklagerne mod Kina, som der var i Russiagate.

 I løbet af alt dette var repræsentanterne for det neoliberale system ikke så meget som et øjeblik parate til at overveje, at det var de brutale konsekvenser af deres egen politik for størstedelen af befolkningen på verdensplan, der udløste den globale bølge af social protest, der inkluderer Brexit og Trumps sejr, såvel som masseprotester over hele verden fra Chile til de ‘gule veste’ i Frankrig. Men denne elite er aldrig interesseret i at opdage sandheden, kun i at kontrollere den officielle politiske fortælling i overensstemmelse med Pompeos princip, som han forklarede i sin tale i Texas: ”Jeg var CIA-direktør. Vi løj, snød, stjal … vi havde hele uddannelsesforløb i det”.

 NATO’s officielle fortælling om Ruslands angiveligt stigende aggressivitet, beskyldningerne om “med magt at drage grænser i Europa igen”, nævner naturligvis ikke de brudte løfter, der blev givet til Gorbatjov, om at NATO aldrig ville udvide sine grænser helt til Ruslands grænser, og den forudgående farve-revolution, der kan beskrives som en krigshandling, og til sidst kuppet i Kiev med den åbne støtte fra Victoria Nuland, der udløste folkeafstemningen på Krim som reaktion.

 Kinas ”forbrydelse” er ikke kun, at man har løftet 850 millioner af sine egne borgere ud af fattigdom, og ved hjælp af en økonomisk politik, der er baseret på videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt og en befolkning på 1,4 milliarder mennesker, er blevet den næst mægtigste økonomiske nation, og på visse teknologiske områder, såsom højhastigheds-jernbanesystemer, nuklear fusion, aspekter af rumforskning og 5G-telekommunikation, allerede den førende. Derudover er Kinas tilbud om samarbejde omkring Den nye Silkevej og Bælte- og Vejinitiativet den første reelle mulighed for udviklingslandene siden kolonialismens tid for at overvinde fattigdom og underudvikling ved at bygge infrastruktur.

 NATO’s reaktion på, at Kina genvinder sin rolle som en førende nation i verden, en rolle den spillede i mange århundreder af sin 5.000-årige historie, har været global ekspansion til Indo-Stillehavsregionen. Dette er det stof, som verdenskrige er gjort af. Og alligevel er det nøjagtigt den retning, som NATO’s generalsekretær, Jens Stoltenberg, har angivet i sin oversigt for “NATO 2030”, som han netop præsenterede på en videokonference med Atlanterhavsrådet og den tyske Marshall-fond. Den tyske forsvarsminister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, deltog i et andet webinar sidste onsdag sammen med Anna Wieslander, direktør for Atlanterhavsrådet for Nordeuropa; Wieslander citerede under åbningen af begivenheden Lord Ismay, NATO’s første generalsekretær, der sagde, at formålet med NATO er “at holde russerne ude, amerikanerne inde og tyskerne nede”. Men AKK (som hun kaldes) forstod tilsyneladende ikke engang fornærmelsen i disse bemærkninger. Det geopolitiske scenarie for et globaliseret NATO, der åbent er designet til at orkestrere NATO til det britiske imperiums formål, baseret på Det britiske Statssamfund, Commonwealth, og som også ville indfange EU til at spille denne rolle, og endelig ville spille Indien ud mod Kina, må afvises totalt af alle, der har interesse i at opretholde verdensfreden.

 Præsident Putin har netop i anledning af 75-årsdagen for afslutningen af 2. Verdenskrig skrevet en slående artikel om forhistorien til Anden Verdenskrig samt forløbet af denne krig, og opfordret alle nationer til at offentliggøre alle de indtil nu hemmeligholdte historiske dokumenter fra den tid, således at menneskeheden, ved at studere årsagerne til den hidtil største katastrofe i menneskehedens historie, kan lære lektien for at undgå en endnu større katastrofe i dag. Putin skriver i en meget personlig tone; han taler om lidelsen i sin egen familie, om den enorme betydning som den 22. juni har for den russiske befolkning, dagen hvor ”livet næsten går i stå”, og hvorfor den 9. maj, årsdagen for sejren i Den store patriotiske Krig, hvor 27 millioner russere mistede deres liv, er Ruslands vigtigste mærkedag. Men den indirekte besked er også, at lige som Sovjetunionen besejrede Hitlers Tyskland med en gigantisk indsats, vil det russiske folk aldrig overgive sig til fornyede trusler. Ligesom Napoleon gennem en lang forsvarslinje blev ført ind i den ugæstfri russiske vinter, og hans hær til sidst blev så godt som udslettet, muliggjorde evakueringen i 1941 af befolkningen og industrikapaciteten mod øst, at Sovjetunionen kunne overgå nazisternes militære produktion på kun halvandet år.

 Men også Versailles-diktatets kortsynethed, støtten til Hitler fra medlemmer af aristokratiet og etablissementet på begge sider af Atlanterhavet, og frem for alt München-aftalen, der i Rusland simpelthen kaldes ”München-forræderiet” eller ”München-sammensværgelsen”, betragtes som den egentlige udløser af Anden Verdenskrig. Fordi det var ved den lejlighed, at ikke alene eftergivenhedspolitikken for Hitler, men hvor også den fælles opdeling af byttet fandt sted, såvel som den iskolde geopolitiske beregning, at fokuseringen af Hitlers Tyskland mod øst uundgåeligt ville føre til at Tyskland og Sovjetunionen ville sønderrive hinanden.

 Hvad er ifølge Putin det vigtigste budskab til nutiden ved studiet af Anden Verdenskrig? At det vigtigste var undladelsen af at påtage sig opgaven med at skabe et kollektivt sikkerhedssystem, der kunne have forhindret denne krig! Putins artikel slutter med en presserende påmindelse om topmødet for statsoverhovederne for de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som han har foreslået siden januar, og som netop skulle tage fat på disse principper for, hvordan man opretholder verdensfred og overvinder den verdensomspændende økonomiske krise.

 Det vigtigste aspekt i denne forbindelse er, at dette format vil sætte USA, Rusland og Kina omkring samme bord for at forhandle de principper, der skal danne grundlaget for international politik, hvis menneskeheden skal undgå at udslette sig selv! Og i går sagde Emmanuel Macron efter en lang telefonsamtale mellem Putin og den franske præsident, at han går ind for et Europa fra Lissabon til Vladivostok, hvilket ikke alene åbner perspektivet for en integration af Den europæiske Union, Den eurasiske økonomiske Union, Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, men også etablering af en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur baseret på fælles økonomiske interesser.

 Hvis vi imidlertid skal imødegå de enorme udfordringer fra pandemien, den globale økonomiske krise og de dybe sociale chok, der i mange af verdens lande har ødelagt store dele af befolkningernes tillid til deres institutioner, er yderligere skridt nødvendige. Det er klart, at samarbejde mellem USA og Kina, som de to største økonomier, er uundværligt. Selv hvis dette i øjeblikket ser ud til at være en uovervindelig hindring, må det ekstremt anspændte forhold mellem USA og Kina erstattes af et samarbejde om menneskehedens fælles mål.

 Hvem, om ikke regeringerne i de stærkeste økonomier, de lande med den største befolkning og det største militære potentiale, skulle løse problemerne? Denne verdens ‘Boltons’ må fjernes fra disse regeringer og erstattes af ansvarlige mennesker, der er i stand til, i de kulturelle faser i deres respektive kulturer, at finde udgangspunkterne for samarbejde på et højere niveau. Benjamin Franklins beundring for den konfutsianske filosofi og Sun Yat-sens orientering imod den amerikanske republiks idealer er bedre rettesnore end Gene Sharps “Hvordan man starter en Revolution” eller Samuel Huntingtons forskellige skriblerier.

 Man skal definere et plan, hvorpå løsningerne på disse ganske forskellige problemer bliver synlige. Der er en filosof, født i det 15. århundrede, kendt i Rusland som Nikolai Kusansky, Nicolaus Cusanus, der udviklede netop denne tænkemåde: modsætningernes sammenfald, ‘coincidentia oppositorum’. Dette begreb udtrykker den grundlæggende kvalitet af menneskelig kreativitet, der gang på gang, og på stadig mere udviklede niveauer, er i stand til at finde løsninger på et højere plan, hvorved de konflikter, der er opstået på de lavere niveauer, opløses.

 Dette kan kun være den umiddelbare iværksættelse af et kreditsystem, der tilvejebringer den globale økonomi kredit til industrialisering, og dermed reel udvikling af alle nationer på denne planet. Hele min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouches, livsværk, blev primært viet til at nå dette mål; han udarbejdede sin første plan for industrialiseringen af Afrika i 1976, Oase-planen for industrialiseringen af Mellemøsten i 1975; derefter fulgte den 40-årige plan for Indien i samarbejde med Indira Gandhi, Operation Juárez, med den daværende mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo, for Latinamerika; en 50-årig udviklingsplan for Stillehavsområdet og derefter til sidst, efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, den ‘Eurasiske Landbro’, som en fredsplan for det 21. århundrede. Mange af disse projekter gennemføres i dag takket være Kinas nye Silkevej, og alle nationer i verden opfordres til at bidrage til denne ‘Verdens Landbro’! Dette er planen for oprettelsen af de 1,5 milliarder job, der er nødvendige i dag for at overvinde krisen! Det bør begynde med oprettelsen af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert enkelt land for at bekæmpe de nuværende og fremtidige pandemier, hvilket ikke kun vil gavne fattige lande, men også de såkaldte udviklede lande, der kun kan undgå nye bølger af infektioner på den måde. De fleste lande har et stort antal arbejdsløse eller dårligt beskæftigede unge, der kan uddannes som medicinsk personale og indsættes til at opbygge sådanne sundhedscentre.

 Når millioner af mennesker er truet af sult, som Verdensfødevareprogrammet advarer om, hvorfor kan landmændene så ikke fordoble deres fødevareproduktion og få en ‘paritetspris’ (produktionspris –red.), der garanterer deres eksistens, tillige med hensyn til den forventede stigning i verdens befolkning til over 9 milliarder i 2050? Kan vi ikke betragte os selv som en enkelt menneskelig art og hjælpe med at opbygge menneskehedens fælles byggepladser med den samme solidaritet, som hele den kinesiske befolkning hjalp folket i Wuhan og provinsen Hubei? Er det ikke på tide, at vi stopper med at spilde billioner på militær oprustning, hvilket præsident Trump sagde, at han snart ville drøfte sammen med Putin og Xi Jinping, når vi kunne bruge disse ressourcer til at overvinde sult, sygdom og fattigdom og til at udvikle det kreative potentiale hos de nuværende og kommende generationer?

 Jeg tror det er på tide, at vi som en menneskehed, der står over for en hidtil uset katastrofe, tager det kvalitative skridt til at gøre det 21. århundrede til det første virkeligt menneskelige århundrede!

 Mange tak.

Panel 2: “Why a 1.5 Billion Productive Jobs Program Can End War, Famine, Poverty, and Disease”

DENNIS SPEED: Good afternoon. Welcome to the second panel of the Schiller Institute’s June 27th conference “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four Power’ Summit Now!” This is the second panel of our conference and it is entitled “The World Needs 1.5 Billion New Productive Jobs To End War, Famine, Poverty and Disease.”

Our first panelist is Jacques Cheminade, President of Solidarité et Progrès in France. He’s speaking on “How Food Production Can Unite the World.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: Good day. I’m very honored to be with you today, because of all you have done until now, and mainly because of what we all are going to do after this Schiller conference.

Food production unites the world: We are all conscious of the fact that the two first human rights to be upheld, are to be fed and to be kept in a good healthy condition, in order to contribute to the common good and the future of our societies. If we look at the world as it is we cannot but recognize that these two human rights are continuously and constantly violated and that the present policies of the main states and institutions, with a few remarkable exceptions, are leading us towards a world which is going to be much worse, if we allow it. We are set to become inhuman.

The question is therefore not to comment any more about what is happening or to complain, but to do something about it. That’s why we are here, to mobilize the best of our cultures and our nations to generate a world where the true creative powers of humanity will prosper, against all odds. It starts by food production which unites all people beyond and above cultural and language barriers. It seems commonplace to say such things, but the fact that we are morally and economically compelled to do so is precisely the sign of the inhuman condition in which we have been plunged, with the immediate threat that 100 million of our fellow human beings could die from hunger — 300,000 a day — while the farmers are trapped into a Malthusian world where they literally can’t breathe.

If we start from what humanity needs, taking into account the requirements for an adequate quantity and quality diet, sufficiency for everyone and the indispensable need to create food reserves, we must first double our food production. To produce 5 billion tons of grain, for example, means to more than double the present world harvest.

We hear in the Unites States “We American farmers can feed the world” and it’s true. We hear in Europe, “We European farmers can feed the world,” and it’s true. And we hear in the rest of the world, “We also can secure our food security and sovereignty,” and it’s true.

So what is happening? What’s happening, which makes this potential to not be actualized.

First, the whole world is ruled by the financial dictatorship of Wall Street and the City of London, which cannot care less for people and, in fact, openly promote world depopulation. Unable, in their own terms, to keep their power and to feed the world at the same time, they prefer to keep their power and envisage a world populated with less than 2 billion human beings. Their policy is to kill, either by murderous action, or by voluntary neglect. They let their ideologues openly front for it, under black or green colors.

Second, the outgrowths of this financial dictatorship, i.e., the food and farming cartels, dominate or control all the chains of transportation, distribution and sales in foodstuffs, including the property of vast domains of land.

Third, an anti-productivist ideology is promoted among the urban sectors of the service economy, dominant in numbers among Western countries, betting on both their ignorance of what a productive life is (they don’t even know what a productive life is!), and on their cultural pessimism, induced by the media and the entertainment sectors. There were no stocks of masks or tests in our Western states to deal with the coronavirus pandemic, just as there are almost no grain reserves today to deal with food shortages: the World Trade Organization and the cartels left it up to the marketplace. As a result, China has one-year grain stocks for its needs, Russia six months, the United States much less, and the European Union at best 45 days! Under its Green Deal, the European Commission has decided to cut by 50% the use of pesticides, by 20% the use of fertilizers and by 50% the use of anti-microbials for livestock and aquaculture. It expects to transform 25% of the land into organic bioproduction against 7.5% today. The point here is that, under the guise of caring for us, they obey their real financial masters and cut the means of production without providing any alternative to feed us and feed the world.

It’s criminal not to maintain food reserves. It is criminal to have brought farming prices below the cost of production. It is criminal to have pitted the producers of the world against each other, to lower the prices paid to them for the benefit of the worldwide cartels in grains, meat, seeds, seafood…. It is criminal, that in the poorest countries of the world, 70% of the production is allowed to be lost because there are no cold chains and too many rodents. It is criminal to compel those countries to pay more for the debt service to financial agencies than for building and maintaining hospitals or schools . It is, as Lyndon LaRouche repeatedly said, the model of the private British East India Company spread all over the world, controlling the chains of production, transportation and trade.

So this crisis should be the opportunity to recognize the absolute right to produce food and to get rid of the cartel monopoly system. This, of course, cannot be done as a thing in itself. It demands the shutdown of their source of money supply: the Wall Street and City of London rule, the British Empire. The criminal policies in the area of food and health, are, in that sense, for the people of the world the visible side of the oligarchy’s iceberg and our main weapon to fight the oligarchy. To show the peoples of the world that to fight for a new Glass-Steagall Act, a public credit policy, a National Bank, is not a technical question but a very concrete matter of life or death. The present financial system cannot be maintained through the rule of an unjust law and order, which has mutated into a system of chaos and disorder, based on an “everything bubble” which kills all the more as it inflates.

Therefore we have to come back and rethink about how we can inspire a strategy based on the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, because they represent the architectural, unifying body for a change. To put it more concretely, the only possible exit door from the present fire.

As I am in Western Europe, I feel obliged to tell you how something which had a good start, failed because its environment was not shaped by a coherent principle corresponding to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche: I am talking about the European Common Agricultural Policy, launched on July 30, 1962. It was based on four goals: increasing productivity; securing a fair living standard for food producers; establishing a sort of parity price including reinvestment; securing the food supplies and a reasonable price for consumers. It worked for about 30 years, based on a self-sufficient single market, with a productive priority connected to industrial progress (modern tractors, fertilizers, pesticides…), plus financial solidarity and a European preference. The financial aid and support were given in the form of a minimum price guaranteed to the producer, called “indirect aid.” As a result, the Common Market members, as it was called in those days, became self-sufficient and Western Europe grew to be the second world exporter of foodstuffs. The farms grew moderately in size, and the whole agricultural sector underwent a period of relative prosperity, despite its in depth and fast transformation.

Today, we have all the European farmers desperately protesting, hostages to the banks and living on subsidies, having become indebted, working hard and gaining very little, with their sons and daughters abandoning their farms to go to the cities. What happened?

First, under the pressure of the global financial deregulation, the Common Agricultural Policy was changed in the 1990s, the same period characterized by de-industrialization, banking rule and deregulation, mainly in France, but also in all Western Europe. The indirect aid based on price guarantees disappeared and were replaced by so-called direct aid, proportional to the surface of the farms. This was done under the pressure of the World Trade Organization with the pretext of avoiding “price distortions.” As a result, within a context of falling purchasing power of foodstuffs, the aid, decoupled from production, went mainly to the big landowners such as the Queen of England, the Prince of Monaco and the Duke of Kent. The small and medium-sized farmers were strangled through price decreases and the fall of aid. Their only option was either to leave or to be further strangled by the banks, including the farmers’ bank, the Crédit Agricole, which became a bank like all the others and even worse to its old clients! The European Union budget for agriculture was reduced in purchasing power and has decreased in percentage of the total EU budget. Add to that the vulnerability of all producers to the system of floating exchange rates, the middle-sized or small ones sinking and the big ones becoming more like “experts” of the Chicago market than real farmers!

Today, the main talk is to replace the “direct” aid based on farm surfaces, by “environment and climate aid,” of which only the very big ones can benefit. This is a policy of desertification and agricultural depopulation within a context of a green world depopulation. Within this system, there are a few Scotch tape measures proposed, which are maybe relatively helpful but not of a nature to change the situation. For example, it is proposed that the distribution of aid be based not on the surface of farms, but on the number of persons active in them. Others call for stocks of food security against the instability of the markets, fair prices and measures to fight against world hunger. Good intentions, but nothing tackling the depth of the challenge.

Our commitment is precisely to do that, to go to the roots of the problem. The Common Agricultural Policy failed because it did not deal with its global environment. Same thing for parity prices in the United States. You cannot do it within a system which creates all the conditions to go in the opposite direction. Besides, even in its best years, the Common Agricultural Policy was mainly defensive, in French terms, a kind of a Maginot Line doomed to fail under flanking attacks or attacks from above. And whereas it temporarily solved the food crisis within Western Europe, it did nothing to organize markets and food stocks at the needed level of an alliance of world nations of world population.

Clearly, we have now with the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, not as mantra, but as a roadmap for the fight, the means to break with the existing rules of the game, which was not done under the Common Agricultural Policy. But for that we need to inspire and put pressure on the peoples of the world so that they pressure their governments, as was said in the preceding panel. That is for each of us an issue of life or death. And it can only win with a winner mind, with a tenacious commitment renewed every morning.

For that reason, let me tell you about two things, as a conclusion.

First on the way through which we can inspire. There are LaRouche’s Four Laws as a reference to explore, facing their numerous challenges for real, in the existing world. There is their application in our recent two programs: Build a global health system now! LaRouche’s “Apollo mission” to defeat the global pandemic crisis, and I would add “and beyond” the global pandemic crisis, and LaRouche’s Plan to reopen the U.S. economy: the world needs 1.5 billion new, productive jobs. It is only through this anti-parochial organizing, based on a dynamic development, that we can inspire people who are today so submerged by information and permanently thrown into situations leading them to emotional cop-outs as we see on both sides of the Atlantic. It is through our personal example, based on a tenacious directionality every single day of our lives, that we can lead them to become free organizers.

Second, I would like to give you an example of that, directly linked to our subject matter: It is that of the Maisons Familiales Rurales (Rural Family Houses), a project created by Abbot Granereau, a French countryside priest who introduced a new way of learning in the rural areas of France and beyond. There are now 432 of these MFR rural houses in Europe, 112 in Latin America, 118 in Africa (Mauritania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea…) and in the Indian Ocean and a few in Asia. In France this education is run in association with the state and the local governments, but with absolute emphasis put on the involvement of the families.

Abbot Granereau was the son of a peasant family, who at a very early age questioned both the Napoleonic, pyramidal organizing of the French education system and the fact that the public education system led the best sons of the farmers to quit farming, leave the countryside and often break with their traditionally-oriented families. He decided to solve the problem by launching a new system of his own, that the families could afford and that he called on “Our Lady of the Social Revolution” for inspiration. His idea was to have the high-school age students reside one week every month at an educational home for professional training, which he provided; he went around, buying places to have the students spend a week there, which he provided, not far from their homes and run jointly with the families and later with the teachers. The program ran from November to April, so that the parents could have their children the rest of the time to work at the farm. The education was to be paid by the parents and the status of the students was one of apprenticeship. During the three other weeks of the month, the students were provided with two hours of homework every day. The key to its success was the associative responsibility of the families family integration, and also the students educating their families; this concept of family integration which would be very useful today; the respect of the individual personality of every student, not as units but as persons; and the promotion of actions of social development: visits to farms, producing modern tools, tractors or fertilizers.

Granereau started in 1935 with three farmers, committed to support his project and four apprentices. And he managed in about 30 years to change the fate of the rural world and avoid, at the time, its debasement.

The secret behind his method was to be very rigorous and at the same time to make the students responsible. For every activity one of them was appointed to be responsible for all the others. His commitment was to give to all a good level of education, giving back their dignity to his brother farmers, a knowledge of the new methods of production within an education for their souls. For him, a good farmer had to be what he called “a scientist of the land.” When enough pupils and students came, he separated the functions of teaching, under a good and committed teacher from the Purpan high-level school of agriculture in Toulouse, from those of guidance, which was his full-time responsibility. Granereau wanted to create “peasant leaders” to enter the coming new world with Christian principles. He invented “in his way,” an active method based on exploration, cooperation, participation and mutual trust. He himself did change during all his life: he created a section for young women and girls, then organized a mixed-gender school, carefully promoting a mutual respect of the two sexes; and finally opened up his schools to all families, understanding that the notion of family and mutual respect was key and above religious affiliations. A lot of people were shocked, but he was delighted.

I am convinced that such an approach, based on the respect of every individual mind and the service to the other, should be thoughtfully considered as an inspiration to our methods of teaching today, those against which Lyndon LaRouche has so often polemicized. Not to copy it as such, of course, but to follow its spirit of exploration and creativity. In the countries with a longstanding family farming culture, like in Africa, it would be a model to ensure the transition of agricultural labor, as it has been in France.

The case of Granereau is also a good reference for how to change things. We should ourselves think much more about what Lyndon LaRouche did at the beginning: gathering a few persons in a pilot project addressing not academic questions but, from top down, the key challenges of our times, and sending memos and launching debates all the time. Then you have the best kind of excitement of actually discussing and enriching a program, all the time, and even the higher excitement to make it exist. Let’s do it.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques.

We’re now going to hear from Diogène Senny, the founder of the Pan-African League — UMOJA. He is a Professor of International Intercultural Management, specialist in economic intelligence and international economic relations, Founder of the African School of Management (EAM) in Congo.

He’s speaking on the topic, “Prosper or Perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”

DIOGÈNE SENNY: Dear Speakers, Dear Participants, Dear Guests, First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Schiller Institute for having associated me with this discussion at this very special time.

I. Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, far from the one-off event, the circumstances in which this conference takes place make of it an Historical Moment, because the enormous health, economic and social consequences connected to COVID-19, are like “Challenges” and “Confrontations” launched against societies and men in the sense of the British historian, Arnold Toynbee.

For once, we are going to connect the issues of Hunger, Poverty and Health with History; not only in a memorial function, but also and above all to view history as the most powerful manifestation of social energy and the will of man to survive.

STORICISMO, in other words Historicism, as the Italians would say, is the act by which one creates one’s own action, one’s own thought, one’s own poetry by moving from the present consciousness of the past. We know that at least 13 billion people, twice the world’s population today, could be fed by the world’s agriculture. Therefore, the destruction of tens of millions of women, men and children by hunger is unworthy of such a rich century! Can we seriously consider alternatives to Hunger, Poverty and Health while maintaining a historical amnesia on matters of the economic and social rights of peoples?

II. Fight against Amnesia

Ladies and Gentlemen, who remembers that a third of the civilian and military deaths of the Second World War were due to malnutrition, tuberculosis and anemia? Who remembers the heaps of coffins have piled up in the churches of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague because of hunger? And especially in Poland and Norway, the fact that some families survived by eating rats and bark of trees? 1947, two years after this appalling reality, who recalls still this attack by the ambassador of Great Britain, while working with the Commission responsible for drawing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I quote: “We want free men, not well-fed slaves!” End of quote. Who recalls the direct response of his Ukrainian counterpart, I quote: “Even free men can starve to death,” end of quote? This exchange illustrates the beginning of a new geopolitical order, that is to say, the Cold War, and the defeat of the recognition of economic and social rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948.

However, how to believe that the civil and political rights can be effective, without the economic and social rights? It took 45 years, almost half a century, in June 1993 for the UN to adopt a new Declaration in Vienna, making all rights (civic, political, economic, social and cultural) indivisible and interdependent. Alas, what wasted time !

III. The Disappointments of the End of the Cold War

Ladies and Gentlemen, The hope raised by the end of the cold war in terms of economic and social rights was very quickly lost because of the fact that the planetary power of transcontinental agro-industrial companies and Hedge Funds, these funds that speculate on food prices, arable land, seeds, fertilizers, credits, etc., is significantly higher than that of states. Hunger is not inevitable, it comes from organized crime. 90% of peasants in the south, in the 21st century, only have the following working tools: hoe, machete and scythe. FAO reports in the 2010s indicate that 500 million farmers in the South have no access to selected seeds, mineral fertilizers, or manure, and do not own animals. The overwhelming majority of farmers in India, Peru, Burkina Faso, Niger, Ecuador, etc. have no irrigation system. How can you be surprised then that 1 hectare of cereals gives about 700 kilograms to Africans, against 10,000 kilograms for the same space for their colleagues from the Gironde in France. As we have already said, Hunger is not inevitable. It is the result of the will of a few. And it is by the determination of men that she will be defeated.

Some examples to illustrate predation situations by multinationals of the agro-industry in Africa:

In Cameroon: In 2006, we remember the admirable struggle lead by the Development Committee of the N’do region, which brought together farmers’ unions and civil society in the fight against the grabbing of 11,000 arable lands by SOSUCAM (Société Sucrière du Cameroun) , authorized by the Cameroonian government. It should be noted that SOSUCAM is the property of Alexandre Vilgrain, a French industrialist and that this company had already acquired 10,000 hectares in Cameroon in 1965. Here, the colonial continuum is still in full swing in the economic field.

In Senegal: Here it was the Great Senegalese estates (GDS), belonging to French, Spanish, Moroccan, etc. financial groups which acquired tens of thousands of arable land in Saint-Louis, depriving the peasants of necessary spaces for basic crops. As in Cameroon, the farmers of Walo reduced to modest harvests on only 1 hectare of rice, organize themselves to resist with much dignity. In Nigeria, Benin and Mali: International hedge funds also rely on local oligarchs to organize land grabs.

This is how the wealthy merchants of Sokoto and Kano got hold of tens of thousands of hectares of food land.

In Benin, it is the political and economic barons who accumulate hectares, voluntarily left fallow, while waiting to resell them for a higher price instead of investing in the region of Zou, the former breadbasket of Benin’s Wheat.

Finally, we note the same trading mechanism in Mali where wealthy businessmen from Bamako are used to acquire arable land at low prices for resale at gold prices to Saudi princes or Hedge New York Funds.

In Conclusion

Ladies and Gentlemen, The ruin of the economy and the disasters that are looming following the coronavirus pandemic are part of what is known as Cyclical Hunger. Its peculiarity lies in the suddenness and unpredictability of the highly visible damage generated. Its spectacular nature should not blind us to these real causes. However, what has been described throughout this intervention is structural hunger. Structural hunger has root causes. It is permanent and unspectacular, psychically and physically destroying millions of human beings. Structural Hunger exposes millions of malnourished mothers to give birth to deficient children.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We will precede the alternative presented by this conference “Prosper or Perish,” by the word Unity. Because, for us pan-Africanists, the question of Hunger is less about Food Security than Food Sovereignty. Only Political Unity will give us the weapons necessary to protect the immense resource of arable land all over the African continent. It is at this price that Food Sovereignty will be guaranteed to all Africans!

Umoja Ni Nguvu, Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, particularly for that idea about food sovereignty. So people just know, we were listening to a translation from French.

We’re going next to Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina. His topic is, “South America on the New Multipolar Road.”

WALTER FORMENTO: Good Afternoon: My name is Walter Formento. I’m the director of the Center for Political and Economic Research (CIEPE), and also a member of the Latin American Social Sciences Network, which is involved in all five continents.

It means a lot to us to be part of this conference, and we hope we can contribute to the dialogue that is beginning here.

In terms of the development and contributions of the New Silk Road and the World Land-Bridge which connects us all, we believe that South America—extending from Mexico to Argentina-Brazil, going through Colombia-Venezuela, Peru-Bolivia and Paraguay—has in its Hispano-American and South American history, a real and concrete accumulation of capabilities for building sovereignty, strategic industries, science and technology—both to contribute and to receive. This stems from each one of these nations individually and then, from an organized pluri-national, South American community, based on their common Hispano-American origins, but even more specifically, on the 2001-2015 period based on UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations), and CELAC (the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

Looking first from Argentina: This South American nation launched the development of its strategic industries from the very moment of its battle against the British invasions of 1805-1807. At the beginning of the 20th century, the process continued with the development of its oil-related energy industries and hydroelectric projects, always interacting with the international context and receiving feedback from that framework.

From the Great Depression which was caused by the systemic crisis of 1929-1944, Argentina, together with Chile and Brazil—the ABC Alliance—deepened the process of sovereign development, strengthening their rail, maritime and river transportation as well as automobile and aircraft industries, which then became the basis for the development of their aerospace and submarine industries. While these industries maintained international ties, they always collaborated with each other, which allowed for their own joint scientific and technological development, This was once again a function of an international context favorable to South America, and particularly to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

In the Argentine case, beginning in 1946, this positive process led to the creation, between 1963 and 1991, of a state-run, public-private industrial, technological and scientific matrix, in which 80% of the goods and services and parts required for national development were produced in our internal market. This also consolidated a social reality in which 90% of the labor forcé was formally employed, with a strong university-educated, technical-professional component, and in which the unemployed labor force was also formally recognized as well. So, from the standpoint of values, this was an integrated and committed social reality.

That is why South America (or Hispano-America), based on its own experience, recognizes the importance of developing a national strategic-industrial-technological complex, but also a South American community of nations as well.

The war and defeat which the London and New York-based Anglo-Dutch oligarchy imposed on Argentina and on South America, and did so with a vengeance, beginning with the 1976 coup d’état in Argentina, followed by the 1982-1991 Malvinas War period, put an end to this virtuous cycle and launched a cycle of decadence enforced by global financial neoliberalism.

Thus today, when we reflect on the New Silk Road and new multipolar financial system, and in that context the World Land-Bridge and its empowering the productive abilities of humanity and nature, including the Dialogue of Civilizations, we see this as auspicious and hopeful. We are called on to commit ourselves, to contribute to and transmit those initiatives promoting aerospace, transportation and new energy technologies.

In some ways, we’re already part of this. There’s the [bioceanic] rail transportation corridor from Brazil, traversing Bolivia and ending in Peru. We’re also involved in the modernization of a rail line, which extends from Buenos Aires (with its factories and workshops for maintenance of machinery and railroad cars), from the province of Santa Fe to Córdoba, Chaco, Salta and Jujuy in the north, then connecting to the main trunk line. In a joint effort, with Russia supplying components and new technologies together with Argentina, we are building a modern new railroad system capable of developing this area even further. We are also developing nuclear reactors, using Chinese and Argentine technology, as well as new hydroelectric projects in the southern Patagonia, close to Antarctica and the islands of the South Atlantic, with their natural interoceanic route that connects the three great oceans: the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic.

After 2008-2010, into 2014, the financial crisis of 2008-2009 again paralyzed the world, which revolved around speculative financial earnings.

But today there is another world, the multipolar world seen in the World Land-Bridge, the world of the New Silk Road, committed to interacting with all continents, and with all nations for a peaceful, harmonious development integrated into a new reality for all humanity—and for nature. We are a committed part of this process; we see ourselves as committed—in thought, in practice and in action—committed through our entire history.

This is our first contribution to these conferences you have been holding, and connecting us to the five continents and with the actors who are the great historical power— in this new commitment to humanity and nature in terms of social and integral inclusion.

I send you a warm abrazo and hope to be able to contribute further to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Formento.

We have gone from Europe, to Africa, to South America, and now we go to the Caribbean. Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad and Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”

KIRK MEIGHOO: Hi. My name is Dr. Kirk Meighoo, I’m a political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean. It’s a real pleasure to be here, to be part of this conference, with the Schiller Institute and I thank the organizers for inviting me.

I’ve been friendly with the LaRouche movement and the Schiller Institute for a number of years now. There are so many things that we share in common, and there’s a lot of projects that I want us to collaborate on, and this certainly is one them.

Now, I’m also a member of the official opposition party. We do have an election coming up this year, and we hope to take government. The platform, the manifesto of our party — and this is from before the COVID crisis — was to create 50,000 new jobs in the economy. And in our small economy, we have 1.3 million people in our island, and the labor force is about 650,000, so 50,000 was a big number. However, with the COVID-19 lockdowns and what it’s done to our economies and the whole global economy, we need to increase that number, at least to 150,000 and by combining it with this program from the LaRouche movement for 1.5 billion productive jobs around the world, there is an incredible synergy that we must take advantage of.

Now, one of the things that I’m always concerned about, is that we small states in the Caribbean, we are actually one of the bigger islands, with over a million population; like Jamaica has 2 million, a little over 2; many of the other islands are much, much smaller; there’s a tendency for us to be overlooked, for us to be forgotten in such schemes, and that is part of our lack of development here. But it is not just a matter of a lack of development, it’s also the type of development we’ve been undergoing.

I’m also part of a tradition of intellectuals here, started in the 1960s, soon after our formal independence, called the “New World Group.” And it’s incredible, the overlap with the LaRouche movement in terms of our analysis and our goals and our solutions. I have always found that to be an amazing thing, and it’s just another illustration on how the truth is one, and we can all arrive at the same truth from our very different points in time, space, and circumstance, and this is certainly one of those instances.

For the Caribbean, the point I’m making about the inclusion of the Caribbean in this global program that the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement is proposing, is not just a matter of charity. Because what the LaRouche movement is proposing is an end to the trans-Atlantic system, what might traditionally be called “imperialism,” to the imperial system, to the post-Columbus system, if you want to put it in those terms, and that is precisely what we have been calling for, for decades ourselves. Because, you see, the Caribbean has a special place in this 500-year modern world economic system, that we need to understand, because our participation in it was central. The Caribbean was where the modern world began: It’s where Columbus came in this voyage, it’s where the first global production of sugar, rum, alcohol, etc., which enriched New York, Boston, the East Coast of the United States, fed into the industrial revolution. The organizing of these huge plantations in the Caribbean was a forerunner to industrial capitalism in Europe, and our great intellectuals, such as Dr. Eric Williams, our first Prime Minister spoke about that in his seminal book from 1944, Capitalism and Slavery.

So, we’ve had a long experience, analyzing this, our own experiences. Because we represent the dark side of this modernity. Of course, modernity has brought a lot of good to the world. But in the Caribbean, this type of economy now has become, let’s say since the 1980s and ’90s, the neo-liberal system, but it really starts from the system of slavery in the Caribbean. Because, think about it: These economies were founded on slave labor, which is imported farm labor at cheap or free cost. It decimated local economies. We made nothing for ourselves here. Everything was around sugar production, mainly; sometimes some other people had other crops, but whatever the early English colonists had here for their own self-development — tobacco, food crops, etc.—local settlements, colonies in the true sense of the word, where you’re making your own settlement elsewhere — part of this imperial system that the Caribbean was central to, and this global sugar production, the triangular trade where we were central — this is actually what’s going on in the rest of the world. Because when they established it here, they had to gut out the independent farmers; they had to buy out all the independent landowners, so that the big sugar interests could own all the land, control all the production, in a global system of raw-materials export, where the value added would be done elsewhere, and you break up the whole chain of production.

What did that mean? That meant no manufacturing here. What did that mean? That meant that we were connected to the metropole, rather than to ourselves. So, for example, it’s easier for us in Trinidad to go to New York, and it’s cheaper for us to fly there, than it is to a neighboring island, like Curaçao, or even Antigua, or St. Kitts. Because our communications and infrastructure were always to the metropole. We did not have an internal economy with manufacturing: We did not make our own clothes, we did not make our own food, we did not make our own basic commodities and services for survival. They were all imported. We were a pure import/export economy and we remain so, whether it be in tourism or offshore banking, or oil and gas, like we have in Trinidad and Tobago.

So we’re been struggling with this issue and problem for a very long time. We have some great insight into it, which we can offer the world. And what we see is that this same process is happening around the world, to other countries. So it’s as if they took this early model, pioneered in the Caribbean, which produced tremendous inequality, tremendous misery, tremendous underdevelopment, this is what the trans-Atlantic system is projecting to every country in the world.

Now, solving the problems here will help us solve the problems for the rest of the world. This is where it started. We pose some challenges because of our size, but there are also some opportunities. Our small societies in the Caribbean are like the small city-states of ancient Greece, where Plato and Aristotle and the great philosophers flourished. It’s like the Florentine city-states: These places were 40,000 people at their maximum population. We live in human-scale societies, and these massive, mega-cities which are part of the whole trans-Atlantic system, mainly financial centers processing these huge, global, faceless corporations, those are inhuman environments. And I think it is not coincidental, that much of the violence that we’re seeing in the world is happening in these big cities, where there’s so much anomy, so much alienation, and a lack of humanity, of the face-to-face societies that we have here in the Caribbean, that have produced such amazing creativity, such amazing thinkers, like V.S. Naipaul, like Sir Arthur Lewis, like Derek Walcott, like C.L.R. James, from such tiny, tiny, small islands.

So, this is a plea, a reminder, to think of how we can take our outlying territories, which seem like outliers are the world system, but were essential for the development of the modern world system, and I daresay, we can play an essential part in the remaking of that world system to a more humane, global system.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to make our presentation. I look forward to questions and to interacting with you and also partnering in the future.

Thanks very much.

[Editor’s note: For time reasons, the prerecorded remarks of Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, were unable to be aired in the panel. We include here his complete remarks, on “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress.”]

MARK SWEAZY: Hello, and welcome! My name is Mark Sweazy. I’m the Past President of Local 969 in Columbus, Ohio of the United Auto Workers’ Union. I learned a lot about the Labor Department and how labor works in the United States. With the international union, I chaired for six years the meeting of the 21 Delphi [auto parts] plants in Detroit. When we come together obviously we discussed our problems and the future. What we saw was, the door was shut on our future. 17 of those 21 plants closed. It changed people’s lives forever and ever. I also learned that our history, that you’ve heard some about, teaches us that the struggles and the conflicts and the wars have consequences that become a negative and seldom produce a positive or good result. So, we faced these things over a period of time.

What we face today is the need to put people back to work, regardless of where you live or what you do. We need to get people gainfully employed in the workforce so that we can make better lives for the people themselves, better lives for their families, and better lives for the area in which they live. So, this is a worldwide situation; it’s not just one locale, or one area of a country. This is worldwide. I hope you understand that little bit of an entry, because it’s important. This affects each and every one of us. If we have pride, we want to restore — let’s say we want to restore a great workforce as infrastructure projects have produced in the past. We’re looking to put people back to work regardless of occupation. You can start one place, and transfer to another. There’s nothing that says in the workforce that you have to continue to do something that you’re not fond of, or you just don’t like that job. You can always retrain and become trained to do another job. So, keep that in mind also.

What rewards do we expect? Our rewards in life are in direct proportion as to what we contribute. So, if we contribute something to life itself, we’re going to see the rewards. That’s important to me, because there’s nothing more rewarding than seeing a person who enjoys what they’re doing, and the fact that what they’re doing is productive to our culture. There’s nothing worse than seeing people that don’t have opportunities. As I visited Mexico, Mexico City, Monterrey, what have you, 9 cities in Mexico, I saw people who were educated, become college graduates. But the opportunity to work was not there, and it broke my heart because I’d look into the eyes of these graduating classes, and I’m saying to them, “Are you happy?” And they’d look at me, and they’re questioning — why would I ask them are they happy? Well, there’s no opportunities to work in Mexico; it’s a darn shame. Very few. They’ve got taxicab drivers that should be an attorney. You’ve got taxicab drivers who could have been an engineer. You’ve got taxicab drivers that could’ve been a doctor. I can’t imagine that. In the country I come from, the United States obviously, I can’t imagine somebody going to school and having that type of training, but not having the opportunity to use that training.

So, this is an opportunity to get worldwide training. Not just in the labor fields, but completely through skilled trades, machine tool trades, tech center trades, the building trades — of course, that’s plumbing, pipe-fitting, welding. There’s no end to what this can offer. And how the unions will actually gain, and all the independents who work without unions will gain as well. But who will gain in the end? The communities and the families. The opportunity is there; we just got to look for it. We’ve got to honestly make it happen. This is not a project that’s going to last one year, six months, one or two years. We’re talking 10-20-year projects.

So, LaRouche organization has lined up projects all over the world. And of course, now Helga’s at the helm, and we have a good leader. We want to continue to carry on with that leadership and get people to work so we have viable jobs. People doing what they can for their own families, and possibly in a few years we’ll see these results. And everybody will benefit. The unions will benefit, the independents will benefit, everybody will benefit on that spectrum. It’s a great opportunity for those that need to be employed, and that’s anybody that’s graduating from a high school or tech school or what-have-you. But take it from there. We’ve got people 30, 40, 50 years old looking for jobs. Everybody knows that; it’s not a secret. And not only in this country. So, the benefits are greater than we’ll ever imagine, and what an opportunity we’ve got today to do it in.

Our world deserves today, tomorrow, and in the future, an immediate effort to develop this program, or this type of program. So, the opportunity is ours; the hard work is yet to happen, but it can be done. And that’s what I want everybody to understand. The work can be done. The infrastructure projects are in front of us. So, let’s pick up our shovels, push out our chairs, let’s get up and go back to work. I think we’ll not only enjoy a better life, but I think we’ll enjoy a better future for our nations, as we work together to solve some of these worldwide problems that can be solved through cooperation. To me, I think that’s the real answer that I would have, is worldwide cooperation. We need that today, more than ever. Working together, forming solidarity, and hoping that we can stay employed because of what took place. This program was the beginning. As we look back, we’ll say, “Well, I was part of that in the beginning.” That’s to me the most rewarding aspect that we could ever say for each of our nations today.

So, with that, I’m not going to hold you to your chairs and hope that you take heed to this, but I pray you will. Because it’s necessary and needed. I want to thank you, take care, and remember, the LaRouche organization is there for you. All you have to do is ask the question; they’ll get you an answer. Thank you. Mark Sweazy over and out.

SPEED: Thank you, also.

Now, we’re going to hear from Bob Baker, who’s the agricultural desk for Schiller Institute, and he’s going to be introducing the next video which is by Mike Callicrate.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis, and thank you Schiller Institute, Mrs. LaRouche, panelists and participants throughout the world.

Image 1. Coronavirus

Look at the state of farming and food in the world, and you see huge disruptions. Just one little microbe—the new corona virus, coming on top of the system already in breakdown, has led to terrible things.

There is a disaster in the meat industry. The mega-global, cartelized packing houses from Australia to Germany to the Americas, are in a breakdown crisis, as workers are sick and living in poor conditions. Masses of meat animals are stranded. And the farmers were hit hard as they’re forced to kill their own livestock.

IMAGE: 2, 3, 4 Doctors Without Borders, or a migrant worker

There is a disaster in fruits and vegetables. Thousands of workers, who travel between countries, and work in hard and poor conditions in fields and orchards, are sick, from California, to Spain and the Middle East. It’s so bad, Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) went into Florida last month, to care for thousands of poor farmworkers who had nowhere to turn. In Canada, 60,000 such workers—one-half of them from Mexico—are getting hit, and with the sickness hitting so many Mexican workers in Canada, Mexico’s government suspended travel this week, until something can be worked out.

There is a disaster in the staff of life—wheat, corn, rice. It is—fortunately—not because of a bad crop failure somewhere, except for the locusts in Africa and South Asia, but because we are growing far too little grain. Period.

Lyndon LaRouche would say that the way to think of how much food the world needs, is to start from 24 bushels of total grains per person a year. What that would mean is, we should be having a world harvest of 5 billion tons of all kinds of grains together. Currently, the world is growing less than 3 billion tons. And that would mean enough for direct eating as bread, noodles, tortillas—whatever you like, and milk, meat, eggs and so on. Plus, another 25% for reserves, which now, because of the World Trade Organization, does not exist.

In Biblical terms, it’s seven lean years and seven fat years. We should have strategic storage reserves, we should have silos and warehouses all over the world, of grain, cheese, butter, sugar and other basics. Stockpiles in case of storms, epidemics, fires, locusts. We must double food production.

IMAGE 5: World Map of Hunger

Instead, we’ve had decades of what should be called a “famine policy.” The City of London/Wall Street circles have cartelized the farm-food chain so extremely, so they can “harvest money.” Yes: harvest money. They decide where and how anything is produced, and who gets to eat or not. They ripped off the farmers with below-cost of production prices and make record profits from the consumer by jacking up the retail price. And that is how you cause hunger for millions throughout the world.

IMAGE 6 & 7: June map of locust spread

No wonder we are vulnerable to locusts, and diseases. The locusts in South Asia and East Africa are now heading westward. By August they may reach Mauritania. This must be stopped. A fellow speaker today, from Kansas-Colorado area, will be talking more about the physical conditions connected with just “harvesting money” instead of food. And we will soon hear from the Mexican grain belt.

IMAGE 8, 9, 10: Astronaut farmer

How did we get this way? It is not because we had no alternatives.. We are in the age of the astronaut farmer. We can produce food for all. And it wasn’t like we were all given a pill to make us dumb—except that comes from the entertainment and news media: communication monopolies.

We are all played off against each other, and that must stop. Farmer vs. city people. Nation vs. nation. There is all the talk about “competition” in world food trade. And about having a “level playing field.” It’s all Bunk! It’s not a game. It’s not a playing field. It’s food. It’s the means to life! And farmers are on the streets again in Germany with tractorcades for the right to grow food!

In conclusion, I think of President Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s, when the whole United States nation was played off against each other. In fact, the British sent in forces to help bust up the new nation. Still, during Civil War and a great depression, in only a year, Lincoln and others implemented measures for science and hope. They created science-based farm colleges (the Land-Grant system), settle the entire Midwest with the Homestead Act, crossed the country with a new railroad and corridors of development, and issued a new credit called the Greenbacks.

In this same tradition, a hundred years later, with the help of the two fathers of the scientific Green Revolution, Henry Wallace and Norman Borlaug, a scientific Green Revolution spread from Mexico and the U.S. among international scientists, to make India food self-sufficient in 1974, and China self-sufficient in 1984. Let’s make the whole world self-sufficient in food! Let us begin with Africa right now on an emergency basis; and then, open up the universe!

Thank You.

I’d like to now take this opportunity to introduce Mike Callicrate, who is a board member of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a rancher, and a meat producer from the Kansas-Colorado area. His topic is “Food Unites People Around the Planet.”

MICHAEL CALLICRATE: I’m Mike Callicrate, I’m in Colorado Springs, Colorado. I have a company called Ranch Foods Direct. I also produce livestock on my operation in northwest Kansas, which I’ve done for the last 45 years. But my focus has really been to try to build an alternative food system to the industrial one that we have now.

When I’m asked the question, “Prosper or perish?” it makes me think of David Montgomery’s book Dirt. In his book, David Montgomery talks about the erosion of civilizations and the importance of soil. Without soil, we basically don’t have life. So, I’m going to kind of come at this question of “Will humanity prosperity or perish?” from that perspective, because I think soil is critical to our survival as human beings. The impoverishment and nourishment of a civilization is directly with the consolidation and industrialization of the food supply. Concentration of power and wealth is the greatest threat to any free society. Rather than creating new wealth from healthy soil, the current system is mining and destroying our land for the short-term benefit of a few global corporations. This is a photograph from northwest Kansas where I live. This photograph was taken in December 24, 2013, Christmas Eve. The dirt cloud extended 200 miles from Colorado Springs to the Kansas border. It was 12,500 feet high above sea level to the top; 4 miles across, moving at 50 miles per hour. This is soil; this is the blowing away, the destruction of civilization currently. Much of eastern Colorado’s topsoil is already gone. I fly back and forth between my rural community of St. Francis, Kansas and the urban center of Colorado Springs, where we market our meats that we produce. This is what you see across the eastern plains of Colorado, is the mining of these soils. The withering away of that topsoil. Previously, when it had fertility, it grew healthy plants that fed livestock, which in turn became food for human consumption.

We’re mining our water resources. HBO’s “Vice” did a documentary called “Meat Hook; End of Water” that talked about the global water supply being consumed and used up. This is another indication that humanity is going to perish if we don’t change our ways. We’re pumping the precious fossil water from the Ogallala Aquifer, just to name one of many around the world that is being pumped dry for the benefit of industrial agriculture. Again, an example of a mining operation.

We’re ravaging the environment; we’re building factory farms in low-lying areas. These low-lying areas on the East Coast of North Carolina, South Carolina, places where there’s a lot of rainfall. We’re locating these facilities in low-lying areas because it’s the cheap land. It’s also the place where the cheapest workforce resides. So, this is exploitation of the environment, of the workers. Think about being an animal in one of these facilities, inside one of these barns. Again, in Hurricane Florence, we flooded the factory farm facilities, and rather than let these animals out, they sort of learned their lesson. They kept the animals in the barn, where they starved and consumed one another before they died. This is the earlier Hurricane Floyd, where they let the animals out, and so we’ve got a total disregard of animals, which is another indication of a failing system in a failing society. St. Francis of Assisi said, “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” Which is certainly what we’re seeing today.

“This global cartel, controlled food system rather than nourish the people who sustain it, consumes them. The result is a food system that concentrates money and power at the top, and poverty at the bottom, while compromising food access, quality, and safety in the process.” That’s a quote from Albert Krebs, Agribusiness Examiner.

With the help of the U.S. government, global gangsters have turned our agriculture into a massive agribusiness mining operation. Meet felons Wesley and Joesely Batista of JBS, who have been in prison, and have recently because they’re considered essential, been invited back to run the biggest meat company in the world — JBS. JBS is headquartered in Greeley, Colorado, and has been part of the four big meatpackers now under investigation for lowering prices to livestock producers at the same time they’re raising prices to consumers. These men should not be involved in anything to do with a critical industry, especially food; but our government allows them to operate.

Allan Savory I thought put it well. He said, “We have more to fear from USDA than any foreign power.” USDA refuses to enforce the Packers and Stockyard Act, which would have prevented the shared monopoly that the Batista brothers hold with Tyson, Cargill, and Marfrig (another Brazilian company). USDA makes life for small plants extremely difficult; making it impossible for them to operate, and giving the advantage to the biggest meat plants who have now failed us in this COVID-19 outbreak.

The industrial food system did fail the COVID-19 test. It has no resiliency. It has extracted, it does not create and build well, it extracts well. It destroys our very mechanisms that we create wealth from; that is, the soil. On the left, you see my store in Colorado Springs, on the same day — March 13, 2020 — on the right is the big box stores in Colorado Springs. Shelves were completely empty; no meat was available. Yet in my store on the left, which is about a 200-mile supply chain from St. Francis, Kansas to Colorado Springs, Colorado, you see full shelves. So far, our supply chain has held up well. We don’t stack employees on top of each other; we remain healthy in our operation.

So, let’s look at what I think we ought to be doing. I think we ought to be returning to a regenerative farming and ranching operation. One that’s made sustainable because it’s supported by consumers who care about the soil, who care about communities and people and the environment in general. So, I’ve set up what I call the Callicrate Cattle Company Regenerative Farming and Ranching concept, where basically it’s a circular economy, not a linear economy that extracts. It’s a circular economy that puts back into the soil, into the community, into the people. So, we start with the soil, and we return to the soil. Critical to this concept working is our ability to access a marketplace that demands what we produce.

“The soil is the great connector of lives; the source and destination of all. It is the healer and restorer and resurrector by which disease passes into health, age into youth, death into life. Without proper care for it, we can have no community, because without proper care for it, we can have no life” (Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture).

Creating community around local food will be essential in supporting this new regenerative approach to agriculture and food systems, where family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses can prosper, and consumers can have access to safe, dependable, and healthy food. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you. Our final presentation today is by Alicia Díaz Brown, of the Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico. We’re going to play an excerpt of this, because of time constraints. Her presentation is,

“Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.-Mexico Relationship.”

ALICIA DÍAZ BROWN: Let’s turn to the best moments in the U.S.-Mexico relationship. We thank the Schiller Institute and its President Helga Zepp-LaRouche for kindly giving us the opportunity to participate in this international gathering, in which special importance is given to the problem of food production. In every civilizational crisis the threat of hunger, epidemics and war appears. That is why we agree with the title which headlines this meeting: Will humanity prosper, or perish?

My name is Alicia Díaz Brown and I live in the Yaqui Valley in the south of the state of Sonora in Mexico. I belong to a family of agricultural producers, pioneers in this valley, and I am a member of the Yaqui Agricultural Credit Union and of the Citizens Movement for Water.

For many years, I have been involved in the discussion of problems related to the production of basic grains; but in the last decade I’ve been more intensely involved, because the public policies in Mexico have grown in their disregard of the countryside, to the point of proposing to take water from this region to divert it towards activities which they consider more profitable monetarily, even though that means reducing the land under cultivation and with it the production of food. They don’t care about harming a region that produces 50% of the nation’s wheat production, as well as a significant percentage of its corn production.

I recently saw a photograph that captures a very evocative moment of historical intimacy and common purposes that Mexico and the United States shared in the noble task of producing food to relieve hunger in the world. The picture takes us back to the decade of the 1940s, and the photo shows the then Vice President of the United States Henry Wallace touring a wheat crop in the Texcoco region of Mexico, and receiving a technical explanation from Dr. Norman Borlaug. accompanied by Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture and ex-President Lázaro Cárdenas. The government of President Ávila Camacho was just underway.

That was a time in which Mexico and the United States enjoyed governments with sufficient social strength to enforce the principle of the general welfare. Those efforts culminated with the Green Revolution, whose improvements in seed genetics made it possible for there to be substantial increases in yields per acre, principally of wheat and corn. The entire world benefited from this; the hunger of hundreds of millions of human beings was relieved for a time, and it turned out to be a fundamental experiment which demolished the Malthusian and anti-population theories which accept hunger and its aftermath of death as a matter of fate.

The Yaqui Valley in Sonora and the Texcoco region in the State of Mexico were experimental centers, in which Borlaug shared with Mexican researchers and producers his own research, his discoveries, but above all his human conviction that, with the systematic use of science, you can constantly maintain growth of production and combat the blights and fungus that damages plants. They proved that hunger is not an inexorable evil, but rather the result of twisted practices in economic and marketing criteria.

So Mexico and the United States share the prize that, at one point in history, we were able to relieve hunger in the world, because this knowledge was taken to India and to the countries most affected by hunger on the African continent.

But we lost that mission, and the production of food, as with other strategic areas of our economies, was trapped by the corporatization of the economy and by monetarist criteria, in which monetary profits comes first and foremost, and physical production is no longer a moral imperative, and instead becomes an optional element dominated by financial speculation. These policies took over at the beginning of the 1990s and they govern the free trade agreements among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

During the last 30 years, national grain production in Mexico has lacked a price policy which would guarantee the producer his capitalization. Parity prices were eliminated—they had been the cornerstone for the country to be able to achieve an important degree of self-sufficiency in wheat, corn, beans and rice. The state withdrew from the marketing process; the domestic market was abandoned; and national production passed into the hands of international corporations which monopolize world trade and speculate on grain prices on the Chicago Board of Trade

The result of all this is that Mexico has become an importer of basic grains. The current government talks about food self-sufficiency, but they confuse it with self-consumption, and they disperse resources to regions of the country that only consume what they produce, but which lack the ability to produce the food that the country needs. The regions with the greatest productive capabilities in wheat and corn have been left to the mercy of the big corporations that control the international markets, and they withdrew the compensatory support that allowed them to survive.

They try to make Mexican producers believe that these policies benefit North American producers. But at this meeting we see that authentic American producers are complaining about the same problems. If these policies are harming the producers of both countries, we should ask ourselves: Who are the big winners and predators under these rules of the game?

The big winners and predators are not engaged in producing food; they speculate with existing production. They control the prices on the Chicago Board of Trade, and they have turned the market into a dictatorial instrument. They are not interested in producing. Their preferred world is one of shortages and hunger. And what is sorrier still is that our governments have given in to those interests. In that way, the U.S. loses, Mexico loses, and the world loses.

When governments give in, we citizens have the moral and political duty to enforce the principle of the general welfare. At the beginning of my remarks, I referred to a photograph which bears witness to a historical moment of excellent relations between Mexico and the United States. For now, we do not have in our governments people of the moral stature and courage of those who were shown in that photograph.

For that very reason, I believe that now is the time for citizens to make their governments rise to the challenge. Let these meetings serve to begin to weave an alliance of Mexican and North American producers with the ability to exercise the required political and moral pressure on our governments, and in that way establish common goals in terms of how to increase food production; how to reestablish parity prices; how to increase yields per acre; how to build great infrastructure projects of a bi-national nature to manage increased quantities of water and power, which will allow us to significantly increase land under cultivation.

These are some of the tasks we have before us; but what is most urgent is to tell the world that we have initiated this relationship, that we are going to maintain it, and that we are going to resume the historical impetus of the best moments of the Mexico-U.S. relationship, to demand the required agreements among the world’s powers that are morally obligated to lift humanity out of the uncertainty in which the shocking economic crisis has placed us, with its inherent threats of pandemics, hunger and war.

Thank you very much.

Questions & Answers

SPEED: What we’re going to do now is bring our entire panel — everybody that’s live with us — up on screen. We’ve got one or two pieces of business from the first panel that we have to conclude. One question in particular which we are going to direct to Jacques Cheminade, which will get us started. Then Diane has two questions which will be addressed to the entire panel.

So, this question is from Ambassador Dr. A. Rohan Perera, former Permanent Representative of the Republic of Sri Lanka to the United Nations. I’m going to direct this to Jacques. He says:

“The biggest foreign exchange earner for Sri Lanka has been the tourism sector, which had been dependent on tourist arrivals from Europe, and on the garment export sector, mainly to the U.S. market. The total estimated loss as a consequence of the coronavirus lockdown is in the region of $10 billion. In the garment sector, recovery efforts will require liberal access to the U.S. markets.

“Overall, Sri Lanka will require debt restructuring arrangements with lending agencies like the World Bank and with the developed countries who determine their policies. It may be recalled that the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit Declaration — adopted in Colombo at the Fifth Summit in 1976 — cited the New International Economic Order which referred to, among other things, debt restructuring, debt moratoria, and the restructuring of multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank. The idea of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — is a step in that direction.

“Please comment on the vital question of debt restructuring, amidst this coronavirus crisis, and new institutions that may be required. Thank you.”

JACQUES CHEMINADE: First, on this tourist issue. Very different countries, like Sri Lanka, Cuba, or France, had, because they were not able to develop industrially or to really have a fair development of agriculture, have to make money on tourism; on their beautiful things to see in Sri Lanka, in Cuba, or in France. But this tourism was of a kind not of an educational treatment of the culture of the country, but to a kind of servant economy transformation of the country where there was a service economy based on let’s say arranging things for people who wanted to have fun. This has been a complete disaster. This is because of a lack of a commitment to an economic physical development, like Lyndon LaRouche developed during all his life, and industrial development connected to, as part of representing this in-depth economic development. Therefore, what happened is that progressively, despite the benefits of tourism — I would say because of the type of economy what was created — the countries were trapped into a debt system. This affected first the countries of the Southern Hemisphere. It affected countries of Ibero-America, countries of Asia, and in particular Africa. Through a system of accumulation of interest over interest, this is what our friend Dennis Small calls the banker’s economy or free market. The free market becomes sort of a flee market where they rob you; it has become that. So, it has become debt that accumulates over debt, and you have normally, or if you follow this accumulation of debt because in an unfair economy, you have to pay two, three, four times more debt that what you got from the loans. This is what was imposed on the countries of the South. It is coming inside countries like Spain, Italy, or France at this point.

So, you have the whole world trapped into this debt system. And the whole economy now is an economy which is no more, I would say, a free market economy. It is a controlled free market economy by the laws of the British Empire imposed by central banks. So, this is only maintained through fake money. You have flows and flows of fake money dumped on the markets, which don’t go to the producers, don’t go even to the consumers. This fake money goes into the whole financial secrets of the oligarchy. So, this is what has to be forever eliminated. It’s the British system of Anglo-ization of Anglo-Dutch system of an economy which is not based on a human level and human development, but it’s based on financial dictatorship. Which I call now the system under which we are; a market economy without a market; a dictatorship of these financial interests in all sectors, including culture.

So, we have to free ourselves from that. All the life of Lyndon LaRouche in particular as a point of reference historically, was in 1982 with Lopez Portillo, and in 1976 with our friend Fred Wills in Colombo, was to say we need to be freed from the debt. And we need a bank organized for the development of whole countries of the world. This is what the World Bank was intended to be after World War II. But then, as the Bretton Woods system, it was miscarried by all the Western leaders. What we need now, is what the Chinese with the New Silk Road are doing by let’s say directing economies. It’s an economy based on real physical development, and a growth based on the development of the creative potential of the human being, including in culture. There are efforts in China for Classical culture, for Classical Chinese poetry. And all of this is connected to the whole — which the West would never tell about that — to the whole development of the New Silk Road concept of the Belt and Road Initiative.

So you have that as a reference. And you have the whole fight of our lives which comes into this direction. And now we have a big chance that this becomes for us a real point existing in reality and accomplished. So, we have to go much further, and we speak about the World Land-Bridge. There has been a World Land-Bridge, as we said it with the United States, China, Russia, India, and all other countries that would be connected to this system. So, it demands a mobilization of the leaders of the world, but also the populations everywhere to put pressure on the leaders of the world and the economic system. It’s very interesting from that standpoint that the Yellow Vests in France are calling some of us to be experts in this debt moratorium or debt amelioration, which would get rid of this debt system and see what’s fair and unfair debt.

So, the Glass-Steagall proposal is absolutely a part of that. It means that banks which are involved in giving credit or organizing deposit accounts would be separated from banks which are involved in the markets and which are becoming elements or scions of this whole British system. So, the separation would clean the system.

We need much more, that’s why we need a credit system for the future, developing this type of physical economy with increasing productivity per unit of surface per human being and per matter brought into it. So, this is a sense of a high flux density economy; high energy-flux density should be the choice of this economy.

Among the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, this is the fourth law. What you should choose once you clean the system, and once you get rid of this debt system. That’s the key, because it’s there that you have to invest human creativity in things that put human beings at the border of this capacity to create. And it will connect the space programs — the astronaut, after all, has to work both with his brains and his hands; exactly like farmers have to work with their brains and their hands. The more advanced farmers in the United States or in Europe are, in their tractors, real astronauts on Earth. I liked a lot this presentation of our American farmer, Mike Callicrate, who said that the soil itself has to be seen as a living matter. It is something that is alive, and it has to be enriched and developed. It has not to be seen as a support or something that you take advantage of; it is something that you feed into for the future. I think that this concept is what links the astronaut and the farmer and which links all of us in this society. I raise this issue of farmer’s education, because I think, what we always discussed with Lyndon LaRouche, that the type of education that this requires is an education which creates or generates in human beings this constantly increasing capacity and this joy to create when you do something socially good for the others. It’s a big issue today, as Helga said before, is public health, because it’s a matter that involves the whole world. It demands world cooperation. And what I keep repeating is that instead of organizing hospitals through financial management, we should organize states as hospitals for the care and development of the people.

SPEED: Thank you, Jacques. Now, Diane, who is an orchestral conductor, has the following task. We have approximately 15 minutes all together. It means that what we have here is very little time for discussion. In fact, what’s going to happen is, she’s going to pose something that came from a couple of countries, and each of you is going to have approximately two minutes to say whatever you have to say, both to one another, you can choose to respond to the question or not, but that’s what you’re going to have. Diane will now take the floor, and if necessary, I will intervene.

DIANE SARE: OK. This question is from Ambassador Mauricio Ortiz, who is the Ambassador of Costa Rica to Canada. He says:

“In your proposal you mention ‘an emergency mission to build a fully functional health infrastructure for the world particularly in South America, Africa, and parts of Asia.’ This proposal is very much needed in those regions.

“Are the international financial institutions willing to invest in that proposal, and what will be the arguments from the Schiller Institute to these institutions to make it real?

“If your proposal is realized, you might note that our country, Costa Rica, has an efficient primary health system with more than 1,000 rural health posts and, along with Chile and Cuba, one of the best health programs in Latin America. This is a system that can be replicated in other countries, including developed countries.”

I’m going to ask the other question here as well. This one comes from the Mission from Colombia to the United Nations:

“Dear all, on behalf of the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations I would like to pose the following question: How can Latin America play a determining role in the consolidation of this new global configuration?”

“Best regards, Carolina Gutiérrez Bacci; Third Secretary”

SPEED: OK, so what we’re going to do is this. You can choose to address either of the questions or neither of the questions, because you only have, as I said, a couple of minutes. I’m going to start quickly with Bob Baker.

BOB BAKER: Thank you, Dennis. In terms of the health infrastructure and my particular focus on agriculture, I think it’s an absolutely vital situation to develop a food system where everybody can get a proper diet of nutritional food. That is the basis on which to build the argument why every community should have access to the most advanced healthcare that science has brought us to this day. But the driver in that obstacle behind the scenes is an international financial cartel that’s building world global monopolies to stop that. To the extent the nations of the world can expose that and unite the people to take a stand against it, that’s going to be a very important aspect of getting a healthcare system internationally. But this is also why this type of conference we’re having becomes very instrumental if not a key element of getting that done.

SPEED: Thank you. Now I want to go to Kirk Meighoo, whose presentation I particularly appreciated.

KIRK MEIGHOO: Thank you very much. I’ll quickly address the problem. We’re close neighbors of Costa Rica, and we have some links with them that we’ve established recently. This problem of self-sufficiency is something, especially for a small society, and all these small little islands, the question of self-sufficiency in everything is just simply not there.

So, people have even asked questions whether we deserve to be independent, or should we be permanent colonies? These are questions that stay with us, even after independence. It’s something we struggle with. We do have to have a system where we do access, just as the last speaker said, the best healthcare possible for all humanity. But we cannot simply be recipients, receivers of these things; dependents, colonial dependents as we have been for 500 years. We have to have a system where we are also producers.

So, what is the system of trading a local economy, of local production where we are contributing to our own development, as well as participating with others? That is the type of system that the global financial system has been against, and has never been for. It is the old imperial system, and they are just merely modern continuations of that. What we have to do, what our task is, is to create this new system. Not just money from the old system to create this, but how do we make the system where not only do we each benefit from the best the world has to offer, but that we are also contributors, as full human beings to it, as well. That is where I would like to leave it.

SPEED: OK, thank you. Walter Formento, you’re up.

WALTER FORMENTO: [as translated] All of the contributions that are made are very significant. It’s clear that for South America the call for the five nations that Putin made, which Helga also referred to, is a matter of great hope, because this would allow us to ensure that we could achieve peace. Therefore, it will be international politics that will allow us to decide things based on a dialogue of civilizations, a dialogue of peoples, of nations, what the future of mankind and nature will be. In Argentina in particular, the production of food — Argentina is a great producer of food, along with South America, along with Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay as well. The great multinational conglomerates involved in the food sector have taken control as of 30 years ago in Argentina, both in terms of our ability to produce as well as export.

Therefore, at this moment in Argentina and in South America, governments have changed, and with the backing of such an international conference that President Putin has called for, we can move forward in providing sovereign channels for both producing and exporting. The policies that can be carried out inside Argentina in the food sector have to do with allowing producers’ cooperatives to be a part of the great conglomerates that engage in production. We shouldn’t dissolve large-scale production and technology, but rather introduce the nations and all society through such cooperatives so that they participate in the solution, and to be part of the solution. Therefore, there is a way to democratize production.

SPEED: We’re going to have to stop. Thank you. Sorry, we’re going to have to move on. Mike Callicrate?

CALLICRATE: I was really moved by Dr. Meighoo’s comments about islands and the small economies on those islands. I can really get somebody pretty seriously depressed when we talk about the state of the world. But, I can also lift them and get them more excited when I talk about the possibility of going home. Going home to our communities and making them as good as we possibly can. Become wealth creators, grow things, make things, restore the primary wealth trading enterprises to societies around the world. Like with Kirk, if you can just stop the predators, the economic, financial, big food monopoly predators from extracting the wealth and leaving nothing but poverty behind, I think we can begin to repair this damage. Because we do control, as farmers and ranchers and citizens, we do to a large extent control our ability to create the wealth. It’s what happens to it after we create it. The last speaker talked about we shouldn’t dissolve the big corporations. I would argue yes, we should dissolve them. The big corporations should be broken up; not completely eliminate their facilities, but at least put them to where they have to perform in line with the public good. So, I love that analogy of those small islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and islands all across the Caribbean and how that is very much like the islands in rural America, in rural communities around the world. I’m saying let’s go back to making things and growing things, and teach that and kill this model of industrialization of these critical industries, like food.

SPEED: Thank you, very good. We’re trying to get Diogène Senny’s audio up. I don’t think we have it yet. So, let’s go to Jacques.

CHEMINADE: Just one word about Cuban doctors, to speak about that island. It’s proof that you can have the most advanced medicine, interferon, where French doctors have to go there to learn from them. Then you have the best doctors, because they stay and live where the patients stay and live. And third, they are involved in cooperation with other countries in the whole world. They send them, and they do a very good job. In particular, they are now in Doha, in Europe in Italy, and now in French Martinique, so the French have to recognize — and sometimes it’s difficult for them — that these were the best; a team of 15 Cuban doctors in Martinique now. So that’s proof that an island can do an excellent job in a very advanced field, and at the same time they are most human.

SPEED: Thank you. I hope that we have the audio for the Pan-African Congress representative. We are not going off until I hear that. We’re going to do a sit-in until we hear from him!

SENNY: [as translated] The global question of poverty is just a part of the world situation and the African situation. We all know that when we present the situation of the continent, we are more interested in the question of the debt, money, slavery, and we forget that, for example, monoculture which has been imposed by the international cartels have destroyed agriculture with the hedge funds that I denounce, because they want to make money with our land. They buy what we have in our continent, in our countries, to generate profit for them, for a small group of people. But not allow millions of lives of people to develop their land.

That’s why this question of agriculture and self-sufficiency in Africa is one of the most important problems. It’s not an agriculture, it’s a money culture; that’s the agriculture we have. If we want to have modern rice, we have to have modern developments. It’s very important for us, this agricultural question. We see that it is a world problem. What was used before by the African farmers are not in their own hands, because it is in the hands of the hedge funds, the speculative hedge funds.

It is very important to understand, and it is not very well known in the international debate now. That’s what I wanted to add. Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much. So, now Diane, you have 45 seconds, and I have 45 seconds. Do your postlude.

SARE: OK. I’ll be very brief. I think we should all remember that we have been blessed to have inhabit a beautiful, fertile planet which is very conducive to sustaining life, and in particular human life, if we are sane. But there are 2 trillion galaxies or more in the universe, and each of these many have many other planets. So, contrary to the views of the Malthusians and the money-changers, the creativity of each and every human being on this planet is urgently needed; because we are not capable of making too many discoveries to develop the universe as a whole. Therefore, we have to grow into a new era of mankind.

SPEED: Thank you. So, I will now conclude this panel — largely due to time — by just pointing out that we’ve had Europe, Africa, South America, the Caribbean, and the United States all on this panel in the form of discussion. This is the process that must be correlative to whatever happens among heads of state. And this process which the Schiller Institute is initiating, which is also bringing up various forms of important ideas and painful truths as well, is crucial to the actual success of the global Four-Power and related summit that we’ve been talking about. Finally, in the era of coronavirus, this is the only means by which people will be able to prosper and not perish; is this people-to-people dialogue we’ve conducted here.

I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. I think there’s a lot that can be done also in additional presentations that we may find in the future, pairing some of you together. I’d certainly like to see the Pan-African Congress together with Mr. Mike Callicrate. I’d like to see Kirk Meighoo involved in some discussions like that. Jacques is always welcome, and he’s always teaching us things. He had something new for us today; go back and take a look at his presentation afterwards, because he has some very interesting ideas that he put forward there.

So, we’re going to conclude now…

Et afskrift på engelsk af Panel I findes nedenunder.

Ovenover: Panel I: “Til erstatning for geopolitik: principperne for statsmandskab”

Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche og internationale diplomater, amerikanske valgte politikere, osv.

• Keynote speaker: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War”
• Dr. Jin Zhongxia, Executive Director for China, IMF; Washington, D.C., United States: “The Fundamentals of East-West Philosophic Relations”
• Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Russian Federation Mission to the UN, New York City, United States: “Russia’s Global Economic Perspective, Post COVID-19”
• Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon-General of the United States
• Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, China Development Research Center, China: “A Chinese Perspective on a Post-COVID Paradigm”
• Daisuke Kotegawa, former Executive Director for Japan at the IMF; Research Director, The Canon Institute, Japan
• Mayor DeWayne Hopkins (fmr); Former Mayor, Muscatine, Iowa; The Mayor’s Muscatine-China Initiative Committee, United States: “A View from the Iowa Farm Belt: the Muscatine-China Cultural Connection”
• Question and Answer session

******

Panel II: ”Producenter i Verden, foren jer! Hvorfor et program for skabelse af 1,5 milliarder produktive job kan afslutte krig, hungersnød, fattigdom og sygdom”

Jacques Cheminade, lederen af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og landbrug, fagforening og politiske ledere fra Afrika, Sydamerika og USA.

• Jacques Cheminade, President Solidarité & Progrès, France: “How Food Production Can Unite the World”
• Diogène Senny, Founder of the Pan-African League: “Thrive or perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”
• Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina; “South America on the New Multipolar Road”
• Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad & Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”
• Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, United States: “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress”
• Robert L. Baker, Schiller Institute, United States
• Mike Callicrate, Board of Directors, Organization for Competitive Markets, Owner Ranch Foods Direct, United States: “Food Unites People Around the Planet”
• Alicia Díaz Brown, Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico: “Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.–Mexico Relationship”
• Question and Answer session

******

Panel III: Ungdommens opgave

Daniel Burke, senatorkandidat i New Jersey, USA fra LaRouche-bevægelsen, og universitets og andre ungdomsledere fra Frankrig, Yemen, Colombia, Mexico, Tanzania, og USA.

• Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute, Germany: Opening Remarks
• Keynote: Daniel Burke, Schiller Institute, United States: “If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do?”
• Carolina Domínguez Cisneros, Mexico; Sebastián Debernardi, Peru; Andrés Carpintero, Colombia; Daniel Dufreine Arévalo, Mexico: “Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were Stolen From Us”
• Franklin Mireri, YouLead Partnerships Coordinator, Tanzania: “The Greatest Want of the World is for True Leaders.”
• Sarah Fahim, Student from Morocco Studying in Paris, France
• Chérine Sultan, Institut Schiller, Paris, France
• Lissie Brobjerg, Schiller Institute, United States: “Are You a Large-Scale Geological Force?”
• Areej Atef, Education Committee Vice President of BRICS Youth Parliament, Sana’a, Yemen: “Youth of the World Face Two World Systems: The Old and the New”
• Jose Vega, Bronx, NY: “A New Space CCC”
• Youth Day of Action Invitation Video
• Question and Answer session

Invitationen: 

Efter vore vellykkede internetkonferencer den 25.-26. april samt den 9. maj på V-E-dagen, vil vores næste konference være den 27. juni, kl. 16:00. Hjælp venligst med at sprede denne meddelelse bredt blandt venner, sociale medier osv.

Siden januar har Schiller Instituttets formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisteret på, at USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien skal mødes. Deres ledere må vise det statsmandskab, der kræves for at overvinde åndsforladt koldkrigerisk propagandataktik og geopolitik, og tage del i en hastemission for at opbygge en fuldt funktionsdygtig sundhedsinfrastruktur for verden, især for Sydamerika, Afrika og dele af Asien, der kræver opførelse af hospitaler, vandværker, vejsystemer og uddannelsesfaciliteter til unge læger, sygeplejersker og lægeassistenter.

 I over 35 år, og især i de sidste syv år, har Schiller Instituttet kæmpet for netop den slags statsmandskunst.

 Verden må nu vælge mellem to modstridende syn på menneskehedens næste 50 år:

 Et synspunkt kræver at vende den forestående affolkning af jorden på grund af globale pandemier. Disse pandemier er uden undtagelse resultatet af mislykkede finansielle, økonomiske og militære politikker, og især af den fuldstændige deregulering af de finansielle markeder igennem de sidste tre årtier. Det andet, modstridende synspunkt, kræver en ‘Green New Deal’ -energipolitik, som umiddelbart vil forværre planetens nuværende sundhedskrise og kunne muligvis endda resultere i døden for størstedelen af den menneskelige race.

 Vi må tage afstand fra denne affolkningspolitik, organisere den transatlantiske verden for at tilslutte sig det nye kulturelle paradigme, der nu føres an af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ, og bevæge verden til det som Schiller Instituttet har kaldt ‘Verdens Landbroen’.

 Netop mens Kina igennem præsident Xi Jinping´s Bælte- og Vejinitiativ har engageret 150 nationer i et forsøg på at stoppe fattigdom i hele verden, har malthusianske økonomiske kræfter i USA og Europa, der er imod dette, stigmatiseret Kina som ‘virussets udspring’ – en slet skjult genoplivning af den racistiske doktrin for 100 år siden kaldet ‘den gule fare’.

 I 1923 skrev medlem af det britiske Overhus Lord Bertrand Russell:

 ”De hvide befolkninger i verden vil snart ophøre med at stige i tal. De asiatiske racer vil blive flere, og negrene stadig flere, før deres fødselsrater falder tilstrækkeligt til at stabilisere deres antal uden hjælp af krig og pestilens. Indtil det sker, kan fordelene som socialismen sigter mod kun delvist realiseres, og mindre reproduktive racer bliver nødt til at forsvare sig mod de mere reproduktive ved metoder, der er oprørende, selvom de er nødvendige”.

 Verden, og især vores ungdom, der skal opbygge planeten i de kommende 50 år, må så stærkt som muligt afvise sådanne ideer og politikker for at pålægge systemisk tilbageståenhed globalt, herunder i forklædning af “Green New Deal”. Der kan ikke længere være nogen tvivl om, at verdens mest avancerede teknologier – i rummet, i fremstillingsindustrien, i minedrift, i landbruget – straks, i kraft af hasteprogrammer, må anvendes mod den globale pandemi og den økonomiske krise, som ellers kan føre til snesevis af millioner døde og fordrevne på kort sigt. En sådan massedød forekommer allerede i Brasilien og andre nationer. ‘Verdensfødevareprogrammet’ advarer om, at vi om nogle måneder vil kunne se så mange som 300.000 mennesker dø af sult dagligt, primært i udviklingslandene.

 Et nyt dokument, ‘The LaRouche Plan to Reolen the U.S. Economic; The World Nees 1.5 Billion New, Produktive Jobs’, (LaRouche-planen til genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi; Verden har brug for 1.5 milliarder nye produktive job) skitserer, hvordan denne tragedie kan vendes ved at søsætte den største økonomiske ekspansion i menneskets historie, herunder 50 millioner produktive job i henholdsvis USA og Europa.

 Da den sydafrikanske præsident Ramaphosa lykønskede Elon Musk, der har dobbelt sydafrikansk-amerikansk statsborgerskab, med den vellykkede gennemførelse af den amerikanske mission til Den internationale Rumstation, udtrykte han den form for nationalt lederskab, der kræves for endeligt at bringe globalt tyranni med globalisering og geopolitik til ophør. De seneste gennembrud inden for videnskab, gjort tilgængelig for de mest nødlidende, kan nu indlede en ny æra, der kunne kaldes ‘menneskelig økonomi’. Som Lyndon LaRouche redegjorde: “I stedet for disse for nærværende fejlslagne ideer, må vi antage en forestilling om økonomi, hvis målestok er funktionelt i overensstemmelse med det afgørende særpræg: princippet om kreativ fornuft”.

 Denne stræben efter økonomisk retfærdighed, især for de af verdens børn, der er født ind i livstruende omstændigheder, vil have den yderligere fordelagtige virkning at tage fat på andre problemer med social retfærdighed, der for nylig har fået så megen international opmærksomhed.

Kontact os for at få tilsendt udgaver med tysk, fransk eller spansk oversættelse. Ring +45 53 57 00 51

*****

Panel I afskrift:

Panel 1: “Instead of Geopolitics: The Principles of Statecraft”

DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and I want to welcome you to today’s international conference and webcast. We had a technical problem for a moment, and now we think we’ve solved that problem.

Today’s conference is called “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four-Power’ Summit Now.” We’re going to begin today by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. He was keynoting a panel of the Schiller Institute — this was in Germany — and the name of the particular panel on that occasion was “Rescuing Civilization from the Brink: The Role of Classical Culture. An Imperative for Mankind.”

LYNDON LAROUCHE video:

This is truly the most important of all strategic questions we have to face today: the fact that the human species is absolutely unique in its capabilities. There’s no other known species in the universe, ever known to have existed, or could exist — even though we have not fully explored, of course, the Crab Nebula or similar parts of the great galaxy which we’re involved in, called the Milky Way. There may be many species with cognitive powers out there. Because the Solar System of which we are immediately a product, although always under the control of the galactic processes — and we know a good deal, today, about those kinds of things: Our organization in the United States has spent a good deal of effort on concentrating, inclusively, on just this question: How old is life? How long has life existed in this galaxy, or within some place in it? What is the nature of mankind, who’s been on this planet only for a few million years? There was no human being on this planet, to the best of our knowledge, until a few million years ago.

And yet, we’re talking about billions of years of this galaxy, during which all living processes known to us have come into existence. And all life is creative, but there’s a sad part: that over 95% of all known living species have been rendered extinct, as failures, in their time. The question, therefore: Why, in these times, when we have entered a period in which there will be more great kills of living processes, at this phase of the movement of the Solar System through the galaxy, why should we be so presumptuous as to imagine that human life is not about to disappear as the dinosaurs did in the last great kill?

What is there about human beings that says they’re not just another animal species, ready to get to the chop in the course of their time?

The answer is a very little-known question. Most people don’t have an inkling of what the answer is! As a matter of fact, our societies are run on the basis of people who have no inkling what the human species is! All they can come up with is an explanation of some kind of an animal, with animal characteristics of pleasure and pain, and things like that, that might control the behavior of this animal.

So why should we expect that we have a right to claim that the human species is going to survive the approaching point of a great kill in the course of the movements of the Solar System up and below and around the galaxy we inhabit? How do we know that this 62-million-year cycle is not going to take the human species away, as it’s taken so many away before? And then, before that, and then before that?

And here you have all these people talking about politics; they’re talking about issues of politics; they’re talking about “practical opinion,” and public opinion, and differentiations in customs, and all those kinds of things! And here we are: We’re approaching the time of the great kill, where everything about us may suddenly disappear; so what are we worried about? If we’re going to disappear, why do we worry? Why do we fight it? [laughter]

What is there in us, that is not in other living species known to us? That might, somehow, miraculously, pronounce a destiny for our human species which we grant to no other living species? The name for that specific quality, which we know in the human species, which does not exist in any other known living species: There’s a quality of creativity, which is absolutely unique to mankind. And if you’re not creative, and if you don’t understand creativity, you haven’t got a ticket to survival yet! Because creativity won’t save you, unless you use it. [end video]

SPEED: We’re continuing to experience highly unusual technical difficulties. There were some problems in some of our international connections….

As soon as we have this technical problem somewhat under control, we’re going to go directly to our keynote speaker, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. We are about now 15 minutes behind schedule, but we’ll be able to do certain things to make that up. We want to apologize again, so that people have an idea, this is a highly unusual circumstance, we’re not going to talk a lot about that right now. Let me simply say so that the format is known, we are going to have first our keynote speech, followed by representatives from China and from Russia, and several others. The topic of the panel, as we announced before, is “Instead of Politics, the Principles of Statecraft.”

Let me say about the Schiller Institute and what we’ve been doing with this conference, or this process of conferences, because it actually began back in April of this year. April 25th and 26th, we held the first of what is now the three conferences. These conferences were devoted to the idea of the creation of a Four-Power summit — Russia, China, India, and the United States. There are various processes that have been able to move in that direction already, and we are in a process today. In fact, among many of the things we’ll be talking about today is a new proposal that has been put forward by President Vladimir Putin of Russia to that effect. Let me also say that for people in the United States in particular, the crisis that has been on people’s minds, as exhibited in the social and political crises in the streets of America, is merely one predicate of a broader international process. And that’s what why we’re starting today with this first panel, to give that broader overview, and to allow you and others to become part of an international operation to reverse that circumstance.

Now, as I said, I think the primary problem that we are dealing with is that we are trying to make sure that the international contacts are also connected. We have translators and we have a need to make sure that everything is moving in sync; that’s one of the particular problems of this kind of international operation.

Let me say one other thing concerning the excerpt that you saw from Lyndon LaRouche, which was done in 2011. LaRouche’s conception there concerning the idea that was strategy; the idea of thinking about strategy from the standpoint of a galactic process, and then looking then — and only then — at the various political episodes that were occurring on Earth, was a way of trying to actually look at what he often also referred to often as intelligence. He was the founder in 1974, of Executive Intelligence Review. And that publication, which is still published to this day, specialized in trying to make his method of intelligence and investigation available generally in American analysis.

This was very successful, in particular, in the drive for certain policy changes that occurred in the United States; most notably, that of March 23, 1983, with the creation of the Strategic Defense Initiative. This was the product of a process of negotiation that LaRouche carried out as a back-channel negotiator with the then-Soviet Union, and with the knowledge of the National Security Council and then-President of the United States Ronald Reagan. That policy, and the creation of that policy, and that dialogue with the then-Soviet Union, is, in one sense, not a model for now, but is the same sort of process that must needs be allowed to continue and to happen between President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others. The idea of the Four-Power summit is not exclusionary. It doesn’t say that other powers are not involved. In fact, recent proposals have amplified or expanded the number of persons that might, in fact, be involved.

But what is important to understand is that, as LaRouche once said in another document published in 1980 called “A Dialogue with Leonid Brezhnev,” then the head of the then-Soviet Union, “The Content of Policy Is the Method By Which It Is Made.” So, in the clip that you’ve seen, there, today, the idea of culture and the idea of what a culture actually is, is a strategic matter. In the case of the United States, and in the case of the present-day United States, these matters of a cultural paradigm-shift are actually often far more important than the particular political issues that people talk about. For example, if you look at today’s United States, the issue of our having gone away from being a productive culture, in fact the most productive economy in the world’s history, between the period in particular of the 1933 resurgence of America that occurred under Franklin Roosevelt, through the period of 1945, and then the subsequent period of 1944 through 1971 with the Bretton Woods system. It’s been the need to return to that, and to return to these ideas — those that had come into currency under Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidency — that is the template for what we are saying should be the character of discussion between President Trump, President Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi.

I want to make one thing clear to everyone as we are about to transition, to get to the keynote, that in thinking about what we are all involved in today — namely, that global pandemic condition created by the coronavirus: Clearly what has happened is, there is a need for all of us to change our axioms. That the idea of international cooperation among sovereign, independent nation-states, for the purpose of creating a worldwide alternative to what’s otherwise going to be, perhaps, the destruction of civilization — not because absolutely everybody would die of the coronavirus or something like that — but the cascading effects and the interconnected effects of a global pandemic condition that we don’t really medically understand, plus the ongoing problem of the financial virus that has, of course, plagued humanity particularly since the time of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, this combination would create a circumstance in which only all nations working together can possibly achieve an actual reconciliation of this process.

I think we’re about ready to begin.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of the Schiller Institute — that was back in 1984. She also, of course, is the wife of the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in February 2019. She played a crucial, decisive role in a set of conversations and dialogues with the government of China during the period of 1993 to 1996; launching the process that became what we now know as the New Silk Road. And we’re happy and proud to present her to you now, to begin the dialogue again. The panel as a whole is, “Instead of Geopolitics, a New Form of Statecraft.” So, it’s always my honor to introduce Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: After this difficult beginning, I’m all the more happy that I’m finally connected to you. And I’m going to talk about the alternative to a Dark Age, or the danger of a new world war. And even if it’s inconceivable for most people at this point, if we do not succeed in the relatively short term in replacing the hopelessly bankrupt financial system by a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as originally intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, that is, to create an instrument for forcefully overcoming the underdevelopment of the so-called developing sector, then the current orientation of the world….

I don’t know if you heard what I said before because there were some technical problems, but I was saying that even if most people cannot imagine that that can occur, that unless we, in the very short term, implement a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended it, that the current orientation of the world towards ever more conflicts, both domestically in many states of the world, but also on a strategic level, threatens to escalate into a great new world, a Third World War, which because of the existence of thermonuclear weapons would mean the annihilation of the human species — the “great kill” even if it is meant in a slightly different way than Lyn just was heard on this video clip.

Although it is absolutely astounding how many misguided people still believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is either no worse than the flu or a just conspiracy of Bill Gates, the much more likely perspective is unfortunately what epidemiologist Dr. Michael Osterholm has said: namely, that we still have an incredibly long journey ahead of us. Until now, 10 million people have been infected, half a million have died from COVID-19, and we have still not reached the peak of the first wave. The almost non-existent health systems of many developing countries are already hopelessly overstretched. The pandemic has ruthlessly exposed the fact that the neo-liberal economic system not only depends on cheap production in the so-called Third World, but has even created in the United States and Europe slave-labor conditions, as can be seen in the outbreak of the virus in the many slaughterhouses in Europe and the United States.

The economic shutdown has thrown a spotlight on the fragility of what is called “globalization.” In the U.S., around 40 million jobs were lost in three months; the central banks pumped an unbelievable over $20 trillion into the financial system and various government support programs could just barely cover up the timebombs still ticking until expiring of the short-work programs. The IMF currently expects global production to decline by 4.9% this year, and only China is expected to have an increase in production of 2%, which is obviously is much less than it used to be, but nevertheless it grows. Sectors such as air traffic, catering, tourism, the car industry, have suffered massive declines, some of them long-term, but also a large number of medium-sized companies fear they will not survive a second wave and another economic lockdown. The result would be a huge increase in unemployment, poverty and price deflation, while at the same time the central banks’ liquidity pumping is creating hyperinflationary bubbles. Bail-outs of large systemic corporations and banks, as well as politically explosive bail-ins would be further desperate options for governments to implement, but they could not prevent a collapse of the global financial system. A plunge into chaos and anarchy would follow.

In the meantime, a continuation of the current policy would not only lead to increased death rates as a result of the pandemic, but would do absolutely nothing to counter the hunger catastrophe, of which David Beasley of the World Food Program is warning that it will soon take the lives of 300,000 people a day.

Whoever may have thought that a dark age could be ruled out in our modern times, is in for a reality shock. And last but not least, the hedonism acted out by demonstrators who confuse liberties with freedom, is reminiscent of the flagellants and the descriptions of the 14th century as they are given by the writings of Boccaccio, and the paintings of Breughel.

Against this background, it is to be expected that the attempt, originally instigated by the British secret services, to oust President Donald Trump from office by a coup, impeachment or assassination — such was the headline of the British publication The Spectator on Jan. 21, 2017 — or by a “Maidan” coup, as President Putin warned in 2016, these will intensify. The instrumentalization of the outrage resulting from the murder of George Floyd by violent groups funded by George Soros is part of this campaign. The reason for the relentless hostility of the neo-liberal establishment and the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic against Trump after what, for them, what his unexpected election victory, was, and still is, the intention he expressed at the beginning of his term, to establish good relations with Russia and a good relationship with China. And of course, Trump’s promise to end the “endless wars” of his predecessors, to bring U.S. troops home.

What followed was a three-and-a-half-year witch hunt against Trump. The war cry “Russia, Russia, Russia,” based on grounds for which not the least shred of evidence subsists, was followed by an attempt at an impeachment, followed by the no less malicious war cry “China, China, China,” although there is just as little substance to the charges against China as there was for Russiagate.

During all that, the representatives of the neo-liberal system were not ready for one second to consider that it was the brutal consequences of their own policies for the majority of the population worldwide, that had triggered the global wave of social protest, which included the Brexit and Trump’s victory, as well as the mass protests worldwide from Chile to the Yellow Vests in France. But this establishment is never interested in discovering the truth, only in controlling the official political narrative, in compliance with Pompeo ’s principle, as he explained in his speech in Texas: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole … we had entire training courses for that.”

NATO’s official narrative about Russia’s allegedly increasing aggressiveness, accused of “redrawing borders by force in Europe,” fails to mention of course the broken promises made to Gorbachov, that NATO would never extend its borders all the way to Russia’s borders, and the preceding color revolutions that can be described as acts of war, and finally the coup in Kiev with the open support of Victoria Nuland, which triggered the referendum in Crimea in reaction.

China’s “crime” is not only that it has lifted 850 million of its own citizens out of poverty, and has become, with an economic policy based on scientific and technological progress and a population of 1.4 billion people, the second most powerful economic nation, and in some technological areas, such as high-speed rail systems, nuclear fusion, aspects of space exploration and 5G telecommunications, already the number one. In addition, China’s offer for cooperation on the New Silk Road, and the Belt and Road Initiative, is the first real opportunity for the developing countries since the time of colonialism, to overcome poverty and underdevelopment by building infrastructure.

NATO’s response to China’s regaining its role as a leading nation in the world, a role it played during many centuries of its 5,000-year-long history, has been global expansion into the Indo-Pacific region. This is the stuff of which world wars can be made. And yet, that is exactly the direction that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has indicated in his outline for “NATO 2030,” which he just presented in a video conference with the Atlantic Council and the German Marshall Fund. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer took part in another webinar last Wednesday with Anna Wieslander, director of the Atlantic Council for Northern Europe, who, in opening the event quoted Lord Ismay, NATO’s first general secretary, who said that the purpose of NATO is “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” But AKK (as she is nicknamed) did not even seemingly realize the insult in these remarks. The geopolitical scenario of a globalized NATO, which is openly designed to instrumentalize NATO for the purposes of the British Empire, on based on the Commonwealth, and which would also rope the EU into playing that role, and would finally position India against China, must be totally rejected by all those who have an interest in maintaining world peace.

President Putin has just written, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, a striking article on the pre-history of the Second World War and the course of that war, and called on all nations to publish all the up to now classified historical documents from that time, so that by studying the causes of the greatest catastrophe in the history of mankind up to that point, the lessons will be learned for avoiding an even greater catastrophe today. Putin writes in a very personal tone, he speaks of the suffering of his own family, of the immense importance June 22nd has for the Russian population, the day on which “life almost comes to a halt,” and why May 9th, the anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in which 27 million Russians lost their lives, is Russia’s most important holiday. But the indirect message is also that just as the Soviet Union defeated Hitler’s Germany with a gigantic effort, the Russian people will never surrender to renewed threats. Just as Napoleon was led through a long line of defense into the inhospitable Russian winter, and his army was finally as good as wiped out, the evacuation of the people and industrial capacity to the east from 1941 on allowed the Soviet Union to surpass the military production of the Nazis in only one and a half years.

But also the short-sightedness of the Versailles dictate, the support for Hitler from members of the aristocracy and the Establishment on both sides of the Atlantic, and above all the Munich Pact, which is simply called in Russia the “Munich betrayal” or “Munich conspiracy,” is considered as the real trigger for the Second World War. Because it was there, where not only the appeasement of Hitler, but also the joint divvying up of the booty took place, as well as the ice-cold geopolitical calculation, that focussing Hitler’s Germany on the East would inevitably lead Germany and the Soviet Union to tear each other to pieces.

According to Putin, what is the main message of the study of the Second World War for today? That it was the failure to take up the task of creating a collective security system that could have prevented this war was the most important piece! Putin’s article ends with an urgent reminder of the summit of heads of state of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which he has been proposing since January, and which should address precisely these principles of how to maintain world peace and overcome the world economic crisis.

The most important aspect of that is that this format will put the United States, Russia and China around the same table to negotiate the principles that must be the basis of international policy if mankind is to avoid wiping itself out! And yesterday after a long phone call between Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron, Macron said that he stands for a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which opens not only the perspective of an integration of the European Union, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the establishment of a common security architecture based on common economic interests.

However, if we are to meet the gigantic challenges of the pandemic, the global economic crisis and the profound social shocks that have destroyed the trust of large parts of the population in their institutions in many countries around the world, further steps are necessary. Obviously, cooperation between the United States and China, as the two largest economies, is indispensable. Even if this currently appears to be an insurmountable hurdle, the extremely tense relationship between the United States and China must be replaced by cooperation on the common aims of mankind.

Who, if not the governments of the strongest economies, the countries with the largest populations and the greatest military potential, should solve the problems? The Boltons must be removed from these governments and replaced by responsible people who are able to find, in the cultural phases of their respective cultures, the starting points for cooperation on a higher level. Benjamin Franklin’s admiration for Confucian philosophy and Sun Yat-sen’s orientation to the ideals of the American Republic are better advisors than Gene Sharp’s “How To Start a Revolution” or Samuel Huntington’s different scribblings.

One has to define a plane on which the solutions for these quite disparate problems become visible. There is one philosopher, born in the 15th century, known in Russia as Nikolai Kusansky, Nikolaus of Cusa, who developed exactly that method of thinking: the coincidence of opposites, coincidentia oppositorum. This concept expresses the fundamental quality of human creativity, which is able time and time again and at increasingly more developed levels to find solutions on a higher plane, where the conflicts that have arisen on the lower levels, are dissolved.

This can only be the immediate implementation of a credit system, that provides the global economy with credit for industrialization, and thus the real development, of all nations on this planet. The entire life’s work of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was primarily devoted to achieving this goal; he drew up his first plan for the industrialization of Africa in 1976, the Oasis Plan for the industrialization of the Middle East in 1975; then followed the 40-Year Plan for India in collaboration with Indira Gandhi, Operation Juárez with then Mexican President José López Portillo for Latin America; a 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin; and then finally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as a peace plan for the 21st century. Many of these projects are being implemented today thanks to China’s New Silk Road, and all nations of the world are called upon to contribute to this World Land-Bridge! This is the blueprint for the creation of the 1.5 billion jobs, that are necessary today to overcome the crisis! It should begin with the establishment of a modern health system in every single country, in order to combat the current and future pandemics, which will not only benefit poor countries, but also the so-called developed countries, that can only avoid new waves of infections in that way. Most countries have a large number of unemployed or poorly employed youth, who can be trained as medical personnel and deployed to build up such health centers.

When millions of people are threatened with starvation, as the World Food Program warns, why can farmers not double their food production and be paid a parity price that guarantees their existence, including with regard to the expected increase in the world’s population to over 9 billion by 2050? Can we not consider ourselves as one single human species, and help to build mankind’s common construction sites with the same solidarity that the entire Chinese population helped the people in Wuhan and the province of Hubei? Is it not time that we stopped wasting trillions on military build-ups, as President Trump said he would soon take up together with Putin and Xi Jinping, when we could use those resources to overcome hunger, disease and poverty, and to develop the creative potential of the current and future generations?

I think it is time for us, as mankind, faced with an unprecedented disaster, to take the qualitative step of making the 21st century the first truly human century!

Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga.

Our next speaker is Dr. Jin Zhongxia, who’s the executive director for China of the International Monetary Fund, located in Washington, D.C.

DR. JIN ZHONGXIA: Thank you, Mr. Speed. I would like to thank Schiller Institute for the invitation to attend this important conference. Also, I thank Madame Helga for her excellent keynote speech.

2020 is a very special and challenging year. The trade war, the eruption and spread of coronavirus, the riots in the U.S., world economic recession, and escalated geopolitical tensions, I just name a few major ones. Global growth is projected by the IMF at negative 4.9% this year.

In the following discussion, some of my observations and comments are kind of thoughts in research and of academic by nature, I will speak in my personal capacity only.

Global challenge should be handled globally with a multilateral approach. No country will be safe until every country is safe.

When we start to discuss the multilateral approach in dealing with the pandemic and the global crisis, I recognize that there is a debate on the value of multilateralism and the multilateral institutions. Some people are talking about economic decoupling, a Cold War, and even a conflict of civilizations. Since I am from China, I ask myself: Is there any fundamental conflict between civilizations in the East and West?

Chinese civilization is unique in many aspects, but it’s not fundamentally different from Western civilization. One example: In the 6th century B.C., China had Taiji or Yin Yang concept, which is the co-evolution of two opposite forces. I found in surprise that this was also a core concept in physiological theory in Greek medicine in the same period of time. Another example: A core concept of Confucianism is the “middle course approach,” that also corresponds to the “doctrine of the mean” that was explored extensively by Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece.

In 16th century, the brilliant Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, recognized the striking parallels in Confucius and Mencius to the Christian concept of man in the images of the God and devoted his life to building an “ecumenical alliance” between China and the West.

During the evolution of trade tension between the United States and China, some opinions in the media have demonized China as an evil trade partner that is systematically engaged in illegal subsidizing, cheating and stealing. That reminds me of the overwhelming public opinion in the media against Jewish people in some parts of Europe before World War II. The truth is that after more than 40 years’ market-oriented reform and opening-up, China has already been transformed into a market-based economy. In fact, the share of fiscal resources in GDP mobilized by some European governments is higher than that in China due to extensive social welfare arrangements, but no body in Europe complain that this welfare has distorted the market.

China has profound tradition of market economy both in theory and practice. In the 6th century B.C., Laozi, a famous philosopher and the founder of Daoism, advised his government to “rule without intervention,” which is an ancient version of the invisible hand of Adam Smith. Another famous economist and philosopher Guanzi, in the 7th century B.C., suggested that in the years of economic depression, government could increase expenditure to implement seemingly wasteful projects for the purpose of creating employment. That is the ancient Chinese version of Keynesian economics. Financially, China was also highly developed. As early as in 11th century, China introduced the first official paper currency in the world.

On the issue of economic and technology decoupling, the attempt to block a major people and civilization from competing fairly with other countries and getting access to new scientific and technological knowledge is morally wrong, and will help China to win sympathy around the world.

On the other hand, China has the largest pool of educated labor force, including a largest pool of engineers. That will enable the country to be more innovative, professional, practical and rational.

Compared with other multi-country free trade zones, China has already become the largest single-country retail market by itself. It is more than equivalent to a free trade zone with a highly integrated infrastructure network, centralized fiscal and monetary policy, and deep and liquid labor and capital market. The authorities have also determined to further open its economy, greatly enhance intellectual property (IP) protection, and implement structural reforms, including introducing competitive neutrality for state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In the end, it is the effectiveness and efficiency of China’s domestic resource allocation that will determine China’s international competitiveness.

I am not specialized in geopolitics. But I learned that the scenario of decoupling and a new cold war is based on an old strategy called “divide and conquer,” or “offshore balance.” It is very smart from the offshore players’ perspective. But it will benefit the offshore manipulator at the expense of onshore neighbors. I wonder whether those equally smart onshore players are willing to buy this, and how high a price the offshore player wants to pay to convince so many countries to engage a long-term conflict with their major trade partner.

It is not objective to exaggerate China’s conflict with India at the border. It is important to recognize that the current border is largely a stable equilibrium. The common interest of these two ancient civilizations is to cooperate and develop their economies and achieve a joint historical revival. The two countries should benefit from their common cultural heritage based on centuries of peaceful and friendly cultural exchanges, particularly the exchanges in the form of Buddhism.

The history issue between China and Japan often looks like a deadlock, but a forward-looking approach is the key. China has largely recovered its self-confidence, and it is very clear that China’s revival does not mean revenge. When new generations from China visit Japan as tourists, most of them feel they like Japan. Japan is China’s only neighboring country that has maintained a lot of Chinese characters in their written language, and they use chopsticks, eat rice, use soy sauce, and practice calligraphy, all of these are the typical reflections of East Asian culture.

A healthy and stable Sino-Russian relationship can be much more sustainable than many people’s imagination. Their stable cooperative relationship can be attributed to many factors. It is not a coincidence that their combined territory maps the Mongolian Empire in history. Toward the end of last century, China and Russian leaders reached a wise and visionary agreement to delimit and confirm their common border. Their mutual respect and support to core interest of each other can go a long way.

The biggest loss the United States could incur from a decoupling and a new cold war is that many of the 1.4 billion Chinese people, who are otherwise very friendly toward America, could turn into opponents. By contrast, a friendly and cooperative China will be definitely the Americans’ greatest fortune in Asia.

I believe a constructive competition and cooperation between China, the United States and other countries under a rules-based multilateral system should be the right choice. Fortunately, the IMF is still functioning normally and has played a constructive leading role, which is also supported by the World Bank and other multilateral banks.

In just a few months, recently, the IMF has implemented debt relief to more than 27 countries, supported by contributions from a group of better- resourced members, including China. The Fund has augmented its lending instruments to low-income countries by more than 10 billion SDR, and approved emergency financing (RCF and RFI) of 47 billion SDR for more than 74 countries. It has created a new short-term liquidity line (SLL), and is pushing for approval of new agreement of borrowing of 365 billion SDR, and preparing for a new round of Bilateral Borrowing Agreement of 138 billion SDR. China has actively participated in all the above efforts and made its own contribution.

The Fund and the World Bank jointly proposed a Debt Service Suspension Initiative that has been endorsed by the G20. China has further called for an extension of this initiative to 2021. A fair burden-sharing and full participation of all creditors is critical for a successful implementation of this initiative.

China has made more efforts outside the multilateral framework, including 1) additional $2 billion grant assistance to most affected countries, especially developing countries, to combat COVID-19 and recover social and economic development; 2) establish a Sino-Africa hospital cooperation program covering 30 hospitals in Africa, China has recently sent five emergency professional medical teams to Africa, which is in addition to the existing 46 Chinese medical teams in Africa; 3) in addition to implementing the G20 debt moratorium initiative, China will provide more assistance to countries that have been most heavily affected, together with other stakeholders; 4) China has promised that once it completes developing and testing its own vaccine, it will provide this product to developing countries as global public goods; 5) China will establish a comprehensive storage and transportation hub to support global medical supplies, under the direction of the United Nations.

The merit of multilateral assistance is that it is rules-based, approved by a collective board representing all its member countries; and the recipient countries are facing the multilateral institution, rather than a particular country or country group, therefore it can reduce (although not eliminate) geopolitical sensitivity. Although there are different views on many different issues, and even bilateral tensions between some member countries, the majority of the Fund’s membership have been able to find common ground on many issues.

The Bretton Woods institutions could do two more things, in my view.

First, a general allocation of SDRs that will increase the supply of international reserve asset, reduce the burden of any single country to supply its reserve currency excessively and provide low-income countries necessary resources to alleviate their debt distress.

Second, the multilateral banks should greatly expand their lending to include not only developing countries, but also developed countries, including the United States, itself. That will fully utilize the low interest rate environment and greatly stimulate global demand and pull up growth in receiving countries.

In conclusion, I wish the after-COVID-19 world a more cooperative and peaceful one. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from the Hon. Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

HON. BORIS MESHCHANOV: Dear and distinguished Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche,

Dear colleagues and friends from so many countries,

Our video broadcast audience,

The problems put in the center of today’s discussion are of high importance. We welcome highlighting acute questions of international relations through the prism of development, building physical infrastructure, cooperation between major powers in the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable, in accordance with the United Nations Agenda 2030. We fully share the crucial significance of industrialization, eradication of poverty, reforming of international credit-generating institutions and ensuring food security. Those are basically in the spotlight for the whole global community. We emphasize that the right to development persists as a basic human right. Development beats inequality, contributes to peace and is an indispensable condition for building just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

I would like to start my presentation, citing the report by the United Nations Secretary-General saying: “As we are facing multidimensional and multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, global solidarity with Africa is an imperative — now and for recovering better. Ending the pandemic in Africa is essential for ending it across the world.” In the context of this challenging crisis we all seek to re-assess the model for development with the needs of the most vulnerable at its cornerstone. I would like to address this issue with respect to how our country deploys relations with the African continent.

It is justified that today more than ever before, our eyes are directed to the regrettable fortunes of populations in remote corners of the world, where governments are grappling with triple crisis of health and finance, trying to avoid widening social disparity and future economic distress. Aware of its historical responsibility for the formation of the modern system of international relations and its further improvement, the Russian Federation considers international development assistance as an effective mechanism to solve global and regional problems, and to respond to new challenges and threats. Our priorities have been the eradication of poverty and promotion of sustainable socio-economic development of partner states; influencing global processes in order to form a stable and just world order based on universally recognized rules of international law and partnership relations among states as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters and other emergencies.

In doing so, as it can easily be seen through the ideals of Russian philosophers and artists and classical Russian literature, assisting our friends abroad has always been based on the respect of the other’s dignity. It has been reflected in our national policies and priorities, and technical and humanitarian assistance has always been delivered at the request of the recipient side. We have proceeded from the assumption that any approaches in the spirit of colonial rule, like the General Act of Berlin of 1884, bringing about the principle of “effective occupation” that prejudiced the freedom of the Africans themselves, attempts to come to an agreement behind one’s back and act solely from the standpoint of mercenary calculation, will most likely not be accepted by these peoples themselves. On the contrary, we value and promote equitable partnership on the international arena ,upholding the principles of truth and justice, respect for the civilizational identity of each people, the path of development chosen by each people themselves.

As the Russian President Vladimir Putin recently emphasized, the development of relations with the countries of the African continent and their regional organizations is one of the priorities of Russian foreign policy. Links between us are based on the friendly relations between the Russian Federation and African states and the traditions of the joint struggle for decolonization and achieving the independence of African states, as well as on the rich experience of multifaceted and mutually beneficial cooperation that meets the interests of our peoples.

Dear colleagues and friends,

One of the main lessons learnt from this pandemic is an urgent need for international solidarity and cooperation, without exclusions and exemptions. In line with this objective, we have committed to giving Russian-African interaction a truly systemic and integrated character. African states are confidently gaining political and economic weight, affirming themselves as one of the important pillars of the multipolar world, and are taking an increasingly active part in working out the decisions of the international community on key issues of the regional and global agenda. We need to respect their rights to benefit equally from globalization, whatever shape it will take following the impacts of the pandemic.

In our strong opinion, the world needs Africa not just like a pantry of valuable minerals or a bread basket, but strong and sovereign region, developing an equal dialogue with its partners in accordance with the norms of the national legislation, based on the multilateral nature of the world order. Today, when proposals are made to reform the global governance system, we are consistently upholding the need to reflect the role of Africa in those structures that are engaged in global governance.

Our fundamentals are not only ensuring the wide global participation of African states, but also resolving conflict situations, on the principle of “African solution to African problems.” Together, we are able to counteract political dictatorship and currency blackmail in the course of international trade and economic cooperation, in order to put pressure on objectionable countries and unfair competition. Introduction of unilateral coercive measures not based on international law, also known as unilateral sanctions, is an example of such practices. Joint efforts are needed to promote trade, investment and sustainable development in order to make the global economic system more socially oriented, to oppose any manifestations of a unilateral approach, protectionism and discrimination, to support the world trade, based on the rules of the World Trade Organization.

Under this paradigm the first Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum took place in October 2019 in Sochi, with 92 agreements, contracts, and memoranda of understanding, worth $12 billion signed and problems of trade, investments and banking, industry and construction, transport and logistics, energy and high-tech addressed, among others.

We paid special attention to identifying promising areas of economic, trade and investment partnership of the Russian Federation, as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, with the African Union, as well as with the leading regional organizations of Africa — the Arab Maghreb Union, the Sahel Five, the Southern African Development Community, the Common Market for East and South Africa, the East African Community, Economic Community of West African Countries, Economic Community of Central African States, and others.

In our movement towards Africa we need to be creative and promote new mechanisms for partnership, encourage active participation of business in exhibitions, fairs, and congress events, and develop the practice of exchanging business missions.

Moving towards Africa in this new old world would be impossible without learning each other better, taking into consideration local customs and traditions for our partners, rich cultural and linguistic variety. In Sochi in 2019, we have committed to develop cooperation in the field of education, implement vocational training, and academic exchange programs to promote social stability by protecting people, especially youth, women and persons with disabilities, and expand their capabilities by increasing the availability of education, technical and vocational training. Participants in the Russia-Africa summit confirmed that obtaining quality education and developing skills by young men and women can become a driving force for structural economic transformation and industrialization in African countries, as well as the basis for strengthening the industrial potential necessary to diversify the economy.

It so happened that our country has already contributed to the development of the African continent, in particular, in industry, infrastructure and energy security, areas promoted by the Schiller Institute as the fundamentals of the so-called physical economy, so I would focus on them briefly.

So far, Russia has been involved in the creation of the Russian industrial zone in Egypt. Among the key competencies of Russia for Africa, one cannot overestimate the role of rail infrastructure for the development of Nigeria, Egypt, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Angola. Under current conditions, it is important that the use of technologies such as medical trains in Africa will prevent the spread of infectious diseases and fight epidemics.

In energy, we count on the future construction of the first nuclear power plant in Egypt and the Russian Center for Nuclear Science and Technology in Rwanda facilitating the development of integrated solutions in the field of nuclear energy in agriculture, health, education, science and industry. Those two are not the only countries in Africa that intend to develop nuclear energy. Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan and Zambia are also on this growing list. Most African countries suffer from severe electricity shortages. Accordingly, in the near future they should double their generating capacity to meet current needs. The current pandemic-caused crisis, apparently, has aggravated this challenge for them.

In saying this we should not forget about stepping up efforts to combat climate change in Africa, transfer relevant technologies, build the capacity of African states. Meanwhile, general greening of the economy, in our approach, needs to be based on responsibility, consistency and realism. Key to that is technological progress. Serious efforts are being deployed to improve energy efficiency in industry, agriculture, housing and transport. In our country, we have launched national project “Environment” to create incentives for Russian business to implement best “green” technologies, to ensure the environmentally friendly low-emission development. And we will proceed to provide assistance to developing countries, including Africa, to help them meet their own climate goals without prejudice to the objectives of ensuring inclusive and sustainable economic growth, industrialization of economies and leaving no one behind.

The pandemic is spreading across the world, threatening to backslide the efforts applied to build a more resilient architecture. It’s high time for humanity, responsibility and spirit of partnership to be demonstrated. A truly systemic issue with reference to today’s discussion, is food security, which holds a special place among Russia’s priorities in its efforts to achieve sustainable development globally. First of all, we believe that it has to be addressed at the level of supplying the world enough high-quality food to stabilize international markets, and make it more accessible and affordable for a maximum number of people. At the same time, the zero-hunger goal must be addressed as a matter of urgency for those countries that are food insecure. To that end, over the last 20 years, Russia has been steadily and consistently increasing its own production and export of food — grain, cereals, pulses, meats, poultry, oils, milk and dairy products, etc. Russia has become one of the world’s largest exporters of food.

During the pandemic, food supplies were transferred to the Union of Comoros (172 tons) and Madagascar (about 500 tons).

Apart from tackling the problem of food security, Russia donated hundreds of KAMAZ trucks, together with the necessary parts, equipment, and technical support, for key World Food Program operations in Africa. Starting from 2020, $10 million are being reserved exclusively for Africa. It is the first time that Russia assigns a geographic priority for its voluntary contribution to the World Food Program.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, East Africa is experiencing its largest invasion of desert locusts in decades, and our country is making a $10 million contribution to support FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda.

In connection with the coronavirus pandemic, Russia received requests from a total of 29 African countries, as well as from the African Union, asking for assistance in combatting the impacts of COVID-19. To date, units of laboratory supplies and personal protective equipment have been provided to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; multi-purpose medical modules, tents and accessories to Djibouti; test systems to South Africa and Guinea.

At the same time, we believe that helping a sick person with a virus is paramount, but only part of the problem is solved. A fundamental factor is the availability of an effective preventive and educational system in the countries affected by the epidemic. As an example, I refer to the example of the Republic of Guinea, where two mobile hospitals have been deployed, and where mobile laboratories based on KAMAZ vehicles were transferred, and medications were delivered. With the participation of Russian experts in this country, more than 800 specialists have passed specialized training since 2015. Russia makes a significant contribution to the scientific research of the Ebola virus. With the support of one of the flagships of Russian business, the United Company RUSAL, the Russian-Guinean Research Center for Epidemiology and Prevention of Infectious Diseases was established in the Guinean city of Kindia.

Last, but not least, long and intensive discussion is ongoing concerning the unbearable debt burden of African states. Russia actively contributes to alleviating it under the debt-for-development program intergovernmental agreements. Those between Russia and Madagascar, Mozambique, and Tanzania, are being implemented. For instance, as part of these arrangements, the Government of Mozambique in cooperation with the World Food Program, has launched a multi-disciplinary national school feeding program. It provides for the conversion of a part of the county’s debt to Russia amounting to $40 million during 2017-2021, into activities that address malnutrition among sick children and foster primary education in Mozambique.

With that, I deeply thank you for your attention, and look forward to your questions.

SPEED: And we want to thank you very much, also, Mr. Meshchanov, because we had some problems with the video as you were speaking. We’re going to first of all make sure the entire speech is made available immediately in terms of the actual text, and we’d like to also apologize. We’d like to have, at some point and I want to say this publicly, if we can actually re-do your video, because it was not quite in synch. The audio was fine, people could hear it very clearly and it was an extremely important message. And so, I want to thank you, again, very much for what you just did.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you.

SPEED: Our next speaker is Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States.

DR. JOYCELYN ELDERS: Hello. I’m Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and I am happy to speak to the Schiller Institute conference today, whose theme is “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish?” I hope, as I am sure you all do, that humanity prospers.

Ironically, a lethal disease, the coronavirus pandemic, may be the only way to unify the world to reverse what might otherwise appear to be a sure slide into disaster.

We are here to discuss a new paradigm for the whole world—not just for the richer or more well-off nations. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed that a world healthcare platform must be constructed to respond to the present crisis. She has circulated a short memo to this effect, calling for a Committee of Opposites to be formed to implement it. I would like to respond to one passage of that memo in particular. Here is what it said.

“A very large number of youth in the U.S. and the European nations coming from the economically disadvantaged segments of society are presently looking without a perspective into the future and are therefore exposed to an entire specter of perils. They could be educated through a training program in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s CCC program to become medical auxiliary forces and could be deployed together with doctors and medical professionals in the building of first temporary, and then permanent hospitals and hospital wards in African and other developing sector nations. For the countries of the Southern Hemisphere the support from the industrialized nations is existential: Therefore it will be possible to find cooperating institutions, such as governments, religious and social organizations, as well as youth organizations, who can help to set up such facilities and win the trust in the population for such an approach. In the industrialized nations, for example, hospitals could set up partnerships with existing hospitals in the developing nations, which then could be used as affiliates for the construction of an expanded health system. One can also draw in nongovernmental organizations with experience in so-called conflict areas, such as the Peace Corps, catastrophe protection organizations, and various relief organizations.

“In the U.S. and European nations retired doctors, helpful individuals, and social and religious organizations could work in a Committee to put together teams of medical personnel and apprentices for this deployment….”

Now, I think that this can be done, but we must think about how we would do it. It will be very important, for example, in the countrysides of Africa, just as it is important in the cities of the United States, for people from these neighborhoods and communities to be very involved in this process. Therefore, young people from Africa should be paired with young people from America, and be trained together from the beginning. We should remember that they are significant communities of African-American youth that are in the United States, whose parents came from Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, and many other nations. Importantly historically black colleges and universities could be used, as well as high school campuses in the urban centers, as central coordinating points, to assemble volunteers that want to participate in such a program. More broadly, various land-grant colleges, community colleges, and churches, and other organizations already deeply involved in such outreach, need simply be encouraged by young people who want to assist in doing what perhaps only they can do—save the lives of their peers in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and elsewhere through demonstrations of hope and health.

First, we will need many community healthcare workers. We can take a page out of what was done in the American Civil War in 1861 in New York City, with what was called the Sanitary Commission. We just take some people in the community, give them some basic health education, and develop them as medical assistants and medical technicians. Most importantly, they will be very well known in their communities. They can communicate very well with the people in their communities. You can have supervisors of these community healthcare workers, who are also trained, and of course coordinate with nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors. But this gives you a far larger force to work with, which is what we need.

We can’t teach what we don’t know, and we can’t lead where we won’t go. We have to have tiers of people who are from the community, healthcare workers who understand the community and know the community, as well as immediate supervisors, to people with enough medical training, all the way up to nurse’s assistants, practitioners, doctors, and others, right up to the level of super-specialist. We often do too much special care, and not enough public health. We do not do enough of the basic public health which would do far more to maintain the health, more than 100 surgeons.

This is not an attack against specialization, but it is an assertion that we are in a condition like that of a world war, which requires something that Martin Luther King and others have often talked about—creative, nonviolent directed action, but in the field of health. And we need volunteers, just as the American civil rights movement had volunteers. They will be the backbone of this effort. In this case, we need to establish brigades and battalions of courageous young people, who may even risk their lives, but in a responsible way, to save the lives of others, both here and in other countries.

This is not, by any means, completely new. Many nations have tried elements of such programs, which have worked relatively successfully in the past, and members of the African Union , or WHO, are well aware of these measures. This, however, is a circumstance that requires the equivalent of a wartime alliance, but this is truly a wartime alliance for progress. Here we can count successes, not in the numbers of enemies killed through combat, but through the numbers of lives saved through healthcare. We will also be aided by the omnipresence of certain social media capabilities that can provide means of close coordination that would otherwise be unavailable.

The fight against this virus must have a human face. There is no section of our population we can afford to ignore. For example, our already-overcrowded and often abusive prisons will see an explosion of infections. Should such people who have been accused of a theft or other non-violent crime, or anyone else, for that matter, be given a de facto death sentence, or be put in harm’s way, solely because the rest of us have decided to forget who they are? What about the families that visit them? What about the children, or spouses, or parents attachéd to those people? And I believe that this can be a mobilization that replaces the image of young people as a problem, or a potential source of unrest, with the image that they are the healers, those dedicated to preserving life, not destroying it.

There may be more than 2 million American young men currently held in prisons for non-violent offenses who could be more than willing to become part of this solution, to help bring health both in their communities here, as well as to other nations. And it would only be in such an emergency as this, that this sort of bold thinking would be attachéd to an urgent, dire, but resolvable crisis.

I pray that this moment may find us equal to this challenge to our normal way of thinking. All the world is at stake, and all the world is in need. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Elders.

We’re now going to hear from Dr. Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, of the China Development Research Center of China.

DR. DING YIFAN: Dear Friends,

It’s a pleasure talking with you on this very important, historical moment. The COVID-19 pandemic has caught the whole world by surprise. Not only have the economies been paralyzed and human life threatened, but all life habits have changed also. Moreover, in many countries, people have not been able to effectively curb the spread of the virus, because they have no experience. Although many institutions have tried to produce vaccines, but are now afraid that the vaccine would be short-lived because the virus evolves so quickly.

In the face of an epidemic, we humans are very vulnerable. If we’re not enlightened and work together to fight the virus, the time for the virus to spread will prolong, and the longer we will suffer. So, here, I’d like to highlight four points:

Firstly, when China’s epidemic broke out, many countries helped China and provided China with various materials for prevention and to fight the virus, in creating masks. Countries, such as Japan, have picked up sentences from ancient Chinese classics, and write on the boxes for transferring those materials to China, to show the close relationship and cooperation between East Asia area’s countries. Once the epidemic situation had been brought under control in China, and the situation became intensified in Japan and South Korea, China sent a lot of materials to Japan and South Korea, to help people there fight the virus.

Secondly, many such token stories have also been staged between Chinese and American companies. Once the epidemic situation got worsened in the United States, many Chinese companies had sent materials for prevention and to fight the pandemic in the United States, as well as masks, protective clothing, protective glasses, ventilators and even [s/l ratings] for nucleic acid detection. So this cooperation showed that our humanity in society is really a community of common destiny.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the political opinion and the political spirit in the United States have made China unintentionally a scapegoat. Radical Congressmen and Senators try to compete with the hoax in the Trump Administration to show off who has the hardest line toward China. These attitudes cannot help Americans fight the epidemic, on the contrary it can only exacerbate the mistrust between China and the United States, making cooperation even impossible between the Chinese and the American governments, within an obstinate pandemic.

Fourthly, in fact, the world economy has not come out completely from the last financial crisis in 2007, and then, a new crisis happened. The pandemic might make this crisis deeper and more difficult to deal with, because we are faced with a dilemma: Restoring the economy and preventing the virus from spreading. The largest economies in the world need to expand their cooperation and take joint measures to fight the virus, and to boost economic growth. We have to use a stimulus package not only to alleviate the problem of the population in trouble, but also to use this stimulus package to invest in infrastructure, not only in traditional infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, or telecommunications means, but also in the development of new infrastructure, such as means of prevention of epidemics for the masses, and the treatment of these masses in pandemics, also including the remote means to check the temperature of the masses.

Only by rebuilding trust among big powers can we unite and fight the coronavirus with success. Then we can bring humanity back to the harmonious development path again. So, I think we have to unite our forces or strengths in the middle of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, and then, we could try to find a way to common development, after the pandemic.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much Dr. Ding.

Our next presentation is by former Mayor DeWayne Hopkins, mayor of the town of Muscatine, Iowa. And he represents the China-Muscatine Friendship Society.

FORMER MAYOR DEWAYNE HOPKINS: Good day, everyone. My name is DeWayne Hopkins. I’m the former mayor of a small community in eastern Iowa, located right on the Mississippi River.

And I have a story to tell you. But in order to tell this story, where it begins I’m going to have to move the clock back in time to 1985. Back in that timeframe, the country of the People’s Republic of China, sent four individuals to Iowa. These individuals had never been in the United States before, but through the Sister Cities and Sister States organization, these individuals came right directly to Muscatine, Iowa. One of these individuals was Xi Jinping, and of course at the time, he was pretty young, and he was a provincial official in Hebei province.

Well, they came to Muscatine, and they toured some of our plants around town, and so on and so forth. They even enjoyed a barbecue with spareribs and corn on the cob and things of that nature. In any case, they spent three days in Muscatine, and then moved on to Des Moines, Iowa, where they met with then-Governor Terry Branstad.

Now, I’m going to fast forward a little bit to 2016. Our governor was on a kind of an agricultural mission trip to Beijing in the People’s Republic of China. And he was meeting with Xi Jinping, who at the time had moved up in the ranks to the position of Vice President. Xi Jinping just happened to ask Governor Branstad, because he had known him for that length of time from 1985 to 2016, he asked him how his friends Sarah and Roger Lande were. Well, Sarah and Roger Lande are residents of Muscatine. Roger is a retired attorney. Back in 1985, Sarah was the President of the Sister States organization here in Iowa. Well, Governor Branstad responded that they were in good health and everything was fine, but that’s what started the wheels in motion about a revisit to Muscatine from then-Vice President Xi Jinping. That happened on, I believe it was February 12th. He was on a trip from Washington, D.C., then to meet President Obama in Los Angeles, California. He thought he would have time to stop by Muscatine, Iowa, which he did.

We all greeted him on the porch of the Lande residence. We all went inside, and enjoyed snacks and conversation, and sort of rehashing old times, thus become the title “old friends.” So, a great number of his old friends — that is, Xi Jinping’s — were in attendance at the Lande residence, and they all had just a marvelous time. Xi Jinping’s time came about, he had to leave, and that was OK.

But a short time after returning to China, Xi Jinping suggested via email to Sarah Lande, that we engage a community in China about having a sister city relationship. So, that’s what started the wheels churning for that adventure. That city in China became Zhengding. The rest is kind of history. I went to China and visited with the folks in Zhengding; their mayor, Mayor Yang, came to Muscatine and visited with our folks. We sat down and signed a letter of intent to become sister cities. So, that’s kind of how that went.

As time went on, Xi Jinping became the President of the People’s Republic of China, and Sarah Lande is still in Muscatine, and they stay in contact every now and then. But it’s a relationship that started here in Muscatine, and it’s ongoing.

I will say that we have moved hopefully into the future, and we now have in our high school, four years of Mandarin language. We also have an orchestra that is fairly well-versed in the usage of Chinese instruments, which as you may know, are all stringed instruments. They have sent us some of these instruments, and we’ve learned to play them. And of course, every year, here in Muscatine, is a concert put on by an orchestra either from Beijing or from Shanghai. I believe we’ve done four of those already. And we’re done with this pandemic of the coronavirus, I look for more of those kinds of events to be scheduled.

That’s just another element of the relationship that we have with the People’s Republic of China. They’re outstanding musicians and they communicate with those in attendance at their concerts very, very well. It’s a pleasure to have them here. It’s a pleasure to know that they’ll be coming in the future, and we enjoy having them very much.

I guess, what I’m saying to you is, we’re a small community, and we have a friendly relationship with the People’s Republic of China: That isn’t going to change, and we really don’t care a lot about what they do in Washington, D.C., or what they do in Los Angeles, California. We have a relationship with the People’s Republic of China. They’re great people, they have a good sense of humor; and I wouldn’t mind having one of them as a neighbor.

[Mr. Hopkins then played a short clip from a very lively concert by the Chinese orchestra.]

SPEED: Just one correction: Former Mayor Hopkins misspoke: Actually, when Xi Jinping returned to Muscatine in 2012, he was the Vice-President, not the President at that time. And he came back, and that’s when the meeting was, and it was in 2012, not in 2016. We apologize, and the Mayor apologizes for that unintentional misspoken phrase.

Our final presentation is by Daisuke Kotegawa, Research Director at the Canon Institute, and former Executive Director for Japan at the International Monetary Fund.

“Recollection My Involvement in Economic Assistance”

DAISUKE KOTEGAWA: 1. In the mid-1980s, when I worked as a staff member of the World Bank, I had an opportunity to complain about the slow development of African countries despite a large amount of aid to Africa to a British and a French staff, both of whom had devoted their lives to economic development in Africa. Their answer was amazing. “Mr. Kotegawa. It is wrong to expect fast economic growth in Africa which can be compared to those in Asia and Japan. Because Africa is trying to achieve what humanity has done in 2000 years within 100 years.”

2. When I returned to Japan in 1987, I became the budget examiner in the Ministry of Finance in charge of the budget of the foreign economic assistance. We reviewed Japan’s basic policies regarding economic assistance to Africa, and we started to try to create a country that will become a model for development in Africa, that is, “Japan” in Africa. I was convinced that it was very important to create a Japan in Africa, because at my days at the World Bank, I realized that Asian countries found Japan as their model and hope, having come to believe that Asian countries can reach the level of Western countries if they work diligently like the Japanese.
3. The first step is to select the target country. The target country had to have a moderate economic scale, but small enough not to have internal contention such as tribal conflict. We chose Ghana, Cameroon and Malawi. As for Ghana, young and clean leader Rawlings were also a major factor. We poured all three kinds of economic aid into three countries: concessional loans with focus on the construction of economic infrastructure, grants focused on construction of social infrastructure in the medical and educational sector, and technical assistance with the aim of technology transfer through dispatching experts and inviting trainees.
4. A backlash from the former colonial powers was expected, and Japan, which had historically little relationship with African countries, lacked the know-how to build aid projects there. So, we made an arrangement with Crown Agents, a British aid agency, for consulting our projects in Africa. As a result, about one-third of its total annual income in the early ’90s came from Japan. Ghana, in particular, has achieved great economic growth and if we had continued to do so, a “Japan” in Africa could have been realized within 1990s.
5. However, having watched the success of such Japanese aid, the British and French began to be vigilant. Ms. Cresson, who became French prime minister in 1991, made such remarks as, “Japanese are yellow ants” and “The Japanese are enemies and are plotting to conquer the world without obeying the rules” and repeated such remarks as “Japanese economic assistance is Jurassic.” Against such criticism, Japan was forced to review its aid policy and had to reduce aid to Africa before Ghana became a Japan in Africa. Since then, proposals for UN Millennium 2000 Target, including the debt relief, which mainly targeted Japan’s yen loans, have been drafted mainly by the U.K., and Japan’s presence in the world of economic assistance has gradually been lost.
6. I think that there is a fundamental difference between Western concept of economic assistance and that of Japan. The underlining idea of Western aid is a charity. This leads to the emphasis on “humanitarian aid,” and the idea of economic independence of recipient country is scarce. On the other hand, the basic idea of Japan’s aid is recipient country’s economic growth and independence. This is the idea that flows to the root of Japan since the Meiji Restoration, which has been trying to catch up with and overtake the West, witnessing the plight of Asian colonies under imperialism.
7. On the issue of economic assistance policy, I had to fight with the Western countries wannabe scholars, critics, and mass media at home, as well as those abroad, with friends of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who had the same sense of mission. Mr. Ishikawa, who wrote several books at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was my greatest collaborator.
8. One day, a Japanese journalist came to me and started to criticize Japan’s aid policy. His argument was not original which echoed the well-known Western criticism of Japan. For example, he said that Japan built hospitals in developing countries, but only some wealthy people in the country can use such hospitals, and it is not for the poor general public. Or he said that Japan is building telephone network in developing countries where most people do not have a telephone, or that Japan has built international airports in the capital in order to advertise its aid. It would not benefit at all the general public in the developing country who did not have the chance to go abroad. He also took the example of the Philippines, claiming that “It is wrong that Japan has built a hospital for the rich in Manila. Sweden built apartments for the poor in the slums of Manila.” I asked him, “By the way, what would you be most worried about if you were asked by your company tomorrow to go to Manila next week?” He replied, “Whether I can call up Tokyo smoothly, whether is the airport there is fine, or whether there is a proper hospital.” So, I told him, ” What you said are exactly what foreign companies which make investment in the Philippines are concerned about. If there are no problems on such matters, overseas companies will build factories in the Philippines in search for cheap labor and hire people with low wages with minimal education. In this way, employment increases, and the gap between the rich and the poor decreases. I visited to the Smoky Mountain in Manila, which is the core of slum where Sweden built an apartment. The place is a garbage dump, and residents sleep on the bench on the pile of garbage and they protect themselves from rain by the roof made by tablecloth. It stinks very bad. People living there dig out what can be used from the pile of garbage and sell it in the city. The apartment built by Sweden became a slum again in less than six months. Because residents don’t have regular employments, and no income. It is not possible to maintain the apartment no matter how splendid the dwelling is. Japan’s aid help companies increase employment by building economic infrastructure such as railways, ports, airports, roads, power plants, and telecommunication networks with yen loans, creating preconditions for overseas companies to enter the country, and help provide facilities for basic education as a social infrastructure. Gradually, technology will be transferred from the foreign company to the local company, and the industry will grow in the developing country. Just as we were providing economic assistance to Asian countries with this way of thinking, the value of the yen doubled as a result of the Plaza Accord, and the relocation of factories to Asia began by Japanese companies that were no longer able to stand up to labor costs in Japan. The relocation began in Malaysia, where politics were stable and the power generation capacity built by yen loans was firm, and proceeded to Thailand, Indonesia, and China, and the so-called geese-type economic growth started in Asia. This steady economic development continued until the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s.

I allocated to my Japanese colleagues to join the Belt and Road Initiative as proposed by China, especially when they proposed the establishment of AIIB, and also with the United States. Because I thought the cooperation among these three countries are the best mix to build up economic infrastructure in the developing countries. Because, in my view, the Chinese have a shortfall in their capacity to build up the new projects, which is actually the major part of the advantage for Japanese bankers as well as American bankers.

So United States and Japan can draw up a kind of blueprint for economic development and China should be in charge of financing and also actual construction of those projects. And after the completion of those projects, Japan would like to take the lead in maintenance and the rehabilitation of those completed projects, if they are needed. Because this is the kind of area that Japanese companies are quite good at.

So I believe this is the best way of collaborating, for these three countries for the future of this globe.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Kotegawa.

We’re about to go to the questions and answers. What we’re going to do is to allow the panelists who are with us live, to have some cross-talk, to discuss things and to respond to what they have all heard. Not everyone is with us live.

And just prior to doing that, I’d like to introduce my colleague Diane Sare, who has something to say.

DIANE SARE: Right now, we are going to have a greeting from the leader of the LaRouche Society in South Africa by video — Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane.

RAMASIMONG PHILLIP TSOKOLIBANE: From the Republic of South Africa, I offer my greetings to those of you gathered virtually around the globe for this important conference. My name is Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, and it is my great honor to lead the LaRouche Movement in South Africa.

The matters upon which you are deliberating will determine whether or not mankind survives our turbulent times. Around the globe, people are in the streets, rising up to protest the intolerable injustice of the dying neo-colonial order that has enslaved all of us. It is a deadly monetarist order that values pieces of speculative financial paper above human life. The collapse of this global British financial empire is certain. What will replace it is not. What must be brought into being is a New World Economic Order based on the unleashing of the greatest power in the universe: the power of human creativity to build on this planet a world of hope, peace, and posterity, where we will be truly, finally free.

We shall extend our dominion beyond Earth into the vast expanse of the universe beyond. This was the mighty dream of the great Lyndon LaRouche, who taught us that the final conjunctural crisis of the old evil British Empire was coming, and that we must, as revolutionaries, be prepared to seize the moment to shepherd the great change for the good.

As we deliberate today, we must remember the teachings of Mr. LaRouche. It is now truly his time, a time in which troubles can be turned into opportunities. To do otherwise, would be to allow those evil people, who lorded over us as the masters of the old empire, to continue their rule in an even more brutish and deadly form. A global fascist order whose policy intention it is to kill more than three-quarters of all people on Earth — that is, if they don’t stumble into a general thermonuclear war that kills all of us. As the COVID-19 virus slashes its deadly path across my continent, which will leave tens of millions dead in its wake, if not more, we see the results of the British Empire policy of enforced underdevelopment, combined with the equally deadly famine and attempts to start wars here and around the globe. We can count more millions murdered through the Empire’s policy.

It does not have to be this way. LaRouche’s policies and programs for development and jobs point the way to the future. For Africa, it is go with LaRouche, or die with the old neo-colonial empire. Africa wants to lead, and we have, with some help, the means to survive and prosper. My country, the only full-set economy on the continent, can help produce both the machinery and the machine tools required for the industrialization of Africa. We can help train the hundreds of millions of new productive workers that will be needed. We have one of the most advanced nuclear energy industries on the globe, which is under constant attack from London.

So, it is our future and the future of billions of Africans to come, that this conference is discussing. Best wishes for the success of your deliberations.

Panel 1: Questions & Answers

SPEED: Thank you very much, Phillip Tsokolibane.

So, now we’re going to go to our live panelists: That will be Helga Zepp-LaRouche, I see Dr. Elders who is there; and Mr. Meshchanov is there — great.

I just want to first ask any of the panelists if they have any response or any thoughts about what they’ve heard? Helga, I’d like to start with you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reason why we wanted to have this conference is to show a way how governments can actually work together; how people can support that, and in that way help to create an environment where the absolute urgent question of a new world economic order, a new financial system can actually be put on the table.

I’m very encouraged, because what Dr. Jin did is very much our approach; that you need a dialogue of cultures. That you need to look for those ideas which resonate in the other culture even if the predicates are different. I think he did an excellent job in doing that.

I think the fact that Mr. Meshchanov chose to focus on Africa is a sign of the times, because I believe that the fate of the Africa continent is really what will decide if we are morally fit to survive. If we cannot get our act together and work together as nations to help to overcome the dangers coming from the locusts, the famine, the pandemic, I think that this is the most crucial focus. Also, to put aside all kinds of geopolitical contrary interests and really work together in the common task of getting humanity into a different age, really into a different era.

I was very happy with what Dr. Elders said, because I think this idea to call on the youth; that they have to have an absolutely important role, because it’s their future, it’s their world. Young people always like to talk to other people from other countries and work together, so I think that is one of the leverages how we can influence the governments to go in the direction in which they need to go.

Naturally, very delightful was what Mayor Hopkins demonstrated, because it really beats back the idea that small communities can’t do much. He has demonstrated that it can be done, and the fact that the great community of Muscatine has a relationship to Xi Jinping, it just is very bold and is a very good example. I think especially in the end, when he blended in these musical performances, it touched off exactly what needs to be touched off — namely, love between different cultures. Because different cultures are not a threat, they are actually an enrichment once you start to know them and to encounter them.

I also want to thank Ding Yifan, who is an old acquaintance of ours going back to the 1990s, and so is Mr. Kotegawa. So, I think this was really a very powerful and very useful demonstration of how you can work together on different levels and set an example.

SPEED: Counselor Meshchanov, I have a particular thing I’d like to ask you, because we had a question which is going to come your way, and also your speech very much dealt with the question of Africa. But one of the questions that came in, I think you can maybe answer as you give us your own reflections is: “What is President Putin’s thinking in calling for a P5 summit [Five-Power summit], and how does this compare with Mrs. LaRouche’s proposal?”

MESHCHANOV: Thank you for your question, but first off, thank you for inviting us. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak and deliberate on very acute and intelligent problems of the current moment.

Actually, at the United Nations, we have been involved in organizing the summit even before the pandemic, and we’re still looking forward to having it under the new circumstances. We proceed from our President Vladimir Putin’s own statements earlier this year from Jerusalem, when proposing the summit of the United Nations Security Council Five. The rationale for organizing the summit is not to miss, as he said, new sprouts of hate and discrimination between people and peoples.

According to our President, the country’s founders, the United Nations, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, that the responsibility for preserving civilization lies with them. These countries are called upon to become an example for other states in this regard. So, such a summit would demonstrate loyalty of countries to their responsibilities; countries that combatted together back to back against Nazism and fascism, back 75 years ago. [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62646]

So, this is how we see it, and how we see the objectives of this summit. We believe that this current moment unfortunately has contributed to this rationale, because borders and discrimination and inequality between countries are getting worse. That is why we have selected the issue of Africa for our presentation at this event of the Schiller Institute. Because we are strongly convinced that, as one of the previous speakers has stated, and it’s commonplace in the United Nations, no one is safe, if someone is not safe.

Reflecting on my colleagues’ presentations, I was highly impressed by our friend from Muscatine’s presentation on the cultural links between the peoples of the United States and China; specifically because my previous posts were somehow associated with promoting direct links between people, between human beings, in consular posts in Greece and Mongolia. It’s very timely now to speak about culture, about eternal values that unite peoples and actually can overcome the politicizing trend in international economic relations.

We also, to conclude, speak of Africa, and many thanks to our colleague from South Africa, a member country of the BRICS association, an association that we’re trying to build on principles of dignity and respect for sovereignty, and promoting independent ways of making decisions. That is the only way our new multipolar world is capable of saving humanity from new conflicts and new wars. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much. Dr. Elders, we’re going to ask you for your comments, but I also see someone who is a colleague of yours, who I think is up there on the screen. If I’m not mistaken, that is Dr. Kildare Clarke from New York City. I know Dr. Clarke has sort of a short time, and he’s been waiting in the queue. Dr. Clarke, is there something you’d like to say, before we hear from Dr. Elders?

DR. KILDARE CLARKE: I would like to say a lot, and I don’t think I probably have the time here. So, for the 4 o’clock youth meeting, I hope I can get by. I agree a lot with Dr. Elders. The problem to me is that I recognize that we’ve got to fundamentally change the educational system in this country, if we really want to get out of the problems we are facing. And we cannot continue to have groups upon groups, planning groups and proposals — we’ve got to act emergently. We’ve got to change educational systems; we do not have to wait until he tries to get to high school or college, before he knows that he’s going to go to medical school. These things can begin in the elementary school. You’ve got to expose people. When they are exposed, they get interested. We are selectively excluding a large part of the population who can become excellent healthcare workers. They might not start in medical school. They could be assistants, learn, understand what it takes to get there, and go back to school. But if we do not expose them now, we’re going to lose a whole generation of excellent physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, because we don’t think it was OK to educate them now….

SPEED: I need to tell you, Dr. Clarke, your audio is bad. I think we got the basic thrust of what you were saying, which is you were pointing out that the entire educational system has to be changed. If you didn’t know this, we’ve been having some technical problems all morning. Dr. Elders, were you able to make out what he was saying?

DR. ELDERS: Yes.

SPEED: Dr. Clarke, I’m going to ask you to let her respond, and also get her reflections, because I think she knew clearly what you were getting at. So, Dr. Elders?

DR. ELDERS: I thank first of all, the Schiller Institute for putting on this conference. I think it’s been excellent in bringing up some problems that we all have. One of the things we all have to know is, whatever we’re talking about doing, you can’t do it unless you’re healthy. So, I feel very strongly we’ve got to have healthy populations, and we’ve got to start early. I agree with Dr. Clarke. I always tell people that children are half as tall as they’ll ever be by the time they’re three. They know half as much as they’ll ever know by the time they’re four. Hope, will, and drive has been determined by the time they’re five. So, we’ve got to start early. Children can’t be what they can’t see. So, we’ve got to make sure that they’re exposed, and we can start them early. They don’t have to start out being a brain surgeon, but they can start out being what they can be.

And most of all, we’ve got to keep them healthy. All human beings feel that the three things that they need to be, more than anything else, they need to feel that they can be successful. We need to make sure they’re healthy, educated, motivated, and have hope for the future. I thought, that’s where we can start, and every country can start with that. What we’ve heard about what we’re doing for countries, but we’ve got to start with health. And we’ve got to educate them. You can’t keep an ignorant population healthy. So, we’ve got to start with educating the population, and we’ve certainly got to start with doing everything we can to keep them healthy. We have to know that we’ve got our trust and global solidarity. If we don’t trust each other to do the things we need to do, we can’t get it done. We have to go out and work in the communities. Find out what the communities need, rather than giving them what we think they need.

I especially enjoyed the Counselor from Japan’s talk on the things that they were doing. Sometimes you think you’re doing exactly what a country needs. Going into Africa and doing what they needed; but maybe they needed something else. Involve the African nations to find out what does the nation feel that they need, and help them develop what they think they want and need. And we may have to start in our small communities, starting out with the young people; training them to be community health workers. Later, they grow up to be nurses, and nurse-practitioners, physicians, and then to being super-specialists. But we want to improve the health of the world, which we’ve got to do, because we all know this coronavirus has taught us that anytime one country is not healthy, all the rest, we’re all at risk. So, we’ve got to make sure that we help every country to be healthy and improve their health. We’ve got to start with the young people who are going to determine what the world’s going to be. We have to do everything we can to train them to be the best that they can be.

I never fail to go to an old Chinese proverb that says that “The society grows great when old men and old women plant trees under whose shade they know they’ll never sit.” To me, this institute, what you’re trying to do with the Schiller Institute is pull the nations together in solidarity, globally, so that they can plant trees for the bright young people of the future to sit under. Thank you.

SPEED: Helga, do you have anything you’d like to say at this point, either to Dr. Clarke, or in response to this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I just feel very — my heart is moved by what you are saying, because it is that kind of human spirit which is needed now to move mountains. And these mountains need to be moved quickly, because the dangers are many. So, I’m very happy that you are saying what you are saying.

SPEED: So Dr. Clarke, we’re going to move on, because we have other questions. But I need to know if you will be able to join us for the later panel, when we will have a panel of youth. That’s going to be later this afternoon. I don’t know if your schedule allows it, but it would be important.

DR. CLARKE: I’ll make myself available.

SPEED: And we have to do something about your audio over there on the other side, too. Thank you.

Diane, we’re going to come back to you now. Do you have something for us?

SARE: Yes. I have a question from the Ambassador from Ghana to Canada. But I actually wanted to bring up one thing, since it turns out Mr. Meshchanov has been involved in cultural affairs, which is to express my desire that at some point, somehow, the city of St. Petersburg, which apparently had an absolutely phenomenal chorus, was the location of the premier of Beethoven’s sublime work, the Missa Solemnis. I know the chorus there must have been excellent, because our chorus is working on it, and it’s very difficult. This being the Year of Beethoven, and Beethoven being a composer who I think really embodies the love of mankind as a whole, I think it would be something we have to figure out how to commemorate, if not this year because of the COVID, then as soon as possible.

So now, having said that, I have a question from Ambassador J. Ayikoi Otoo, who is the High Commissioner from Ghana to Ottawa, Canada. He writes:

“I think the suggestion for four leaders to meet to brainstorm on the effects of the pandemic in order to find universal solutions is a brilliant one. But, with President Trump reeling under pressure for not having taken the pandemic seriously, and with this leading to several deaths, with President Trump pushing the blame on China and making derogatory remarks about China — Can you see these two leaders working together? Considering the fact that President Trump recently withdrew from a Zoom conference organized by leaders of the EU and China, on the subject of the raising of money to fight the pandemic worldwide, what are the prospects for the four leaders, whom you cite [I think he’s referring to Mrs. LaRouche], to come together?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, I want to make one important correction in your question, because it may be true that President Trump was not picking up on the warnings coming from China quickly enough, but neither did the European countries. They also lost precious time. But I want to emphatically make the point that this pandemic would not be a pandemic if there would have been a good health system in every country. And that is a provable fact because, in Wuhan and Hubei province, the Chinese were able to contain it, to put strict quarantine, and then after two months it was under control. That approach, if you had a similar health system in every country in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, in Europe, you could have stopped this from becoming a pandemic. Therefore, I think it’s very important to say that the blame of all this is the neo-liberal system which prevented the building up of infrastructures and health systems in the whole world.

This was a point made by my late husband already in 1973. He warned, and actually set up a biological holocaust taskforce to investigate the effects of the IMF policies at that time. And in the following years, of the so-called IMF conditionalities, which prevented developing countries from investing in their health systems, because they were forced to pay their debt burden first. These conditionalities actually created the condition that the pandemic even could arise. Naturally, the predecessors of Trump, such as the Bushes, such as Obama, they did much more to contribute to create the conditions than President Trump in his admittedly slightly delayed reaction. So, I just wanted to correct that, because it’s very easy to say it’s the guilt of Trump, but he definitely did not cause the problem 50 years ago.

I think that unfortunately, I believe that this situation will get so much worse. I think the surges which you see now in more than two dozen states of the United States, you see it in Brazil, in India. In general, it is estimated that this is not even a second wave; this is still the first wave which has not yet peaked. Several of the American epidemiologists and virologists said it’s no point to talk of a peak; the peak is not yet here.

So, I fear that the kind of collapse which we are seeing right now in terms of the effects of the economic shutdown, is also just the beginning. I think the situation will worsen in the short-term, long before the election takes place in November, and that the kind of social ferment which exists right now — which in part is due to the murder of George Floyd and others, but it’s also naturally manipulated and taken over by people who just want to create social trouble in the same way like President Putin warned that Trump would be faced with a “Maidan.”

So, it definitely has absolutely elements of that as well. I think this will get worse, and that means our intervention in the United States, but also around the world will be absolutely crucial. Because it is my absolute conviction that if you have more examples like that of the Mayor of Muscatine, people who just start relationships and create an environment which counters the absolutely malicious lies in the mainstream media and the crazy talk by such people as Marco Rubio or Menendez, or such people who just are completely irresponsible in what they say. There should be a standard of truth that you shouldn’t say things which are made up; but some of these people have lost all hesitations to just, for their own purposes, lie.

So, I think it’s very important that this is being countered by a lot of citizens. And I think if we can get this initiative, which I proposed with this taskforce to find solutions on the level of the coincidence of opposites, that can become an important factor, because the idea that you have to replace geopolitical confrontation with cooperation to solve this pandemic and all the other problems together, must become the steamroller in the population. I also think that if there is a chorus of countries — from Africa, from Latin America, from other places — and individuals of positions, who demand that the problems of humanity are so big that they only can be solved by the leading countries; the most powerful economically, the most powerful militarily, and those countries which have the most population, that they must get together. Because where else should the solution come from?

I think if we all work together, we can orchestrate an environment where these ideas are being picked up, and all the advantages which lie in that may convince even those countries which seem to be at loggerheads right now, to actually come together and work together, because it will benefit them more than to keep the confrontation going.

SPEED: Thank you. Our next question is from Isaiah K. Koech, Counsellor for the Kenyan High Commission [embassy] in Ottawa, Canada. I think this question will be largely for Helga and for Mr. Meshchanov.

“Whereas there is advocacy for the world’s powerful countries to meet in the ‘Four-Power’ Summit to discuss solutions that would mitigate global crises, how sure are we that the powerful leaders will incorporate issues that directly affect African countries? (This question is based on the premise that the Four-Power Summit will not have any representation from the African continent which is equally large and full of potential).”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Mr. Meshchanov, if you want to go first?

MESHCHANOV: OK. With this, I will try to briefly focus on several questions posed before, starting with a positive conversation of our colleague referring to cultural links. We would like to reiterate our deep understanding that culture is stronger than politics, and we are availing of this opportunity to thank the Schiller Institute for issuing brilliant chorus song in Russian associated with Victory Day in May, which we would highly encourage everyone to see a brilliant and bright presentation of cultural links and culture bridging gaps between our countries. We are deeply appreciative of this work by the Schiller Institute. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLGy8yIOVM&t=5s]

And of course the Year of Beethoven deserves to be commemorated. Our embassies, consulates, and missions all over the world are open, especially in these difficult times, to any proposals of collaboration in the cultural sphere. So, thank you very much for your remarks.

As for the four leaders summit proposal by the Schiller Institute, we believe it’s a great idea, and not contradicting the Russian President Vladimir Putin. I would like once again to reiterate the idea of five countries, specifically the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, was issued and proposed in association with the 75-year anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War — the Second World War, talking globally. It is addressing the idea of recollecting the common responsibility of our countries for preventing discrimination, hated, hatred on borders between countries, bearing in mind the responsibility lying with these specific countries, which are founders of the United Nations, and winners in the Second World War.

So, that was the rationale to reiterate, but that doesn’t prejudice against deliberating on any alternative forums. I’m speaking in my personal capacity of course now, but that reminds me of the rationale behind the establishment of the BRICS association, which somehow started back in the 1990s from the ideas of our outstanding and well-known academic and diplomat, and former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Primakov, who tabled the idea of Russia, India, and China collaboration and systemic cooperation, meetings, and summits. That was sort of an idea that could also be taken into consideration, because our great predecessor Mr. Primakov foresaw the rising role of India, and the rising role of African countries, as a natural process of moving forward the multipolar world after the collapse of the bipolar system. That is why we strongly believe in multilateralism, multilateral forums.

Coming to the third question of the United States and China, and the possibility of cooperation, and all the controversies and conflicts that we see now. We also do not have very smooth and easy relationships with the Western world and the United States, as you are, of course, aware. But still we try to find mutual interests; that we did even under the Cold War situation back many decades. Now, something that contributes to finding solutions is the pressure of business circles, investors, diasporas, cultural links, parliamentary relations. Even being oppressed by coercive measures by several Western countries, we stick to the policy of cooperation and collaboration with our Western partners. China is also objectively interested in developing relationships with the United States, as well as the United States cannot do without China in the modern economic system. That is why we are sort of optimistic on U.S.-China reconciliation.

To focus briefly on African countries, we believe that the development of the African continent recently, not only in terms of economic growth, but also diversifying trade and investor partnerships, and maturing political collaboration between African countries, will contribute to their capability of speaking in one voice. That probably opens good perspectives of African countries joining the global governance system which is going to be revisited and reformulated. As I also stated in my presentation, our country has always spoken on raising involvement of African countries in any global forums. It should be inclusive, not exclusive.

With this, I thank you.

SPEED: OK, very good. Helga, do you have anything?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to add that there is probably not any problem globally, both regionally and economically and otherwise, which could not be solved if the geopolitical confrontation between the United States, Russia, and China in particular, would be eliminated. Because the entire game plan of what we call the British Empire, which is really the City of London, Wall Street, the financial institutions which are behind the neo-liberal system; their entire ability to keep the rule over the world’s institutions depends on the geopolitical game to divide the United States and Russia and China. People don’t realize that it is exactly the same forces financial, media, political, who are behind the coup attempt against Trump; who are behind the anti-Russia campaign; and who are behind the anti-China campaign. Once you realize that, you have a completely different view, and the reason why my husband originally many years ago picked up on the idea of Prime Minister Primakov, and added the United States to this combination of Russia, China, and India was the recognition that you need a combination of states which are powerful enough to be stronger than the City of London and Wall Street. Once these four, or especially those three, get together, then you can solve any other problem. I have said many times, this summit is not going to be only one summit. Because the problems are so deep and many, that you probably need a whole summit process, where you start to put the kinds of mechanisms like for a New Bretton Woods system into motion; you start to take care of the cultural question, the health system. So, I look at it more that once you have this format, that the presidents of those countries start to cooperate to solve the common problems of mankind, you can develop it to become an integrative process where naturally other countries, other continents, other states are absolutely welcomed to support that process. But I think it’s important to first put together the core of power which can actually change the world, and not just have it like many conferences where you have a democratic kind of back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I think this is also why President Putin wants to keep the veto power in the Permanent Five countries so that it doesn’t degenerate into just a debate where no results can be accomplished. It should be open; we are organizing that countries such as Japan or Germany, Italy, France, countries from Africa. They should absolutely support that. The best thing is to it now; to add your voice that such a summit must take place, and I think it can be done. I think it’s absolutely doable, but we need a worldwide mobilization to accomplish it.

SPEED: We’re getting a lot of questions, and that’s very good. But we have the problem that we lost some time at the beginning of the broadcast. So, what we’re going to do here is, first of all, we’re going to encourage people to keep going with the questions. Several of them are with respect to the coronavirus pandemic and related matters. The next panel, which will begin at 1:30 p.m., will continue to cover that, and we will try to refer some of the questions there. Also, we certainly will refer all of your questions to any of the panelists to have them answer.

We’re going to take two more questions, one of which will come from me, and then the other one will be from Diane. We’ll then ask the panelists to conclude.

This is a question from Dr. Abdul Alim-Muhammad of Washington, D.C.; well-known to the Schiller Institute, and very important in our work over the years. This one, I believe, is for both Dr. Elders and for Helga: “How can the rest of the world learn and benefit from the Chinese and Cuban collaboration in flattening the curve of the epidemic centered in Wuhan? How can those lessons be applied here in the United States and elsewhere, like Brazil and countries in Africa, to flatten the curve? Why isn’t Cuba’s interferon alpha-2B available to save American lives? Should there be an international standard of criminal public health neglect?” Then, he just appends to this “The Crime of Tuskegee”; he’s talking about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. “Was the deliberate withholding of known effective treatments to suit a racist agenda? Is history repeating on a global scale?”

So, that’s his question. Either Dr. Elders or Helga, whichever would like to start.

DR. ELDERS: I think we all realize that we have a global pandemic now. But as in all pandemics, we’ve got to have the right leaders if we want to come out of this, and I think what the Schiller Institute is doing, we’ve got to have the kind of leaders who are willing to lead. And they have got to make the sacrifices and do the things that they need to do to lead and move forward. Our public health system has not been well funded. We’ve got to invest more in our public health, but when we think of public health, we’ve got to always remember, that public health is not just about individuals. It’s about the whole community; it’s all of us. We’ve all got to be involved, and you can’t keep our people healthy if we don’t educate them to be healthy. I think that that’s an important issue that all of our communities have to be aware of. The reason? I won’t say the reason, I don’t know the reasons. Some of the reasons why we in the United States, our curve is not flattened as well as that in China and some of the other countries is because of our culture and the education of our people. We’re not willing to do the things; we know we need to do them, but we just didn’t do them. Like our social distancing, which we could do. Handwashing. Wearing a mask. Then, everybody wanted to get back, and start socializing again. So, these are things the Chinese were willing to do and did. They enforced it, and we did not do it. That was partly related to our leadership, that we’ve not done.

If we think about the Tuskegee Institute, I think that was a public health, leadership mistake. We’ve worked through that now. I do not feel in any way that anybody was trying to take anything away or trying to not provide therapy or treatment. And I do not feel that we’re not trying to do everything we can now to make sure we do what we can to eliminate the coronavirus. But we do not have a vaccine; we do not have adequate medications. All we have are the public health issues that we know we need to follow in order to get it done. We’ve got to educate our people. The reason why we’re seeing more problems in our very low-income, less well-educated people is because of what’s happened. We know that we’ve got to address those issues if we’re really going to make a difference.

And I think the same is true for Brazil. I think Brazil is behaving much like America; we’re not doing the things we know we need to do.

SPEED: OK. Helga, do you have anything, or should we continue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to add briefly that if people remember, in January, when China started to take these very rigid measures — quarantining people, tracing contacts, cutting out social contact by allowing families to go shopping only once every three days and only one member of the family — all of these things. There was a huge freak-out in the West, saying “This is a dictatorship! See how horrible! They’re violating human rights again.” But in reality, what helped them to contain is aided by a deep cultural difference between Western and Chinese culture. In the West, it was a big accomplishment that the rights of individuals were held high. This is a good thing, but unfortunately, this individuality became excessive. People mistook freedom with liberties and hedonism. What Dr. Elders just said, people wanted to go back to the beaches, they wanted to go back to partying. You have these really insane behaviors which are an expression of such exaggerated individuality. While the Chinese culture — and all Asian cultures, for that matter — have traditionally much more focus on the common good as the primary thing. And that the individual right is sort of subsumed under the right of the community and the cultural good. The individual cannot prosper if the community does not prosper. I think this is a cultural difference which I think is very much worth to study. Because we will come out of this pandemic with the need to adjust some of our values. They may not be exactly what people tout to be the so-called “Western values”; because these Western values — that’s a whole other subject. But I think we have to really think how we can give humanity principles for our durable survival. And that is part of this process that we are trying to do with these kinds of conferences; that people start to really reflect and say, “How can we become a species of rationality and creativity, and not compete with some piggies who are trying to get to the trough the quickest?” I think it’s really a fundamental question of identity, of moral values, which has to be addressed.

SPEED: OK. Last question for this panel will be from Diane Sare.

SARE: This question is from Dr. Katherine Alexander-Theodotou of the Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association. It is in four parts.

“1. What do you suggest to do in an effort to bring the European nations together to reflect on democracy, basing the institutions on democratic lines, creating a real democratic union, including Russia? The vast culture of the civilization of Europe will be the fortress of prosperity and peace.

“2. How can the Schiller Institute assist? The Schiller Institute can assist by continuously advocating unity, cooperation, education, and preventing the undermining of nations’ sovereignty of Europe by others ruled by undemocratic institutions such as Turkey, threatening the sovereignty of its neighbors such as Greece and Cyprus.

“3. There is a need for European health policy and coordination of the health authorities in order to have common standards of health policy and provide competent healthcare to the peoples of Europe.

“4. There is the question of slave populations throughout Europe, especially in the U.K., where there are almost 1 million people living for almost 15 years with no identity, as they are immigrants [I think she means no legal identity] whose voice is being suppressed by the immigration laws. There are also others in other European countries. How can we stop this system of slave labor?”

Those are the questions.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this present EU needs to be changed, because I think the EU has developed into a gigantic bureaucracy which is very little in touch with the interests of its member states. I could cite you a whole list of examples for this. I think we have to really think how to integrate Russia. I think one of the lessons Putin said in his article was that there was a failure before World War II to develop an integrative security system. I’m quite interested — I’m putting it carefully — I’m quite interested about the report that between Putin and Macron in a long phone conversation yesterday, Macron said that he stands for a Europe which goes from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which obviously would mean that you really talk more about the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative integrated into one body. I think I’m a firm believer in the principle of sovereignty. I think this present crisis has demonstrated that in any case the EU did nothing. It was the nations which jumped in and recognized that you need food security in a nation; you need sovereign control over your production of medicine and health equipment.

Nicolaus of Cusa, who I quoted earlier, was the first one to develop the concept of why only a sovereign nation-state which has a reciprocal relationship between the government and the governed, which I think is the only way how you can guarantee how the common good is being defended; especially under conditions of crisis. So, I think this present EU, which is trying to attach itself to a NATO globalization, to play all kinds of geopolitical games, is not necessarily the vehicle with which Europe should be reformed. Maybe that should be the subject of a whole other webinar, because this is a very complicated question. But I think an alliance of sovereign nation-states in the spirit of de Gaulle would make much more sense to represent the interests of all the people.

As for the slave labor, I think that has come out, that this present neo-liberal system depends not only on the exploitation of cheap labor in countries like Bangladesh or some other countries, but that you have slave labor conditions inside the Western countries. Like in Germany, where it’s now seven or eight slaughterhouses which have all Romanians and people from other East European countries, who are living in horrible conditions. They have become the breeding ground for COVID-19 break-outs, because there is no health system, no social distancing is possible. I think taking care of the health system is the first precondition for everything to function, exactly as Dr. Elders says. If you are not healthy, you cannot do anything. So, protection of the health of the citizens has to really start in every country, not just in some.

SPEED: All right. So, we’re now at the conclusion. We’ve got about one minute per person for responses. I’d like to get kind of a summary idea. We’ll start with you, Mr. Meshchanov, if you have any remarks that you’d like to make in conclusion.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you. I had some technical problems, and unfortunately couldn’t catch the last part of the discussion. But now, wrapping up what has been laid out in this very important discussion, I see in an optimistic way what is happening. Meaning that when the situation is up-ending, and this is something that has been happening in any crisis in history, the word crisis derives from the Asian-Greek word of krisi, which means taking decisions; taking choice. So, we need to take the right decision, the right choice; and I fully support Mrs. Helga LaRouche’s statement on changing values after this crisis. We believe that in this crisis, constructive forces such as the Schiller Institute and many others in our country as well, are heard better. That’s probably one of the systemic significances of this crisis. Briefly, speaking on our President’s article, which you have repeatedly referred to, Mr. Putin underscores in his article devoted to the 75th anniversary of the war end, the Munich conspiracy. That is something that he starts with, but he finishes his article by underscoring the significance of cooperation, collaboration, and shared responsibility of great powers. That is why we are optimistic on this future cooperation which sometimes crises and great systemic catastrophes can contribute to.

SPEED: Thank you, Counselor. Dr. Elders, any concluding remarks?

DR. ELDERS: This has been one excellent conference, and I think what is talked about is how in all conferences we need to trust each other, we need to learn to work together, and that our cooperation and trust is going to do more to overcome this virus and the health of our people than anything else. The more we squabble among each other, the more this virus grows, divides, and spreads. So, the first thing is, we want to improve our economy, educate our people. We’ve got to first do everything we can to keep them healthy. We just can’t develop an excellent working society unless we have a healthy society. We know how; and it’s time we began to use the knowledge we know and make our leaders stop squabbling about where, when, and how it started. Let’s look at what we can do to make a solution. We need to get all nations that we can involved, so we can all work together to try and make a healthy global world. That’s how I feel we’re going to also address our economy.

SPEED: Thank you. Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to bring people’s memories back to what we saw in the beginning — the video of Lyn; who focussed very much on the fact that we are the creative species. At least, the only one which has been discovered in the universe so far. I think if we strengthen that quality of our species which distinguishes us from all other ones, the creativity, then also the question of trust will be easy. Because a human being who relates to the creativity of another one, doesn’t have prejudices. At best, you have a wish to increase the creativity of the other one for the common good of all of humanity. I think it is that rethinking of trying to make people better people, to make them do more good, to really get rid of all of this hedonistic decay of our culture which prevents people from being creative. Because if people just want to go partying and get drunk and have dope, they are ruining that which makes them human. I think may be hopefully one of the outcomes, because I believe absolutely that we need a renaissance of cultural values, of Classical culture. That we all have to learn to think like Beethoven, and to think like Lyndon LaRouche. Then we are best equipped to deal with this and any other problem.

SPEED: Thank you. I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. We’re going to conclude this first panel. But I think we managed to soldier through all of the difficulties that may have some metaphorical importance to what we’re going to have to do in the world as a whole to make this dialogue work as well.