Jan Øberg, ph.d., freds- og fremtidsforsker og kunstfotograf, ph.d. i sociologi, gæsteprofessor i freds- og konfliktstudier i Japan, Spanien, Østrig og Schweiz, medstifter og direktør for det uafhængige TFF, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, i Lund, Sverige, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse
 
* Kinesiske forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur: Xi Jinpings forslag fra april om en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og det globale udviklingsinitiativ.
Li Xing, ph.d., professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Institut for Politik og Samfund, Det Humanistiske og Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet, og forfatter.
dansk oversættelse
transcript in English
  
* Hvorfor Danmark bør afstå fra et intensiveret geopolitisk militært engagement. 
Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand, Schiller Instituttet i Danmark
dansk oversættelse 
 
* Hvorfor Sverige og Finland ikke bør tilslutte sig NATO. 
Ulf Sandmark, formand, Schiller Instituttet i Sverige
afskrift på engelsk
 
Information: si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 

——————————–
English:

Invitation to a free international online seminar by

the Schiller Institutes in Denmark and Sweden:

We need a new security and

development architecture for all nations,

not a strengthening of geopolitical blocks

The Schiller Institute recommends:

NO in the Danish June 1 referendum about abolishing the EU Defense opt-out, and

NO to Sweden and Finland joining NATO

Date: Wednesday May 25, 2022

Time: 13:30-16:30 CEST

Online via Zoom

Free admission

The seminar will be held in English.

Please register here: si@schillerinstitut.dk, +45 53 57 00 51

The Schiller Institute seminar will discuss:

• What caused the current extremely dangerous military, and economic crisis.
• Why strengthening the EU military arm with Danish participation, and Sweden and Finland joining NATO would only exacerbate geopolitical conflict, and
• What are the principles upon which we can create a new security and development architecture, for the benefit of all nations and people.

Program:

The world need a new security and development architecture. 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the Schiller Institute founder and international president.

Background to the Ukraine-NATO-Russia war.
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, degrees in the history of ideas and communication, a Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, author of several books about Russia and Ukraine, a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.

Why we need a new security architecture.
Jan Øberg, PhD, peace and future researcher and art photographer, PhD in sociology, visiting professor in peace and conflict studies in Japan, Spain, Austria, and Switzerland, co-founder and director of the independent TFF, the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, in Lund, Sweden, and author.

Chinese proposals for a new security and development arcitecture: Xi Jinping’s April proposal for a new international security architecture; the Belt and Road Initiative and the Global Development Initiative.

Prof. Li Xing, PhD, professor of Development and International Relations in the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty in Humanities and Social Sciences, Aalborg University, and author.

Why Denmark should not intensify its geopolitical military engagements.
Tom Gillesberg, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Denmark

Why Sweden and Finland should not join NATO.

Ulf Sandmark, chairman, the Schiller Institute in Sweden

Information: si@schillerinstitut.dk. +45 53 57 00 51 (Denmark)

Schiller-institutet@nysol.se, +46 98 30 10 (Sweden)

—————————————

As background, here are excerpts from a speech given by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and president of the Schiller Institute, to an online conference with young people on May 7, 2022,

“The world is facing an incredibly dangerous moment. But there’s also hope…. That is only possible if we overcome the idea of geopolitics.

“Now, geopolitics is the idea that you always will have a bloc of nations, or a nation which will define or has to define its interest against another bloc of nations, and that there will always be a deadly controversy, where either one wins, or the other, and the whole thing will be a zero-sum game. And that is exactly what needs to be overcome, and which can be overcome.

“[W]e have to establish an international order, where basically the principle on which this order is based, is the idea that every nation has the right and the means to develop all potentials of all of its citizens. We are in a situation where we need a systemic change: A complete change of the system. The reason why I’m saying this is because the situation is very urgent. More and more analysts and experts agree that the danger of World War III is acute, that the situation is more dangerous than at the height of the Cold War….

“So we are a hair-trigger away from the annihilation of human civilization…. [I]f the present policies are continued, the world could end very abruptly, in a few minutes from now, in a few days, weeks or months, and obviously, the war in Ukraine is the flashpoint. But this whole crisis is not about Ukraine. It’s about what kind of a world order should exist: Should it be a unipolar world, dominated by one or two nations? Should it be a “rules-based order,” where a small club of nations makes the rules? Or should it be multipolar, and should it be based on international law as it is expressed in the UN Charter?…

I think that that is the starting point: That only if you make it clear to yourself, that nuclear war between the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, means the annihilation of the human species, and then mobilize that the war must stop, and fight for an alternative which has to start with the idea that the war has to stop; diplomacy and negotiations have to immediately start to find a settlement agreeable to all sides….

“Now, we should be clear, and this is the position of everybody working with the Schiller Institute, that war cannot be a method of conflict resolution in times of nuclear weapons; and I’m not saying this war should have happened, but you have to understand the reasons why it did happen….”

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche stated, “starting at the time of the German reunification, when the Berlin Wall came down, the U.S. Secretary of State James Baker III did promise to Gorbachev, NATO will not move one inch to the East….”

“A retired German General, named Harald Kujat, who had been the chairman of the Military Committee of NATO in 2002-2005, just gave an interview to a German magazine, in which he said, that the center of gravity is no longer to protect and assist Ukraine in its defensive struggle against a Russian attack, which is contrary to international law, but to weaken Russia as a strategic rival in the long term.

“[Countries with a population of] 2.2 billion people, they all are refusing to be pulled into geopolitical confrontation between the U.S. and NATO on the one side, and Russia and China on the other side.

“And all of these countries are sticking to the idea of non-alignment, and that I think is the key to peace right now. Because the Non-Aligned Movement principles, these were the principles of the UN Charter, the Bandung Conference, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which is sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of the other country; acceptance of the other social system….

“I think we need, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended 150 years of war in Europe, a security architecture, which takes into [account] the interest of the developing countries first; there must be an increase of the living standard of every single individual, of Europe, of the United States, of Russia and China. I think that is the make or break issue for humanity to survive. This means we need a new paradigm in thinking, namely the idea that each nation has the right to develop its fullest potential. Each child, each baby born, no matter in what nation in the world, has the right to develop its fullest potential, which means it has to have a universal education….

“[T]he dangers have never been as great, but the potential that we can create a completely new world, has never been so close: To end colonialism; to have an economy based on thermonuclear fusion, which would mean, we have energy security for all nations, raw materials security; that we can have international cooperation in space exploitation; that mankind will become adult, and that geopolitical wars will become a question of the past.”

We sincerely hope that you will be able to join us for this important event, and that you will share this invitation, and encourage other people to participate.

Homepages: English: The Schiller Institute | A New Paradigm for the Survival of Civilization

Danish: Hjem – Schiller Instituttet

Swedish: Schillerinstitutet

Den 7. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – Helga Zepp-LaRouche var i dag vært for en konference for unge fra mindst 23 nationer med temaet: “Ungdommens rolle i skabelsen af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur”. Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede et barsk billede af den nuværende krise med omfattende hungersnød, økonomisk sammenbrud og den tiltagende fare for atomkrig, og hun fremførte, at dette måske er det øjeblik med den største fare for menneskeheden i hele historien, og at verdens ungdom må stå sammen for at skabe den fremtid de ønsker, ellers er der måske slet ingen fremtid.

Hun påpegede, at den falske opdeling af verden i “demokratier vs. autokratier” dækker over, at den virkelige opdeling er mellem de tidligere kolonimagter over for deres tidligere kolonier, der pålægger udviklingslandene krige med regimeskift, nedskæringer og sult, samtidig med at de åbent og pralende erklærer deres hensigt om at ødelægge Rusland og Kina for at forhindre “Bælte & Vej”-tilgangen til at befri det globale syd fra fattigdom gennem udvikling af infrastruktur og moderne landbrugsindustrielle stater.

De over 100 unge fra alle kontinenter diskuterede med begejstring det nødvendige samarbejde og den optimisme, der er nødvendig for at imødegå denne eksistentielle udfordring. Spørgsmål om polariseringen af befolkningerne rundt om i verden på grund af religion, etnicitet, politiske ideologier m.m. blev besvaret af Zepp-LaRouche med det universelle princip om “Modsætningernes Sammenfald” af Nikolaus af Cusa, der søger at finde de højere principper, som vedrører menneskehedens fælles mål.

Der var 23 lande repræsenteret: Yemen, Sydafrika, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Haiti, Venezuela, Mexico, Brasilien, Peru, Colombia, Spanien, Tyskland, Italien, Danmark, Frankrig, Storbritannien, Pakistan, Canada, USA og Australien. Konferencen vakte stor begejstring hos alle deltagerne over, at denne mobilisering var både afgørende og potentielt effektiv til at ændre historiens gang på et tidspunkt, hvor historien er under omvæltning.

Zepp-LaRouche annoncerede en ny international konference i Schiller Instituttet, der skal finde sted inden for få uger i samarbejde med andre institutioner i Asien med mere.

Hovedtalen til ungdomsmøde, lørdag den 7. maj 2022

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Velkommen. Jeg vil gerne byde jer velkommen, hvor end I måtte være. Det er en sand glæde at have unge mennesker samlet, for situationen i verden er helt forfærdelig, og mange mennesker er bekymrede, for hvad det hele skal føre til? Er der en vej ud? Er der håb for fremtiden?

Jeg vil gerne påpege, at vi faktisk befinder os i et utroligt farligt øjeblik. Men der er også håb. Men det bliver ikke den historiske materialisme eller den dialektiske materialisme eller nogle objektive historielove, der vil være afgørende. Jeg tror, at 90 % eller deromkring af hvad der vil ske, vil afhænge af, om der er nok modige mennesker, som yder deres individuelle indsats for at gøre en forskel.

Så formålet med denne opfordring er at iværksætte et internationalt netværk, et partnerskab, især blandt unge mennesker, for at kæmpe for fred, for at kæmpe imod krigen, men det kan kun lade sig gøre, hvis vi skaber en bedre verden og en fredsorden, som gør det muligt for hver enkelt nation på denne planet ikke blot at overleve, men også at blomstre. Det er kun muligt, hvis vi overvinder idéen om geopolitik.

Geopolitik er den idé, at der altid vil være en blok af nationer eller en nation, som vil definere eller er nødt til at definere sine interesser over for en anden blok af nationer, og at der altid vil være en dødbringende kontrovers, hvor enten den ene eller den anden vinder, og det hele vil være et nulsumsspil. Det er netop hvad der må og kan overvindes.

Det vi skal gøre er at etablere en international orden, hvor det princip, som denne orden grundlæggende er baseret på, er tanken om, at hver nation har ret til, og mulighed for, at udvikle alle deres borgeres potentialer. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor vi har brug for en systemisk ændring: En fuldstændig fornyelse af systemet. Grunden til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at situationen er meget presserende.

Flere og flere analytikere og eksperter er enige om, at faren for Tredje Verdenskrig er akut, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Den kolde Krig, og for dem af jer, der har studeret historien en smule, var det Cuba-krisen, hvor Sovjetunionen havde placeret atommissiler på Cuba. Det var virkelig et spørgsmål om minutter og timer, hvordan dette ville blive afgjort, og vi var meget tæt på den tredje verdenskrig. Men denne gang er det meget farligere end det: Det er der adskillige personers ekspertudtalelser om.

Så vi er et hårsbred fra den menneskelige civilisations udslettelse. I modsætning til andre perioder, hvor vi var i en sådan fare, som i begyndelsen af 1980’erne, da der var den såkaldte mellemdistance-missilkrise i Europa, mellem SS-20 og Pershing 20, var der hundredtusinder af mennesker på gaden, der advarede om Tredje Verdenskrig, mens den såkaldte fredsbevægelse i dag, hvis den findes, er meget lille, og for det meste vildledt, da de alle siger, at det er Putins onde gerninger, der er ansvarlige for situationen, og det vil jeg komme ind på om lidt.

Jeg går ud fra, at de fleste af jer i denne samtale er unge; det betyder, at I sandsynligvis er et sted mellem 20 og 35 år gamle, og under normale forhold ville I have omkring 50-75 år foran jer. Under alle omstændigheder, med eller uden krigsfaren, er det meget vigtigt, at I udvikler et perspektiv for, hvilken slags verden I ønsker at leve i: Det bør I tænke over, for ellers vil andre bestemme det for jer. Eller mere præcist, i dette tilfælde skal I være sikker på, at der findes en verden, hvor I vil kunne leve. Hvis den nuværende politik fortsættes, kan denne verden nemlig ende meget pludseligt om få minutter, om få dage, uger eller måneder, og krigen i Ukraine er naturligvis et brændpunkt.

Men hele denne krise handler ikke om Ukraine. Den handler om, hvilken slags verdensorden der skal eksistere: Skal det være en unipolær verden, domineret af en eller to nationer? Skal det være en “regelbaseret orden”, hvor en lille klub af nationer udstikker reglerne? Eller skal den være multipolær, og skal den være baseret på folkeretten, som den er udtrykt i FN-pagten?

Der er folk, som Tysklands nuværende udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock, der siger, at vi skal sende flere tunge våben til Ukraine, selv om der er risiko for atomkrig. Vi kan ikke udelukke noget som helst.

Lad os nu se på, hvad risikoen egentlig indebærer. I januar i år var der en militærøvelse, som blev kaldt “Global Lightning”, som var forestillingen om, at man har en langvarig hybridkrig mellem konventionelle styrker og atomstyrker. Det er jo latterligt. Tanken om at have dage og måske endda uger med krig, hvor man kaster et par atombomber, så går man over til rumkrig, cyberkrig og så kommer man tilbage til konventionel krig – det er fuldstændig vanvittigt, og det vil ikke finde sted.

Der er nu tiltagende diskussion, hvor folk lystigt udtaler, “Nytten af små atomvåben er meget god, for hvis den ene eller den anden side taber i en konventionel krig, vil de svare igen med taktiske atomvåben”. Men der er nogle få virkelige eksperter i atomvåben, som Ted Postol, en tidligere MIT-professor, der har det synspunkt, som nu også udtrykkes i en interessant video, for et par dage siden, af oberst Powells tidligere kabinetschef, oberst Lawrence Wilkerson (pensioneret), og alle disse mennesker tilkendegiver, at sådan noget som en “begrænset atomkrig” ikke eksisterer, men at når man først bruger et enkelt atomvåben, så er det slut med det hele: Hele verdens arsenal vil blive affyret. I bør vide, og ved sikkert også, at det er et meget stort antal. USA har 5.428 atommissiler; Rusland har 5.977; Kina har mindre, 350; Frankrig, 290; Storbritannien, 225; Pakistan, 165; Indien, 160; Israel, 90; Nordkorea, 20.

Hvis man affyrer alt dette, vil der ske følgende. Ifølge Ted Postol vil der blive skabt en brandmur omkring hvert eneste af disse missiler, hvis temperatur vil svare til Solens centrum, hvilket vil forvandle alt til mindre end aske. Der vil være fem gange så varmt som Solens centrum: 100 millioner grader Kelvin. Effekten af detonationen i en eksplosion i byerne, siger han, overgår fantasiens kraft, alt hvad selv han kan forestille sig. Han vælger de ord til at beskrive det, til at advare om konsekvenserne: Et enkelt atomvåben af denne type ville sætte en automatisk reaktion i gang. Hvis et enkelt atomvåben f.eks. rammer en by, vil det ødelægge et område med en radius på 5-8 km, hvilket svarer til ca. 200 km2. Lad os antage, at hvis kun 20 % af de amerikanske ICBM’er bruges til at ødelægge de russiske landbaserede ICBM’er, så har man stadig 80 % til andre mål i Rusland, Kina, Europa – og omvendt naturligvis russiske ICBM’er mod amerikanske og øvrige mål.

Folk i Afrika og Latinamerika skal ikke tro, at det ikke vil påvirke dem, fordi de umiddelbare mål ikke er i deres områder, for der vil være nukleart nedfald. Ifølge Postol vil følgende ske: Fordi det russiske luftforsvarssystem er mindre sofistikeret end USA’s og NATO’s, har Ruslands militære ledelse indført en automatiseret reaktionsmekanisme, så hvis den russiske ledelse bliver dræbt i et overraskende førsteangreb med atomvåben fra Vestens side, har de indført noget, der kaldes en “dommedagsmaskine”, som er en automatisk affyring af praktisk talt hele det arsenal, de har. Det har gjort situationen endnu mere farlig.

Selv en fejlvurdering af situationen eller et uheld kan udløse en atomkrig, og der er mange mennesker, som f.eks. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Internationale Læger til Forebyggelse af Atomkrig), der har advaret imod dette. Hvis denne hændelse skulle ske, ville man få en atomvinter, og chancen for, at alt liv på jorden ville dø, er meget sandsynlig.

Vi sidder altså på en krudttønde. For et år siden, den 20. februar 2021, gav chefen for USA’s strategiske kommando (Stratcom) Adm. Charles Richard, Pentagon besked om, at ændre sandsynligheden for atomkrig fra “ikke sandsynlig” til “meget sandsynlig”. Daniel Ellsberg, som er den berømte whistleblower, der offentliggjorde Pentagon Papers, udtaler, at det ikke kun er Ukraine, men at dette også kunne udløses, hvis det kommer til en konventionel krig om Taiwan, i tilfælde af at Taiwan bliver presset til at tro, at de kan erklære uafhængighed, og det ville komme til en krig mellem USA og Kina, som USA ville tabe (af en række årsager), så ville det komme til brug af atomvåben. Ellsberg bad whistleblowers træde frem og fortælle, hvad der faktisk er den interne debat i militæret om brugen af atomvåben.

Tro mig, jeg ønsker ikke at skræmme jer. Nogle vil måske hævde, at yngre mennesker ikke er interesserede i strategiske spørgsmål; det er ikke ligefrem sådan, man får folk mobiliseret, hvis man ønsker at give unge mennesker et perspektiv. Men jeg ville ikke være ærlig, for det skræmmende er ikke kun, at vi sandsynligvis befinder os på det farligste punkt, der nogensinde har eksisteret i menneskehedens historie, men det, der skræmmer mig endnu mere, er, at langt størstedelen af verdens befolkning enten ikke ved det, eller også er de ligeglade. Jeg tror, at hvis de virkelig vidste det, ville de bekymre sig, men medierne fortæller dem ikke sandheden.

Jeg tror, at det er det, der er udgangspunktet: Kun hvis man gør det klart for sig selv, at atomkrig mellem de to største atommagter, USA og Rusland, betyder udslettelse af menneskeheden, og derefter mobiliserer for, at krigen skal stoppe, og kæmper for et alternativ, som skal starte med tanken om, at krigen skal stoppe; diplomati og forhandlinger skal straks starte for at finde en løsning, der er acceptabel for alle parter.

Den vestlige fortælling lige nu, er, at Putin er aggressoren. De bruger ord, som er utrolige. De siger: “Putin er en krigsforbryder” osv. Fortællingen – i krigstider siger folk, at sandheden er det første offer, men fortællingen er sådan, at hvis man bare nævner, i det mindste i Tyskland eller USA, at krigen ikke startede den 24. februar (som er den dag, hvor Rusland rykkede ind i Ukraine), så bliver man allerede kaldt “Putin-agent”, “et instrument for russisk propaganda” osv. Men der er naturligvis en forhistorie, og jeg vil ikke komme ind på den i detaljer, men jeg vil gerne henvise til den for dem af jer, der faktisk ønsker at forstå, hvad der skete.

Bare for at nævne den meget kort: Det hele startede i forbindelse med den tyske genforening, da Berlinmuren faldt, og den amerikanske udenrigsminister James Baker III lovede Gorbatjov, at NATO ikke ville flytte sig en tomme mod øst. Nu benægtes det, at han sagde dette, og i dag siger de, at det aldrig blev lovet. Men der findes historiske dokumenter, faktiske dokumenter og øjenvidner, som absolut bekræfter, at situationen var sådan, at det blev gjort klart, at NATO ikke ville bevæge sig mod øst. Da Warszawapagten blev opløst og Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning, mistede NATO i virkeligheden sin eksistensberettigelse, fordi Rusland ikke udgjorde nogen trussel. Allerede i Gorbatjovs tid, i de sidste år, var der ingen, der troede, at Sovjetunionen ville udgøre en trussel. Men på det tidspunkt besluttede visse kræfter, de neokonservative og briterne, at bruge Sovjetunionens sammenbrud til at skabe en unipolær verden, og hele 1990’erne var præget af idéen om, at reducere Rusland til et råstofproducerende tredjeverdensland. Til dette formål anvendte de den neoliberale politik med “chokterapi”-økonomi, som reducerede den russiske økonomi med 30 % i perioden 1991-1994. Den russiske økonom Sergei Glazjev har skrevet en bog om det, som man kan læse, hvis man ønsker at studere det. Den hedder “Folkedrab”: Rusland og den nye verdensorden.

Bill Clinton forsvarede for nylig, at han tog initiativ til, eller at han gik med til, NATO’s udvidelse mod øst i 1990’erne. Det, der fulgte, var en hel række regimeskift, en farverevolution; Tony Blair, den tidligere premierminister i Storbritannien, erklærede i 1999 afslutningen på den westfalske orden fra Den Westfalske Fred i 1648, ideen om, at suverænitet er en hovedværdi, og den blev erstattet af den såkaldte “ansvar for at beskytte” og humanitære krige. Det førte til krigen i Afghanistan i 2001 efter den 11. september 2001, krig baseret på løgne som i 2003 i Irak, hvor Saddam Hussein angiveligt havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvilket var en åbenlys løgn fra Tony Blairs side, mordet på Qaddafi i 2011 og forsøget på at vælte Assad i Syrien. Efter farverevolutionen i 2004 i Ukraine kom Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine i 2014, som uden tvivl blev udført med hjælp fra nazistiske netværk, men det blev styret af Vesten. Victoria Nuland pralede med, at Udenrigsministeriet brugte 5 milliarder dollars på denne indsats!

Derefter havde man otte års kampe fra den ukrainske hærs side mod den russiske befolkning i Donbass, som aldrig blev omtalt i Vestens medier. Under alle omstændigheder er slutresultatet af dette, at “ikke en tomme mod øst” for NATO i virkeligheden var 1.000 km mod øst, og Rusland følte sig mere og mere omringet. I modsætning til, hvad der bliver sagt nu, var der mange krænkelser, hvor NATO-fly fløj inden for 24 km fra den russiske grænse og endda øvede atomkrig.

I december 2021, så sent som sidste år, bad Putin den 15. december om sikkerhedsgarantier fra NATO og USA om, at Ukraine ikke ville blive medlem af NATO, for hvis Ukraine bliver en del af NATO, så er varslingstiden fra den ukrainsk-russiske grænse til Moskva kun 3-5 minutter, hvilket gør det praktisk talt uforsvarligt. NATO og USA gav aldrig Putin et svar, og den schweiziske militæranalytiker Jacques Baud påpegede blandt mange andre, at krigen ikke startede den 24. februar, men den 17. februar, fordi der var en optrapning af angrebene fra den ukrainske hær, som var opstillet ved grænsen til Donbass, og var tegn på en 30 gange øget militærindsats fra ukrainerne mod Donbass-regionen. Så det var der, Putin besluttede at indlede krigen, den såkaldte “begrænsede militære operation”.

Nu skal vi gøre os klart, og det er holdningen hos alle, der arbejder med Schiller Instituttet, at krig ikke kan være en metode til konfliktløsning i en tid med atomvåben; og jeg siger ikke, at denne krig skulle have fundet sted, men man er nødt til at forstå årsagerne til, at den fandt sted.

En pensioneret tysk general ved navn Harald Kujat, som havde været formand for NATO’s militærkomité i 2002-2005, har netop givet et interview til et tysk tidsskrift, hvori han sagde, at hovedvægten ikke længere ligger på at beskytte og bistå Ukraine i dets forsvarskamp mod et russisk angreb, hvilket er i strid med folkeretten, men på at svække Rusland som strategisk rival på lang sigt. Han tilføjede, at den amerikanske forsvarsminister, general Austin, netop har været i Kiev, hvor han udtrykkeligt fastslog, at USA ønsker at se Rusland svækket i en sådan grad, at det ikke længere kan gøre det, som det gjorde mod Ukraine. Kujat siger: “Denne strategiske nytænkning, hvis den overhovedet er en sådan, gør en forhandlingsløsning endnu mere presserende.” Jeg finder det yderst interessant, at han siger, “hvis det overhovedet er sådan”, nemlig en ændring af strategien.

Men det var det ikke. For i 2019 sponsorerede den amerikanske hær et studie hos Rand Corp. på 345 sider, som var hemmeligstemplet al den tid, men et resumé blev offentliggjort i april, som beskrev projektet, hvordan man besejrer Rusland ved at skabe større udfordringer end landet kan magte, og det er det nøjagtige manuskript for det, der skete i de seneste år og særligt de sidste tre år. Hvordan man får Rusland til at blive overbebyrdet militært og økonomisk, hvilket får regimet til at miste international prestige, og lægge så meget pres på det økonomiske system gennem sanktioner og skrotning af olie- og gasrørledninger, for at ødelægge Nord Stream 2, den berømte kamp omkring den rørledning, der går under Østersøen fra Rusland til Tyskland; at begrænse de olie- og gasindtægter, der kommer ind i Rusland, ved nu at presse europæerne til at erklære en embargo mod Rusland og samtidig sige, at det ukrainske militær allerede er ved at forbløde Rusland i Donbass-regionen, og at vi derfor må skaffe mere amerikansk udstyr; vi må afbryde alle Ruslands forbindelser med Europa. Den berømte amerikanske strateg George Freeman havde i en berømt tale i 2015 i Chicago sagt, at USA’s vigtigste strategiske mål er at bryde forholdet mellem Rusland og Tyskland, fordi russiske råstoffer og arbejdskraft og tysk kapital og videnskabelig viden tilsammen er det eneste, der kan true USA. Så det er det strategiske mål at bryde dette forhold. Det er det, der er sket lige nu.

Ideen er at sende mere dødbringende hjælp til Ukraine, øge sanktionerne, øge den russiske hjerneflugt, ifølge Rand-undersøgelsen, stadig have et regimeskifte i Hviderusland, en farverevolution – I husker, at dette skete efter valget i august 2020 – udnytte spændingerne i Sydkaukasus og Centralasien – I husker urolighederne i januar i Kasakhstan, som blev nedkæmpet på grund af Ruslands resolutte indsats; øge NATO-øvelserne i Europa, alle disse enorme manøvrer, som fandt sted i de foregående mange år; trække sig ud af INF-traktaten, hvilket skete i 2019. Husk ligeledes, hvor mange politikere der i den seneste tid har sagt, at målet er at nedbryde den russiske økonomi, knuse Putin, knuse det russiske system – dette blev sagt af den franske finansminister Le Maire og af embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus. Alt dette fremgik af Rand Corp-undersøgelsen, og det var det, der udspillede sig i virkeligheden.

Tror I, at russerne ikke kendte til Rand-undersøgelsen? At de ikke har fulgt alle disse tiltag, der er rettet mod dem?

Såvel Rusland som Kina har for længe siden offentligt tilkendegivet, at de betragter sanktioner som en form for krigsførelse, eller farverevolution som en form for krig. Det er årsagen til, at Kina og mange lande i det globale syd ikke tilslutter sig Vestens fordømmelse af Rusland. Kina ved præcis, at hovedårsagen til angrebet på Rusland er at fjerne en flanke, før man går efter Kina.

Den russiske økonom Glazjev har lavet en analyse, som er meget konkret. Jeg citerer: “At nedslide de russiske væbnede styrker i en krig med militante soldater fra Ukraines væbnede styrker, der er veluddannede og kontrolleres direkte af Pentagon, som er sammensat efter det nazistiske udsyn; officerer udpeget af den amerikanske og britiske efterretningstjeneste; at gøre Ukraines befolkning til zombier, der er inficeret af russofobi; parallelt hermed at vende verdenssamfundet mod Rusland og rejse anklager om krigsforbrydelser og folkedrab mod dets ledelse; på dette grundlag at konfiskere Ruslands udenlandske valuta som aktiver og indføre totale sanktioner mod landet, hvilket forårsager den størst mulige skade. Denne fase er faktisk afsluttet.” Sådan bliver han ved, og jeg ønsker ikke at citere. Vi kan give jer de nøjagtige artikler, hvor han beskriver alt dette.

Glazjev er også meget afklaret med, at det ikke vil fungere, fordi forskellen mellem de to systemer er, at det russisk-kinesiske system har til formål at forbedre det fælles bedste, mens det vestlige system i øjeblikket i virkeligheden har til formål at beskytte en lille elites privilegier.

Som I ved, blev Ruslands aktiver på 300 mia. dollars for nylig konfiskeret, og EU har nu iværksat den sjette sanktionsrunde. Alle disse anti-russiske sanktioner styrkede ikke, men underminerede tværtimod, USA’s og EU’s globale dominans, fordi resten af verden begyndte at behandle disse to med mistillid og ængstelse. De fremskyndede faktisk overgangen til en ny økonomisk verdensorden og forskydningen af verdensøkonomiens centrum til Sydøstasien.

I et nyligt offentliggjort strategisk dokument fra USA, kaldet National Defense Strategy 2022, nævner de Kina som den største modstander og trussel mod USA. Hvad er situationen? De fleste mennesker ved, at Kina i de sidste 40 år har skabt det mest omfattende økonomiske mirakel: De har løftet 850 millioner af deres egen befolkning ud af fattigdom, og de har været i stand til inden udgangen af 2021 at gøre en ende på den ekstreme fattigdom i Kina. I de sidste ni år har de udviklet den Nye Silkevej, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, som er påbegyndt at omdanne mange udviklingslande fra underudvikling og fattigdom. Derfor har vi i den nuværende situation netop nu en strategisk omlægning uden fortilfælde: Vi har et strategisk partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina, som nu også deles af Indien, som nægter at blive trukket ind i en anti-Rusland-alliance og en anti-Kina-alliance med Quad-landene, Sydafrika, som klart har nægtet at fordømme Rusland, og Nigeria ligeledes. Indonesien nægter at undlade at invitere Putin til det kommende G20-topmøde i november på Bali. Brasilien, selv med sin nuværende regering under præsident Jair Bolsonaro, angriber ikke Rusland, og hvis Lula da Silva vinder det næste valg, hvilket er meget sandsynligt, vil BRICS igen komme til at fungere. ASEAN-landene er ikke enige i fordømmelsen mod Rusland. Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO) naturligvis ikke. Den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU), Regional sammenslutning af økonomisk partnerskab (RECEP), som omfatter 2,2 milliarder mennesker, de nægter alle at blive trukket ind i en geopolitisk konfrontation mellem USA og NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side.

Samtlige af disse lande holder fast ved idéen om alliancefrihed, og det tror jeg er nøglen til fred lige nu. Fordi principperne for den alliancefri bevægelse, som var principperne i FN-pagten, Bandung-konferencen, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, som er suverænitet, ikke-indblanding i det andet lands indre anliggender, accept af det andet samfundssystem. Disse principper, som blev udviklet af Mahatma Gandhi, den indiske premierminister Jawaharlal Nehru og Josip Broz Tito, den daværende præsident for Jugoslavien, blev udfærdiget af Tito og Nehru i en fælles erklæring den 22. december 1954, og de sagde: “Politikken om ikke at alliere sig med blokke … repræsenterer ikke ‘neutralitet’ eller ‘neutralisme’; den repræsenterer heller ikke passivitet, som det sommetider hævdes. Den repræsenterer den positive, aktive og konstruktive politik, der som sit mål har kollektiv fred som grundlag for kollektiv sikkerhed.”

I dag er kløften ikke mellem demokratier og autokratier, som de vestlige medier fremfører, men den er meget klart mellem de tidligere og nuværende kolonimagter og de tidligere koloniserede lande, det globale syd, som repræsenterer mere end 80 % af verdens befolkning, og disse mere end 80 % er blevet fuldstændig udelukket fra de politiske beslutninger. Gabriel Valdes, der var Chiles udenrigsminister i 1960’erne, har fortalt, at Kissinger sagde til ham i juni 1969: “Der kan ikke komme noget vigtigt fra Syd”. Der er aldrig blevet skabt historie i syd. Historiens akse starter i Moskva, går til Bonn” – som var Tysklands hovedstad på det tidspunkt – “går over til Washington og derefter til Tokyo”. Hvad der sker i Syd er uden betydning.”

Jeg ved, at det er og har været holdningen hos det absolutte flertal af det etablerede samfund i USA og Europa. Jeg ved det fra min egen erfaring fra 50 års politisk arbejde.

Som en konsekvens af alt det, jeg lige har berørt, er der en absolut massiv reaktion på sanktionerne mod Rusland, sanktioner, som tidligere blev indført mod Venezuela, Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Yemen og Syrien, og resultatet er, at alle disse lande går sammen om at skabe et nyt finanssystem med Rusland, Kina og Indien som kerne.

Min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, skrev allerede i juli 2000 et yderst vigtigt dokument, som jeg kun kan anbefale enhver af jer at læse og studere, og hvis titel er: “Om en kurv bestående af råstoffer: Handel uden valuta”. (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2000/eirv27n30-20000804/eirv27n30-20000804_004-on_a_basket_of_hard_commodities-lar.pdf) Hvis I studerer dette dokument, vil I opdage, at der er mange konceptuelle ligheder med det, der sker i dag mellem Rusland og Kina, især fordi jeg mener, at hans idéer er blevet formidlet af os i to årtier, og jeg mener, at det, der sker lige nu, viser alle kendetegn ved hans idéer.

Han advarede i 2000 om, at vi allerede dengang var på randen af en demografisk katastrofe, og den demografiske katastrofe har vi nu! FN har udsendt advarsler om, at 1,7 milliarder mennesker på grund af sanktionerne og pandemien er i fare for hungersnød og sult. Derfor er det mest nødvendige lige nu, at der dannes et globalt partnerskab mellem landene i det globale syd, Rusland og Kina, og at der straks indføres en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, som i udviklingslandene tager form af kapitalkontrol, og at den spekulative del af det finansielle system afskaffes. Der skal indføres et nyt system, hvor hvert land har en nationalbank i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, som tilfældigvis var den første amerikanske finansminister i den unge amerikanske republik, hvilket er præcis, hvad Kina er ved at gøre – Kina er meget tættere på Det amerikanske System for økonomi, end folk er klar over. Som min mand sagde, sker det enten på en ordentlig og frivillig måde, eller også vil chokbølger af finansielt kaos fremtvinge en sådan reorganisering.

Hans advarsler i 2000 blev tydeligvis ignoreret, så det skete ikke på en velordnet måde, men nu er sanktionerne mod Rusland katalysator for ændringer i denne retning.

Nu henviser LaRouche i sine dokumenter til det, der er nødvendigt, nemlig en kreditpolitik, som blev brugt i de perioder, hvor økonomien i Europa og USA gik godt, egentlige vækstperioder. Det var i perioden mellem 1945 og 1965; det var dengang John F. Kennedy besluttede den økonomiske politik, Charles de Gaulle i Frankrig, eller Konrad Adenauer i Tyskland; det er i bund og grund det, som en berømt tysk økonom, Dr. Wilhelm Lautenbach, foreslog List-forbundet i 1931. Det var et forslag, som var helt i tråd med det, som Franklin D. Roosevelt gennemførte med New Deal i USA, nemlig at ethvert land har ret til at udstede kreditter med henblik på at sætte gang i økonomien, så længe disse kreditter udstedes efter meget klare kriterier for fysisk økonomi. De skal have til formål at øge arbejdsproduktiviteten og den industrielle kapacitet, og hvis dette sker, er kreditudstedelser ikke inflationsfremmende, fordi de skaber reel velstand. Man er absolut nødt til at indføre faste valutakurser og derefter udstede langsigtede kreditter med en rente på højst 1-2 %, og målet for at afgøre, om investeringerne er rigtige eller forkerte, er spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en sådan investering vil føre til en stigning i den potentielle relative befolkningstæthed. For at bruge et andet udtryk, vil det føre til en stigning i antallet af mennesker, der kan forsørges af denne økonomi, eller fører det til en reduktion af befolkningstætheden?

Vi befinder os lige nu i en epokegørende forandring, måske større end nogensinde før i historien. Præsident Xi Jinping siger, at der er tale om ændringer, som kun sker én gang hvert hundrede år. Derfor er vi nødt til at have en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som omfatter alle verdens landes interesser. Ikke kun den eurasiske arkitektur, for hvis man lader USA stå udenfor, er faren for, at det vil udløse en krig, stadig meget stor. Jeg ved, at der er mange mennesker, der gerne vil sige: “Lad os bare gøre vores egne ting og slippe af med USA, og så klarer vi os alle sammen fint. Jeg tvivler dog på, at det vil fungere. Jeg mener, at vi i traditionen fra Den Westfalske Fred, som afsluttede 150 års krig i Europa, har brug for en sikkerhedsarkitektur, som først og fremmest tager hensyn til udviklingslandenes interesser; der skal ske en forøgelse af levestandarden for hvert enkelt individ, både i Europa, USA, Rusland og Kina. Jeg mener, at det er afgørende for, om menneskeheden kan overleve. Det betyder, at vi har brug for et nyt paradigme i vores tænkning, nemlig idéen om, at hver nation har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale. Hvert barn, alle børn, der fødes, uanset i hvilken nation i verden, har ret til at udvikle sit fulde potentiale, hvilket betyder, at det skal have en universel uddannelse.

Det er det, som denne opfordring handler om. Vi har brug for, at unge i verden tager initiativ til at starte en diskussion om dette, for vi har aldrig været på et vigtigere tidspunkt i historien, og farerne har aldrig været så store, men potentialet for at skabe en helt ny verden har aldrig været så tæt på: At gøre en ende på kolonialismen, at skabe en økonomi baseret på termonuklear fusion, hvilket ville betyde, at vi har energi og råstof sikkerhed for alle nationer, at vi kan få et internationalt samarbejde om udnyttelse af rummet, at menneskeheden bliver voksen, og at geopolitiske krige bliver et spørgsmål fra fortiden.

Vi befinder os i en sådan overgang, og det er det, vi bør diskutere.

Kære konferencedeltagere fra hele verden! Det der bringer os sammen her i dag, med deltagere fra over 60 lande fra fire kontinenter, er vores dybeste bekymring over, at selve menneskehedens eksistens er i alvorlig fare. Formålet med vores konference er at gøre de stadig mere omfattende samfundsmæssige kræfter i verden opmærksom på, at der på grund af faren ved den nuværende eskalerende strategiske konfrontation snart kunne opstå en fuld militær konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland, som kunne føre til en verdenskrig, der efter al sandsynlighed ville betyde menneskehedens udslettelse i en efterfølgende atomvinter. Formålet med vores konference er derfor at demonstrere på den mest kraftfulde måde, at der findes et umiddelbart tilgængeligt alternativ, et nyt paradigme, som kan lægge denne dødelige trussel bag os og indlede en ny æra i menneskehedens historie i overensstemmelse med menneskehedens sande natur som den eneste hidtil kendte art, der er i stand til at ræsonnere.

Denne fare for nævnte store krigsfare begyndte ikke den 24. februar i år. Som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche forudsagde med forudseenhed i august 1971, efter at Nixon havde erstattet Bretton Woods-systemets faste valutakurser med flydende valutakurser, at en fortsættelse af denne pengepolitik – hvis den ikke korrigeres – uundgåeligt ville føre til en ny fascisme og en ny verdenskrig. Og 50 år senere er det præcis, hvor vi befinder os lige nu. Den akutte fare for krig, den større krig, skyldes at det transatlantiske neoliberale finanssystem allerede var på et fremskredent stadium af sammenbrud, meden hyperinflatorisk eksplosion af et håbløst bankerot system, før krigen i Ukraine begyndte.

For at forstå de virkelige årsager til krisen i Ukraine må man gå tilbage til årsagerne til, at den store historiske chance, der eksisterede efter Sovjetunionens opløsning for at etablere en ægte fredsordning, som vi foreslog med programmet for den eurasiske landbro dengang, blev forpasset. Et godt udgangspunkt, et vindue til at få et indblik, er et dokument, der oprindeligt blev lækket til New York Times af en whistleblower i marts 1992, og som blev kendt som Wolfowitz-doktrinen, der blev skrevet i ånden fra det tidligere Project for a New American Century. Dokumentet fastslog, at en del af den amerikanske mission ville være at sikre USA’s rolle som den eneste supermagt i den post-sovjetiske verden, der ville have tilstrækkelig militær magt til at afskrække enhver nation eller gruppe af nationer fra at udfordre USA’s forrang. Den 8. marts 1992 skrev New York Times: “[D]et er Pentagons hidtil klareste afvisning af kollektiv internationalisme, den strategi, der opstod efter Anden Verdenskrig, da de fem sejrsmagter søgte at danne et FN, der kunne mægle i konflikter og overvåge voldsudbrud.”

Wolfowitz-doktrinen var den egentlige årsag til, at det løfte, som udenrigsminister James Baker ved tre forskellige lejligheder i februar 1990 gav Gorbatjov om, at NATO ikke ville udvide “en tomme mod øst”, ikke blev holdt. Wolfowitz-doktrinen, der var baseret på det angloamerikanske særlige forhold, var det grundlæggende aksiom for en hel række politikker der fulgte, begyndende med den såkaldte “chokterapi” til de IMF-støttede liberale reformer i Rusland i 1990’erne, som i lyset af Ruslands rigdom på råstoffer og videnskabelige ekspertise udtrykkeligt havde til formål at eliminere en potentiel fremtidig konkurrent på verdensmarkedet, og som reducerede Ruslands industrielle kapacitet fra 1991-1994 til kun 30 %. Det var grundlaget for de forskellige interventionskrige i Irak, bombningerne mod Jugoslavien, krigene mod Afghanistan, Libyen og Syrien samt de fem NATO-ekspansioner mod øst.

Putins tale på sikkerhedskonferencen i München i 2007 var en dramatisk protest mod indførelsen af den unipolære verden, som i det væsentlige forblev lige så ubesvaret som de forskellige definitioner af “røde linjer” vedrørende Ruslands centrale sikkerhedsinteresser, indtil den seneste til USA og NATO, som Putin fremsatte den 17. december. Konflikten mellem påstanden om at opretholde en i det væsentlige unipolær verden og fremkomsten af en multipolær verden, som var det naturlige resultat af Kinas økonomiske fremgang, BRI’s tiltrækningskraft for over hundrede lande, det strategiske partnerskab mellem Rusland og Kina og senest mange lande, såsom Indien, Pakistan, Brasilien, Sydafrika og andre lande, der nægter at blive inddraget i den geopolitiske konfrontation mellem Vesten og Rusland og Kina. Denne konflikt er kernen i den nuværende fare.

Det er forfærdeligt, at vi har en krig midt i Europa, men det var krigene i Irak, Afghanistan, Libyen, Syrien, Yemen osv. også, men de fandtes næsten ikke i nyhederne. Og var der nogen der troede, at det russiske militær kunne have draget andre konklusioner, da de så indførelsen af stadig hårdere sanktioner, gennemførelsen af diverse Rand-tænketanksscenarier og koret af vestlige politikere om at “knuse” den russiske økonomi, “knuse” Putin, “knuse” det russiske system, den største atommagt på planeten? Og nu, efter at forhandlingerne mellem de russiske og ukrainske delegationer i Tyrkiet havde nået et første håbefuldt skridt, bruges billeder af krigens grusomheder, uden blot et minut af princippet om uskyldsformodning indtil det modsatte er bevist, til at indføre yderligere sanktioner, udvisning af diplomater og en åbenlys trussel om at ruinere Rusland.

Politikken er åbent rettet mod et regimeskifte i et forsøg på at gøre ikke blot Putin, men også hele Rusland til en paria blandt nationerne i en ubestemt fremtid, udelukke landet fra FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, ja, endog FN og G20, hvilket vil ødelægge disse institutioner. Det vil medføre en fuldstændig politisk og økonomisk afkobling mellem Vesten og Rusland og Kina. Denne politik har allerede gjort og gør ødelæggende skade på den fysiske økonomi på verdensplan, de såkaldte forsyningskæder, og den bringer antallet af potentielle ofre for en global hungersnød op på 1 milliard mennesker, dvs. en ottendedel af hele menneskeheden! Der er allerede hungerprotester i mange lande i Mellemøsten, Afrika og Latinamerika! I mellemtiden truer inflationen i priserne på fødevarer, energi og råvarer med at halvere industriproduktionen i mange lande. Der truer massearbejdsløshed og et totalt sammenbrud i kaos.

Et nyt system er allerede ved at opstå, centreret omkring Kina og BRI, Rusland, Indien og andre. Der er mange nye strategiske tilpasninger på vej; SCO, BRICS, OIC, Kina-forbindelserne, de mange forbindelser mellem det globale syd. Men selv opfattelsen af en multipolær verden løser ikke problemet, fordi den stadig indebærer faren for en geopolitisk konfrontation: Vi har brug for en markant og pludselig ændring i den måde, vi organiserer vores anliggender på. Den må starte med en ærlig, entydig erkendelse af, at en fortsættelse af den nuværende politik risikerer en konflikt, hvor der ikke ville være nogen vinder. Derfor er der behov for en ny fredskonference i traditionen fra den Westfalske Fred.

Erkendelsen af at den eneste mulighed, der var tilbage, var at føre fredsforhandlinger, gik op for de stridende parter efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa, hvoraf Trediveårskrigen kun var kulminationen; da de indså, at ingen ville være tilbage i live til at nyde sejren, hvis krigen fortsatte. I dag, hvor mange byer i en atomkrig ville være døde i løbet af få timer, ville resten af menneskeheden lide og sygne hen i en atomforurenet verden, indtil enten alt liv ophører, eller de få ulykkelige overlevende ville overveje, hvorfor menneskeheden ikke var i stand til at forhindre sin egen ødelæggelse.

Derfor må der straks indkaldes til en krisekonference i den Westfalske Freds ånd, hvor “For fredens skyld skal alle forbrydelser begået af den ene eller den anden side tilgives og glemmes”, og “For fredens skyld skal al politik tage hensyn til den andens interesser”.

Der må være en hensigt om at skabe en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til sikkerhedsinteresserne for hvert enkelt land på planeten. Der skal øjeblikkeligt indføres en våbenhvile. Og der skal skabes et nyt kreditsystem til erstatning for det bankerotte finansielle system, som er den egentlige årsag til krigsfaren. Det skal være baseret på principperne i det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system, som det var tiltænkt af FDR, men som på grund af hans tidlige død aldrig blev gennemført.

Disse principper, som Lyndon LaRouche skitserede i et “Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.”, der blev offentliggjort den 30. marts 1984, efter at Sovjetunionen havde afvist præsident Reagans tilbud om at samarbejde om at gøre atomvåben forældede ved hjælp af teknologiske midler, er stadig absolut gyldige i dag. I dette memorandum hedder det:

“Artikel 1: Generelle betingelser for fred

“Det politiske grundlag for varig fred må være: a) Den ubetingede suverænitet for hver enkelt og alle nationalstater, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med henblik på at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at deltage i fordelene ved teknologiske fremskridt til gensidig fordel for alle og enhver.

“Det mest afgørende træk ved den nuværende gennemførelse af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, der ofte klassificeres som “udviklingslande”. Medmindre de uretfærdigheder, der hænger tilbage i kølvandet på den moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke blive nogen varig fred på denne planet. For så vidt som USA og Sovjetunionen” – i dag Den Russiske Føderation og Folkerepublikken Kina – “anerkender, at fremskridt i den produktive arbejdskraft på hele planeten er i deres og begges vitale strategiske interesser, er de to magter i denne grad og på denne måde bundet af en fælles interesse. Dette er kernen i den politiske og økonomiske politik, som er uundværlig for at fremme en varig fred mellem disse to magter.”

Forpligtelsen til at engagere sig i et globalt program til udryddelse af fattigdom, som det f.eks. er skitseret i Schiller Instituttets rapport “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” eller Kinas forslag om et samarbejde mellem Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, USA’s Build Back Better-program og EU’s Global Gateway-program, kan blive det egentlige udviklingsmæssige grundlag for en global sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ukraine kan i stedet for at være kanonføde i en geopolitisk konfrontation udgøre en bro mellem Europa og de andre eurasiske nationer.

I lyset af den nuværende og den fremtidige fare for pandemier må der opbygges et moderne sundhedsvæsen i alle lande. I betragtning af den hungersnød, der truer 1 milliard mennesker på livet, og den forventede befolkningstilvækst skal regeringerne træffe hasteforanstaltninger for at fordoble verdens fødevareproduktion for at sikre en sund kost for alle mennesker.

Folkeretten, som den udviklede sig på baggrund af den Westfalske Fred og blev fastlagt i FN-pagten, skal genindføres uden begrænsninger. De fem principper for fredelig sameksistens skal være retningslinjerne for samarbejdet mellem alle nationer.

Den nuværende eksistentielle krise har vist, at menneskeheden har en fælles fremtid eller ingen, og at vi må sætte den fælles menneskeheds interesse før alle nationale interesser, og at alle nationale interesser fra nu af må være i samhørighed med hele menneskehedens interesse.

Det er et udtryk for vores menneskelige civilisations rigdom, at den har skabt forskellige kulturer. Vi må fremme dialogen mellem de bedste traditioner fra disse kulturer, de smukkeste frembringelser inden for videnskab og kunst, som et bevis på menneskets unikke kreativitet og på den måde skabe en ny renæssance, der vil indlede en ny æra for menneskeheden.

Vi vil erstatte had og fordomme mod andre kulturer, som kun eksisterer, hvis vi ikke kender dem, med en nænsom kærlighed til hele menneskeheden, fordi den er det mest værdifulde gode i det kendte univers.

Den 28. marts 2022 – Det følgende er en foreløbig udgave af et politisk forslag fra Schiller Instituttet, som blev udarbejdet og skrevet af en arbejdsgruppe fra Executive Intelligence Review, bestående af Claudio Celani, Richard Freeman, Paul Gallagher, Marcia Merry-Baker, Dennis Small og Karel Vereycken.

Resumé af handlingsplanen

Udviklingen i 2022 til dato har gjort det helt klart, at Lyndon LaRouches forudsigelser i det sidste halve århundrede om det uundgåelige sammenbrud af det finansielle system med flydende valutakurser efter Bretton Woods var rystende præcise. Verdensproduktionen af fysiske økonomiske basale varer er styrtdykket; hyperinflation af finansielle aggregater har udløst kraftigt stigende priser på forbrugs- og produktionsvarer, hvilket har gjort dem utilgængelige for en stor del af menneskeheden; handelskrig under dække af sanktioner er brudt ud på verdensplan; og pandemier af gamle og nye sygdomme har allerede direkte og indirekte kostet omkring 18 millioner mennesker livet. En global hungersnød er nært forestående.

De politiske ledere og massemedierne i Vesten giver patetisk Vladimir Putin skylden for alt dette – og mere til. Men den egentlige, underliggende årsag er det årtier lange fald i menneskehedens “potentielle relative befolkningstæthed”, som helhed – LaRouches metode til at måle et samfunds evne til at reproducere sig selv på et stadigt stigende niveau af velfærd, videnskab og klassisk kultur for en voksende befolkning – et sammenbrud, der er resultatet af den nedskæringspolitik, som City of London og Wall Street gennem et halvt århundrede har påtvunget os.

Den mekanisme, gennem hvilken denne politik i dag føres til sin “endelige afvikling”, er en radikal afkobling af verdensøkonomien i to bittert modsætningsfyldte blokke – en militariseret NATO-dollarblok og Bælte- og Vejblokken – som begge er tiltænkt at blive kastet ud i et inferno af affolkning og krig, meget muligt inklusive termonuklear krig.

Det er særligt sigende og forfærdeligt, at de spirende Bælte- og Vejforbindelser via jernbane, der strakte sig fra Kina gennem Rusland og ind i Europa, er blevet næsten fuldstændig afbrudt af de igangværende sanktioner og krigen.

Det er nu også på tide, at Lyndon LaRouches programmatiske løsning på denne krise bliver helt og aldeles indlysende, og at der handles derefter, over hele jorden – mens der stadig er tid til at gøre det. I modsætning til Londons malthusianske afkobling af verdens fysiske økonomi, må verdens nationer i stedet kobles sammen igen omkring et program for økonomisk vækst og sikkerhed for alle og enhver, en ny international arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling.

Det væsentlige i denne programmatiske politik blev fastlagt af LaRouche i hans Fire Nye Love fra 2014, som er lige så gældende i dag, som da de blev udformet for otte år siden (se boks 1 nedenfor). Under de nuværende omstændigheder med den åbenlyse “totale krig”, som det finansielle etablissement fører mod Rusland (og snart Kina), og som omfatter alle de væsentlige kendetegn ved strategisk tæppebombning af fjendtligt territorium, er det nødvendigt med en omgående handlingsplan, der er centreret omkring disse Fire Love:

1.Fysisk økonomi: Rusland har allerede vedtaget krigsøkonomiske foranstaltninger for at forsvare sin grundlæggende nationale kapacitet og garantere selvforsyning med de vigtigste økonomiske livsfornødenheder. Den “strategiske trekant” bestående af Rusland, Indien og Kina vil imidlertid være endnu mere effektiv til at opfylde de væsentlige fysisk-økonomiske behov hos deres fælles befolkning, som udgør 38% af verdens samlede befolkning, hvis de arbejder sammen. Denne RIC-kombination – som var den oprindelige kerne i det, der senere blev til BRICS-landene – producerer 43 % af verdens hvede, 23 % af naturgassen, 66 % af stålet og enorme mængder af råstoffer af afgørende betydning. De har også kapaciteter i verdensklasse inden for kerneenergi, jernbaner og andre infrastrukturer, rumforskning og andre avancerede teknologier (se tabel 1).

Tabel 1: RIC’s fysiske økonomi, udvalgte parametre (kommer senere)

På trods af mangler i visse økonomiske sektorer (værktøjsmaskiner og andre kapitalgoder, lægemidler, fly osv.) er RIC’erne stærkt positioneret med hensyn til den fysiske økonomi til at etablere en “regional blok, der enten opererer uden for eller parallelt med det eksisterende IMF-system”, som Lyndon LaRouche anbefalede for år tilbage. Alliancen mellem Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ (BRI) og den russisk ledede Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) er allerede en operationel hjørnesten i et sådant foreslået nyt arrangement.

2. Fast valutakurssystem: Handel og produktive investeringer inden for en sådan blok vil finde sted ved at etablere et fast valutakursforhold mellem deres valutaer med et lille spænd for midlertidige udsving. Denne ordning vil udelukke enhver indtrængen af spekulative finansieringsstrømme i dollar eller relaterede finansielle bevægelser. Pariteterne mellem deres respektive valutaer vil således ikke længere have noget forhold til det spekulative system med flydende dollarkurser, men vil blive fastlagt direkte af aftaler mellem regeringer og dermed ikke af det manipulerede spekulative “marked”.

Der vil også blive forhandlet om en regional fælles valuta for at lette international handel, investeringer og afvikling af konti – med en guldunderstøttet renminbi som en fremtrædende løsningsmodel. Dette vil gøre det muligt at “forhandle en række langfristede sæt af beskyttende traktat-aftaler på lang sigt om kredit, told og handel mellem en række førende nationer”, som LaRouche skrev i 2004 (se boks 2, vedlagt dette dokument).

3. Fuldstændig kapital- og valutakontrol og målrettet kredit: Hvert af landene vil også etablere en fuldstændig beskyttet national valuta og et nationalt banksystem, hvilket kræver: fuldstændig kapital- og valutakontrol; en fast valutakurs i forhold til andre valutaer (som angivet i punkt 2); og udstedelse af målrettet, produktiv kredit med lav rente til prioriterede projekter. I Ruslands tilfælde ville en guldunderstøttet rubel (eller en ny ” stærk rubel”) opfylde disse krav på en eksemplarisk måde; guldunderstøttede valutaer kunne også indføres i Kina og Indien, og dette kunne udvides til den fælles valuta.

Tiden med høje renter for at tiltrække “carry-trade”-spekulative finansielle strømme fra udlandet vil blive bragt til et brat ophør. I et land i udviklingssektoren har en sådan streng adskillelse mellem den beskyttede, produktionsbaserede nationale valuta og den spekulative London-orienterede internationale dollar den samme funktion som Glass/Steagall-bankadskillelsen i USA. Dette er en forudsætning for at etablere en Hamiltonisk nationalbank til at organisere udstedelsen af nye, lavt forrentede, produktive kreditstrømme til højteknologiske sektorer i nationens fysiske økonomi – “et massivt supplement af langfristet kredit til kapitaldannelse med indledende vægt på kapitaldannelse i den grundlæggende økonomiske infrastruktur”, med LaRouches ord.

4. RIC-plus: RIC-nationerne vil udgøre den grundlæggende kerne i en ny international arkitektur, som vil være åben for alle nationer, der er villige til at deltage på grundlag af sådanne sunde fysisk-økonomiske principper. Der er næppe tvivl om, at de fleste nationer i udviklingssektoren vil finde denne nye arkitektur langt mere fordelagtig for deres egne behov, end den ødelæggelse som det bankerotte transatlantiske finanssystem nu pålægger dem, og de vil hurtigt orientere sig mod en sådan foranstaltning. En mulig umiddelbar udviklingsblok er Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen eller SCO (Kasakhstan, Kirgisistan, Pakistan, Tadsjikistan og Usbekistan, ud over Rusland, Indien og Kina), som nogle førende eksperter har anset for at være tilstrækkelig bred til at fungere som en mulighed for at iværksætte et nyt guldbaseret monetært system uden dollar, baseret på en traktat mellem de lande, der har taget initiativ til det.

Den massive eksport af kapitalgoder til udviklingslandene vil være af central betydning for RIC-blokkens produktive ekspansion. Store infrastrukturprojekter i disse lande vil også være en integreret del af den økonomiske genopretning i verden. Langfristede, lavtforrentede kreditter til sådanne aktiviteter vil blive udstedt i den nye fælles RIC-valuta, på samme måde som renminbi allerede anvendes af BRI i dag, blot i langt større omfang. Kreditter til avancerede teknologiske produktive økonomiske aktiviteter – til forskel fra spekulative aktiviteter – er ikke inflationære og tilbagebetales bekvemt gennem den produktivitetsforøgelse, som sådanne investeringer vil medføre.

5. USA og Europa skal tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej: Det vil være af særlig betydning at få såvel USA som de europæiske nationer med i dette nye sæt af internationale aftaler. Det amerikanske og europæiske folk og deres økonomier vil klare sig langt bedre i forbindelse med RIC og Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, end under det afindustrialiserings- og affolkningsregime, som de nu står overfor under det nuværende bankerotte britisk styrede system. Lyndon LaRouche omtalte denne politik som en alliance mellem fire magter (Rusland, Indien, Kina og USA), som alene ville have den nødvendige styrke til at gøre en ende på det Britiske Imperium en gang for alle. For at gøre dette kræver det udelukkende, at USA vender tilbage til sit forfatningsmæssige formål, herunder det amerikanske økonomiske system, som Alexander Hamilton var banebrydende for, og at suveræne nationer i Europa handler på samme måde.

6. Genopbyg Ukraine gennem øst-vestligt samarbejde: Det umiddelbare fokus for et sådant økonomisk samarbejde til gavn for alle vil være Ukraine. Det, der i dag er en blodig slagmark, ville blive en model for øst-vest-samarbejde. Den engang så magtfulde ukrainske økonomi – ødelagt af 20 års økonomisk liberalisme efter uafhængigheden; efterfulgt af endnu en forringelse efter det vestligt ledede Maidan-statskup i 2014; og nu hærget af krig – kan genopbygges og genoplives ved hjælp af fælles bestræbelser. Ukraine vil blive omdrejningspunktet for transit via Bælte & Vej fra Kina til hele Europa og genopbygge Ukraines engang så magtfulde videnskabelige, tunge industri- og landbrugssektorer til gavn for hele verden.

Ovennævnte seks foranstaltninger udgør ikke en langsigtet strategi, ej heller er de et forslag på mellemlang sigt. De er en kortsigtet handlingsplan, der er nødvendig for at standse den massive økonomiske ødelæggelse, der allerede er i gang, stoppe de geopolitisk drevne krige og skabe den nødvendige arkitektur for en fremskyndet vækst og udvikling af alle nationer.

Boks 1: LaRouches “Fire Nye Love”

Den 8. juni 2014 skrev Lyndon LaRouche et dokument med titlen “De fire nye Love til at redde USA nu! Ikke en mulighed: En omgående nødvendighed”, som understregede følgende fire politiske krav:

1. Den øjeblikkelige genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, der blev indført af den amerikanske præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, uden ændringer, hvad angår handlingsprincippet. Det betyder, at hele den spekulative finansboble skal gennem en konkursbehandling.

2. En tilbagevenden til et system med et topstyret og grundigt defineret nationalt banksystem, som specificeret af USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton.

3. Formålet med brugen af et sådant føderalt kreditsystem er at skabe en højproduktiv udvikling i forbedringer af beskæftigelsen; med den ledsagende hensigt at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet og levestandarden for personer og husholdninger.

4. Vedtage et fusionsdrevet “lynprogram” for at fremme de fundamentale gennembrud inden for videnskab, som ubegrænset økonomisk vækst og udvikling kræver.

LaRouche-planen fortsætter med følgende kapitler:

1. Sanktioner afkobler verdensøkonomien og fører den ud mod afgrunden
2. Sanktioner fremskynder det transatlantiske finansielle sammenbrud
3. Udkast til plan for genopbygning og udvikling af Ukraine

En pdf af hele rapporten findes nedenunder.

Udkast til en plan for at genopbygge og udvikle Ukraine

Følgende er det sidste kapitel fra (Link:) LaRouches plan for en ny international økonomisk arkitektur

Fred gennem udvikling er kodeordet for politikken for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, og det skal anvendes umiddelbart i forbindelse med genopbygningen af et neutralt Ukraine efter krigen.

Selv om omfanget af ødelæggelserne som følge af den igangværende krig er ukendt på nuværende tidspunkt, er det en kendsgerning, at Ukraines økonomi kan og bør genopbygges og omdannes til en førende videnskabelig-teknologisk avanceret økonomi som et knudepunkt mellem den østlige og vestlige del af Eurasien. Det kan hæve sin levestandard og sin arbejdsstyrkes kognitive og kreative evner, samtidig med at det afviser City of London-IMF’s destruktive rådgivning, som har ført landet til tre årtiers økonomisk ødelæggelse. Det kan genopbygges ud af de murbrokker, som den nuværende krig efterlader i sit kølvand.

Ukraines iboende potentiale er stort. Landet har historisk set haft en kvalificeret og produktiv arbejdsstyrke med kvalifikationer i verdensklasse inden for en række områder. Det har et betydeligt industrielt bælte i regionen mellem og inklusive Dnipropetrovsk-regionen og Donetsk Folkerepublikken (tidligere Donetsk-regionen i Ukraine), som har produceret mere end en tredjedel af Ukraines samlede industrielle udbytte. (I denne undersøgelse betragter vi den omstridte Donetsk Folkerepublik [D.P.R.] og Luhansk Folkerepublik [L.P.R.], hvis nøjagtige status vil blive fastlagt ved fredsforhandlinger, og Ukraine som en del af den samordnede region, der skal udvikles). Ukraine har design- og maskinfabrikkerne Juzhmash og Juzhnoye, der er involveret i produktion af rumfartøjer, raketter og støbegods, og Antonov Aeronautics, der er specialiseret i fragtfly, som alle kunne udvides til at producere rumrelaterede køretøjer, men en del af dem kunne ombygges til at fremstille f.eks. laserværktøjsmaskiner.

Landet er udstyret med 20 % af jordens “sorte muld”, der kan producere rigeligt med hvede, korn og mange andre landbrugsafgrøder, både til eget brug og til eksport til hele verden. Landets jernbanenet er gammelt og nogle steder nedslidt, men det kunne opgraderes til at omfatte elektrificerede højhastighedstog eller magnetiske svævebaner, idet man udnytter dets privilegerede centrale geografiske beliggenhed til hurtigt at transportere varer og mennesker nord-syd og øst-vest gennem hjertet af Eurasien, et centralt led i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet. Ukraine er faktisk det perfekte omdrejningspunkt for at erstatte det nuværende globale paradigme for økonomisk sammenbrud og krig, med en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der er baseret på princippet om fred gennem udvikling.

Tredive års ødelæggelse

Efter Sovjetunionens opløsning i 1991 erklærede Ukraine sig uafhængigt den 24. august 1991, men dets “uafhængighed” blev kortvarig. Med det samme kom en sværm af økonomer fra IMF, Wall Street og City of London og gennemtvang en politik med privatisering, lukning af fabrikker, fyring af arbejdere osv. Økonomen Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, formand for Ukraines progressive socialistiske parti (PSPU), dissekerede resultaterne af denne destruktive politik på en konference den 13.-14. april 2013, hvis tale blev gengivet i EIR-magasinet den 3. maj 2013. Vitrenko berettede: “Hvor Medens Ukraine tidligere havde 16 store værktøjsmaskinfabrikker, som producerede 37.000 værktøjsmaskiner i 1990, er der nu kun tre tilbage, som knap nok er på benene; de producerer kun 40 værktøjsmaskiner om året.”

Vitrenko bemærkede endvidere, at hvis man sammenligner niveauet i 2012 med 1990, så var Ukraines elproduktion efter 22 år faldet med 35 %, dets stålvalseproduktion var faldet med 57 %, og dets traktorproduktion var kollapset med 94,3 %. I løbet af disse år med pengepolitisk “uafhængighed” mistede Ukraine 12 millioner arbejdspladser, og befolkningen blev gradvist fattigere.

Et vendepunkt i Ukraines historie indtraf i slutningen af 2013: Den ukrainske præsident Viktor Janukovitj besluttede den 21. november at undlade at underskrive en associeringsaftale om frihandel med EU, og han overvejede andre alternativer for Ukraines udvikling. Den 3.-6. december aflagde Janukovitj et statsbesøg i Beijing. Her mødtes han med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og forpligtede Ukraine til at tilslutte sig Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, hvis oprettelse Xi havde annonceret blot tre måneder tidligere den 7. september i Kasakhstan. Den 5. december kommenterede det kinesiske udenrigsministerium mødet: “Ukraine har engang skabt vigtige forbindelser mellem de østlige og vestlige civilisationer, og ligger på den vej som den kontinentale bro over Eurasien skal passere. Ukraine er klar til at deltage i opbygningen af “Silkevejens Økonomiske Bælte”. Den kinesiske part udtrykker tilfredshed med dette og er parat til at drøfte relevant samarbejde med den ukrainske side.”

Kina og Ukraine underskrev en strategisk partnerskabsaftale, og Kina indvilligede i at investere 8 milliarder dollars i Ukraines økonomi, ifølge Ukraine Monitor fra 6. december 2013.

Samarbejde med Rusland var også på dagsordenen. Den daværende russiske vicepremierminister, Dmitrij Rogozin, havde etableret en arbejdsgruppe om russisk-ukrainsk industrisamarbejde, der involverede militær og fælles rumproduktion, som blev konsolideret med Rogozins rundrejse fra 1.-3. december til industrianlæg i industriområdet Dnepr-bugten, der kulminerede med et møde med Ukraines daværende premierminister Mykola Azarov.

Disse udviklingsperspektiver var mere, end det forfærdede britiske og amerikanske etablissement kunne tolerere, og de gik “live” med gamle kapaciteter i Ukraine, herunder Victoria Nuland, den daværende amerikanske vicestatssekretær for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, og netværkene omkring tilhængere af den pro-nazistiske kollaboratør Stepan Bandera, som blev indsat for at optrappe vold og kaos for at vælte Janukovytj-regeringen – hvilket det lykkedes dem at gøre den 24. februar 2014. Den på forhånd udvalgte Arsenij Jatsenjuk blev indsat som premierminister den 27. februar 2014 på Victoria Nulands opfordring for at genindføre City of London-IMF-politikken, der havde anstiftet så megen ødelæggelse og lidelse i Ukraine i 21 år.

Mellem 2012 og 2019 faldt Ukraines samlede arbejdsstyrke med 3,96 mio. arbejdstagere eller med 18,6 %; arbejdsstyrken inden for landbruget faldt med 486.000 arbejdstagere (med 13,9 %); arbejdsstyrken inden for industrien faldt med 884.000 arbejdstagere (med 26,4 %); og arbejdsstyrken inden for fremstillingsindustrien (en del af industriarbejderne) faldt med 443.000 arbejdstagere (med 19,5 %).

I 1992 havde Ukraine en samlet befolkning på 51,9 mio. mennesker. I 2012 var den faldet til officielt 45,4 millioner, selv om økonomen Vitrenko oplyste, at det faktiske tal dengang var 39 millioner. I 2020 var det officielle befolkningstal 41,4 millioner, inklusive befolkningen i Donbas (men med Vitrenkos justering ville det være tættere på 35 millioner). Efter officielle standarder har Ukraine haft den største befolkningsnedgang af alle europæiske lande mellem 1992 og 2020, og alt dette skete før den russiske militæroperation i Ukraine den 24. februar 2022. Nu er der yderligere ca. 4 millioner ukrainere, som er emigreret til udlandet, og et ukendt antal, der er blevet internt fordrevet.

At vende processen, at genopbygge Ukraine

Ukraine kan tage nogle afgørende skridt som en del af en ny international økonomisk arkitektur, som præsenteret tidligere i dette dokument.

For det første bør Ukraine i første omgang lægge den største vægt på at genopbygge og udvikle sin produktive arbejdsstyrke. I en webcast den 7. december 2012 sagde økonomen Lyndon LaRouche følgende: “Vi har én befolkning på denne planet, og vi har brug for hvert eneste forbandede individ på denne planet: Vi har behov for dem! De har et formål med at eksistere, fordi de kan blive mere produktive, og når de bliver mere produktive, så bliver deres børn mere produktive og så fremdeles; menneskehedens evne til at håndtere disse problemer øges.”

I løbet af det næste årti bør Ukraine sigte mod at få 10 millioner arbejdere tilbage i arbejdsstyrken, herunder 4 millioner flere industriarbejdere, og af dem bør der være en stigning på 2 millioner arbejdere i fremstillingsindustrien.

I 2019 havde Ukraine 118.935 fremstillingsvirksomheder, nogle med så få som fem ansatte. I dag er det utvivlsomt langt færre, men Ukraine bør sigte mod at øge dette med ca. 50.000 nye fremstillingsvirksomheder inden 2032 og udvide størrelsen og arbejdsstyrken i eksisterende fremstillingsvirksomheder. Den førende sektor i denne forbindelse bør være maskinværktøjsindustrien, og der bør bringes mestermekanikere fra Kina, Tyskland, Italien og Schweiz til at arbejde sammen med ukrainske værktøjsmaskineksperter for at uddanne en ny generation af værktøjsmaskinarbejdere.

Ukraine har en officiel ungdomsarbejdsløshedsprocent, der svinger mellem 15 % og 22 %, selv om den reelle arbejdsløshedsprocent angiveligt er meget højere. Ukraine bør oprette et civilt bevarelseskorps efter samme model, som det USA’s præsident Franklin Roosevelt oprettede i USA i marts 1933 for at ansætte og uddanne arbejdsløse unge. Det ukrainske korps bør fokusere på lægeligt og hospitalsmæssigt hjælpearbejde og endog støttefunktioner i forbindelse med opbygning af hospitaler og anden infrastruktur, sammen med uddannelseskurser, der gives om aftenen, som en del af et verdenssundhedssystem efter de retningslinjer, som Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche har foreslået.

For det andet skal Ukraine genopbygge mange af sine byer og genopbygge og modernisere sit industribælte. En betydelig del af områdets industri er koncentreret i to store regioner: Dnipropetrovsk-regionen i den sydøstlige del af landet og D.P.R. i den østlige del, som hver især havde frembragt omkring 17 % af Ukraines industriproduktion før krigen.

D.P.R. koncentrerer sig overvejende om stålproduktion, kemisk industri og kulminedrift. Det har også videnskabelige centre. Det er vigtigt, at Donetsk by og Mariupol udgør to ender af en enkelt industrikorridor med industrivirksomheder. I Mariupol ejer selskabet Metinvest, der kontrolleres af milliardæren Rinat Akhmetov, to store stålværker samt andre anlæg, der tilsammen angiveligt beskæftiger 40.000 mennesker. Den demokratiske Folkerepublik er blevet negativt påvirket af faldet i kulproduktionen. I 2013 producerede Ukraine 84 mio. tons kul. Sidste år var tallet nede på 29 mio. tons, hvilket er et brat fald på to tredjedele. En stor del af områdets miner er placeret i Donbas-regionen. Flere af D.P.R.’s kulminer er blevet oversvømmet af voldsomme regnskyl i de sidste par år og gjort ubrugelige, og centralregeringen i Kyiv har ikke gjort meget for at hjælpe. Dette har skadet Ukraines stålproduktion. De britiske royales hellige “Great Reset”-korstog mod kul skader Ukraine yderligere.

Dnipropetrovsk-regionen, der er et center for sværindustri, er kendetegnet ved mange anlæg, der producerer en bred vifte af industri- og kapitalgoder, herunder støbejern, valset metal, rør, maskiner, maskiner, mineudstyr, landbrugsudstyr, traktorer, sporvogne, køleskabe og fødevareforarbejdning.

Flere store mineselskaber er beliggende i Kryvyi Rih, den længste by i Europa, som ligger i Dnipro-regionen. ArcelorMittal, den største stålproducent i Ukraine med en årlig produktion på mellem 4 og 6 millioner tons, er beliggende i Kryvyi Rih. Juzhmash og Juzanoye, to store statsejede virksomheder, som var kernen i Sovjetunionens forsvars- og rumfartsproduktion, ligger også i Dnipro-regionen.

I disse to industricentre, som tilsammen producerede mere end en tredjedel af Ukraines industriproduktion, er en del af fabriksudstyret nedslidt – nogle stammer fra den midterste del af Sovjettiden – og en del af infrastrukturen er utilstrækkelig. Deres opretholdelse vil kræve betydelige kapitalinvesteringer i teknologisk opgradering og modernisering af kapitalgoder og anlæg samt opførelse af mange nye fabrikker. Dette bør være en fælles indsats i form af en Marshallplan-lignende indsats fra industrinationerne i Vest og Øst, ikke ulig det der var nødvendigt for at hjælpe med at genopbygge Tyskland efter Anden Verdenskrig.

For det tredje, jernbaner. Den vedlagte figur med titlen “Railroad and Road Corridors Across Eurasia”, som først blev vist i Schiller Instituttets rapport “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge”, bind II, viser Ukraines fysiske centrale placering i forhold til World Land-Bridge. I øjeblikket går 80-90 % af den godstrafik, der transporteres fra Asien til Europa, gennem jernbanelinjerne i den nordlige korridor, som går gennem Rusland, og som er blevet bragt næsten til standsning på grund af sanktionerne.

[[Indsæt MAP på s. 108 i SI specialrapport]]

En del af Ukraines jernbanenet er forældet og har et stort behov for genoplivning. Halvdelen af dets 21.640 kilometer (13.447 miles) er elektrificeret, men det kan ikke håndtere højhastighedstrafik undtagen på nogle få strækninger. I 2021 underskrev Krzaliznytsia, de ukrainske jernbaner, imidlertid en aftale med det italienske jernbaneselskab Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane om at gennemføre en forundersøgelse af muligheden for at indføre højhastighedstogtrafik i Ukraine. Centralt i forslaget er opførelsen af en højhastighedsjernbanelinje fra Odessa til Kyiv til Lviv, en afstand på 790 km (489 miles). Denne højhastighedsrute skal udvides til at forbinde det vestlige Ukraine (hvor Kyiv og Odessa ligger) med Dnipro og D.P.R. i øst. Systemet omfatter passagertransport, men det bør udvides til også at befordre gods. Kineserne, der er verdens førende aktør inden for jernbanebyggeri, er også interesseret i at bygge højhastighedstog i Ukraine.

En jernbanelinje med højhastighedstog til transport af passagerer og gods gennem Ukraine ville kræve ca. 10.000 km nye strækninger (6.200 miles).

For det fjerde har Ukraine en meget fremtrædende og kompetent rumfartsindustri, som er forankret i det Kyiv-baserede Antonov Aeronautics og virksomhederne Juzhmash og Juzhnoye. Både Juzhmash og Juzhnoye har hovedkvarter i den sydøstlige ukrainske by Dnipro i Dnipropetrovsk-regionen, der er døbt “Rocket City” efter sin rumindustri. I sovjettiden fungerede Dnipro som et af de vigtigste centre for rum-, atom- og militærindustrien og spillede en afgørende rolle i udviklingen og fremstillingen af ballistiske missiler til U.S.S.R. Et af de kraftigste interkontinentale ballistiske missiler (ICBM’er), der blev anvendt under Den kolde Krig, var R-36, som senere blev et forbillede for Tsyklon-familien af løfteraketter. Både R-36 og Tsyklon blev designet af Juzhnoye og fremstillet af Juzhmash.

Vejen ud af den militære produktion var rumfartsindustrien. Begge virksomheder blev rygraden i landets rumindustri og byggede over 100 løfteraketter om året. I Vesten fik de opmærksomhed for at designe og fremstille de første trin til Antares-raketten, som opsendte Northrop Grumman Cygnus-lastbilen til den internationale rumstation. Og Juzhnoye fremstiller også motorer til Europas Vega-raketter.

Ud over rumfartøjer og raketter fremstiller Juzhmash også landingsgear, støbegods, smedegods, traktorer, værktøj og industriprodukter. Disse virksomheder og andre af Ukraines forsknings- og produktionsfaciliteter råder over gigantiske hangarer og komplekse testsystemer, der repræsenterer investeringer i milliarder af dollars.

Antonov Aeronautics fremstiller især tunge militære og kommercielle transportkøretøjer samt passagerfly og er også førende på verdensplan inden for lufttransport af rumkomponenter og fragtrelaterede satellittransporter. I 2016 blev det lagt ind i det nyoprettede Ukrainian Aircraft Corporation.

Juzmash, Juzhnoye og Antonov beskæftiger tilsammen 40.000 medarbejdere, hvoraf mange er ingeniører, rumforskere osv. De og deres komplekse enheder, udgør en ægte perle, ikke kun for rumforskning, men for deres bredere kapacitet, hvoraf en del kunne producere nye produkter såsom laserværktøjsmaskiner og mange andre avancerede maskiner, som Ukraine og andre nationer vil få brug for.

For det femte er Ukraines rige sorte muld en velsignelse for menneskeheden. Ukraine er en af verdens største korneksportører og eksporterer ifølge USA’s landbrugsministeriums prognose fra marts 2022, for perioden 2021/22, 20 mio. tons hvede, 27 mio. tons majs og 6 mio. tons byg. Landet er verdens største producent af solsikkefrø og en af verdens syv største producenter af kartofler, tørrede ærter, gulerødder, agurker, græskar, kål, raps, sukkerroer osv. Med de rette internationale ordninger kunne det brødføde en del af Afrika.

For det sjette kræver alle disse projekter en enorm mængde støtte. Den økonomiske politik i Ukraine, der er dikteret af IMF, London og Wall Street, må ophæves fuldstændigt og omgående. Den har medført ødelæggelse, plyndring, sult og sygdom for det ukrainske folk fra 1991 til i dag.

Kreditbehovet for det ovenfor beskrevne program for Ukraines genopbygning vil med lethed beløbe sig til mellem en halv og en billion dollars. Det kan ikke opnås gennem IMF-City of Londons spekulative globale monetære kasino-system. Ukraine bør anvende Glass/Steagall-loven for at sætte sit finansielle system under øjeblikkelig konkursreorganisering og oprette en Hamiltonisk nationalbank som erstatning for centralbanken for at udstede de nødvendige mængder af målrettede kreditter til den produktive del af økonomien.

Alle disse foranstaltninger vil blive gennemført, som vi skitserede i det indledende afsnit af dette dokument, inden for rammerne af et nyt globalt kreditsystem, som sammen med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet vil skabe en revolution i global udvikling.

The following excerpt is taken from Lyndon LaRouche’s January 12, 2004 essay, “On the Subject of Tariffs and Trade.”

Now, the world’s present, floating-exchange-rate monetary-financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. It must be placed into governments-controlled receivership for necessary forms of administration and reorganization. Virtually none of the leading banking institutions of western Europe and the Americas (among other cases) are not implicitly bankrupt presently. Therefore, the first, most immediate objective of intervention by sovereign governments must be stability of the normal functions of society; the second, short- to medium-term objective, must be an increase in productive employment to levels sufficient to bring current accounts of nations into balance; the third objective must be the negotiation of a nested array of long-term sets of protectionist treaty-agreements on credit, tariffs, and trade among a set of leading nations. The latter agreements should range from one to two generations: corresponding to capital cycles of from twenty-five to fifty years.

The possibility of a recovery from the condition presently bequeathed to us by the combination of the floating-exchange-rate IMF system and the wildly aberrant behavior of central banking systems of nations, depends upon a massive supplement of long-term credit for capital formation, with initial emphasis on capital formation in basic economic infrastructure. To sustain such a program of expansion over two generations, as we must, requires a system in which fundamental borrowing costs must be no higher than between 1-2% simple-interest rates. This can be achieved only under conditions defined by a fixed-exchange-rate monetary-financial system. Therefore, this means a ‘gold reserve system,’ but not a revival of a British-style (or looney Ezra Pound’s) ‘honest money’ sort of gold standard system. This also means a system of long-term trade and tariff agreements among nations, to an effect consistent with such goals as long-term growth of capital formation.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Se de første prominente underskrivere nedenunder.

23. februar 2022 — I lyset af den eskalerende Ukraine-krise spørger folk rundt om i verden indtrængende sig selv og deres politiske ledere, hvor det hele skal ende. Er dette på vej mod en meget stor, måske endda termonuklear, global konfrontation? Står vi over for en omvendt, farligere Cuba-krise? Vil menneskeheden overhovedet overleve?

Bag denne meget reelle krigsfare og årsagen til denne, ligger sammenbruddet af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. En spekulationsboble af derivater og gæld på næsten 2 billiarder dollars er allerede ved at gå op i røg. En proces med hyperinflation er blevet udløst globalt, med et ledsagende sammenbrud af de vestlige nationers fysiske økonomier. City of London og Wall Street, ejerne af dette bankerotte system, er desperate efter at ødelægge ethvert fungerende alternativ til deres system – såsom Ruslands og Kinas alliance omkring Bælte- og Vej-initiativet, som nu omfatter næsten 150 nationer – og det finansielle etablissement har åbent erkendt, at det er det, der er på spil.

Det samme har Vladimir Putin, som med rette har erklæret, at USA’s/Storbritanniens/NATO’s ubarmhjertige ekspansion mod øst, op til Ruslands grænser, er drevet af denne økonomiske politik, og at den truer Ruslands nationale sikkerhed på en måde, som Rusland ikke kan acceptere.

For at standse fremdriften mod krig, er det derfor nødvendigt at anvende en mere gennemgribende tilgang, nemlig at etablere et helt nyt paradigme, som vil sikre sikkerheden og den økonomiske udvikling for alle nationer på jorden. Den eneste nyere præcedens for dette i Vesten, er den Westfalske Fred fra 1648, som satte en stopper for 150 års religionskrige i Europa. Den blev først udformet på det tidspunkt, hvor alle parter indså, at hvis de fortsatte ad deres nuværende vej, ville der ikke være nogen vindere og meget få overlevende. De valgte at skabe et nyt paradigme, baseret på forsvaret af den andens interesser, og på den forudsætning at alles sikkerhed var den grundlæggende forudsætning for hver parts sikkerhed.

Det er den vigtigste læresætning af den Westfalske Fred for i dag. Verden står i dag ved en lignende skillevej. Hvis den nuværende geopolitiske politik fortsætter, udgør en atomkrig en meget reel mulighed – hvorefter der ikke vil være nogen vindere, og sandsynligvis heller ingen overlevende.

I stedet må der straks indkaldes til en international konference, i stil med det Westfalske Fredsinitiativ. Den grundlæggende opgave for alle parter er at sikre, at der tages hensyn til de centrale økonomiske og sikkerhedsmæssige interesser for hver enkelt part – med andre ord en orden baseret på den andens fordel, på det fælles bedste, eller den almene velfærd, og på en grundlæggende kærlighed til hele menneskeheden.

Det økonomiske system må også omformes drastisk for at give udtryk for dette livssyn. Den berømte amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouche specificerede meget detaljeret, hvordan et sådant system ville fungere, baseret på det han kaldte sine Fire Love:

Den øjeblikkelige genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, som blev iværksat af den amerikanske præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, uden ændringer, hvad angår handlingsprincippet. Det betyder, at hele den spekulative finansboble skal underkastes en konkursbehandling.

En tilbagevenden til et system med topstyret og nøje defineret nationalt banksystem, som angivet af USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton.

Formålet med brugen af et sådant føderalt kreditsystem er at skabe højproduktive udviklingsforløb med henblik på at forbedre beskæftigelsen, med den ledsagende hensigt at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet og levestandarden for personer og husholdninger.

Vedtag et “lynprogram” med fusionsdrevet teknologi for at fremme de grundlæggende videnskabelige gennembrud, som ubegrænset økonomisk vækst og udvikling kræver.

Schiller Instituttet og dets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, udsender denne opfordring for at igangsætte den presserende internationale diskussion, der er nødvendig for at indkalde til en sådan konference og stoppe det såkaldte “Dommedagsur”, før det slår midnat. Det er på høje tid, at institutioner og enkeltpersoner fra alle nationer træder frem og slutter sig til mobiliseringen for en international konference med henblik på at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer.

Skriv under på underskriftindsamlingen her på skrivunder.net:

Links til underskriftindsamlingen på andre sprog: 
Spanish, Italian, French, Swedish, Arabic, Danish, Portugese, German, and Chinese.

Panel 2:
 

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rasmussen: How would you say democracy works in China?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Li: Exactly.

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

Li: I fully agree with your remarks and comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Li: Thank you very much.

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

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

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

Lydfil: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.

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

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

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

Når Mette Frederiksen i sin rolle som statsminister inden for få dage har afholdt hele to pressekonferencer, hvor hun flankeret af udenrigsministeren og forsvarsministeren har talt i forherligende toner om kampen for frihed og suverænitet, så er det nok et tegn på, at det er netop de erklærede principper, som hun i en studehandel er blevet pålagt at ofre for fortsat opbakning til hendes fremadrettede personlige karriere. Da Anders Fogh Rasmussen brugte sin platform som dansk statsminister til at støtte Storbritanniens og USA’s ulovlige krig imod Irak, der blev legitimeret med løgnen om at Irak havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, endte det som bekendt med, at han blev belønnet med posten som generalsekretær for Nato og en international rolle som arrangør af konferencer til støtte for den britisk-amerikanske kampagne for at nedbryde suveræniteten hos de lande, der formaster sig til ikke blindt at følge de diktater, der kommer fra London og Washington.

Hvad har Mette Fredriksen gang i? At give USA ret til at udstationere militærpersonel og udstyr på dansk jord under amerikansk suverænitet afskaffer Danmarks nationale suverænitet og vil i stedet afsløre Danmark som en ren amerikansk vasalstat. Selv i de mørkeste stunder under den kolde krig, da Danmark var truet af sovjetiske planer om en besættelse af Danmark, var det noget, som danskere med respekt for både nationen og sig selv ikke ville tillade. Det ville have reduceret Danmark fra en nation til blot at være kanonføde i supermagternes stedfortræderkrig (Afghanistan er et skoleeksempel på, hvordan den slags typisk ender).

Forslaget til en ny forsvarsalliance mellem Danmark og USA har som sin grundantagelse, at vi skal forberede os på krig med Rusland, noget som bliver underbygget af mediernes svulstige krigspropaganda. Men siden den kolde krigs afslutning har Rusland på intet tidspunkt truet Danmark eller andre dele af Nato, men har tværtimod passivt set til, mens stadig flere dele af det tidligere Sovjetunionen og dets interessesfære blev indlemmet i Nato. Da turen så kom til Ukraine, sagde Rusland fra, og kræver nu aftaler, der kan garantere Ruslands fremtidige sikkerhed. Det burde være en kærkommen anledning til at diskutere en inkluderende sikkerhedsarkitektur for Europa, som det faktisk blev lovet Rusland, da de satte Østtyskland og de andre tidligere Warszawapagt-lande fri i lighed med de andre sovjetrepublikker. En sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor både øst og vest kan føle sig hjemme. I stedet ser vi en mobilisering for sanktioner og krig, hvor Danmark nu skal spille en udvidet rolle, på bekostning af danske interesser.

Hvordan kan det forsvares, at Mette Frederiksen overhovedet overvejer at sige ja til et for Danmark så ufordelagtigt og potentielt ødelæggende forslag i dag? Blot fordi en ven kræver at få lov til at dele seng med din ægtefælle eller dit barn, så behøver man jo ikke takke ja. Det er tydeligt, at Mette Frederiksen har lavet en aftale med djævelen, som i dette tilfælde er den britisk-amerikanske finansielle magtelite, der kontrollerer den vestlige efterretnings- og sikkerhedspolitik. I betragtning af den berettigede foragt, som Mette Frederiksen med flere udviste for Helle Thorning-Schmidt og andre, der helt åbenlyst var villige til at ofre sine vælgeres og nationens interesser for at være en del af magten, så vil nemesis ramme dobbelt hårdt, hvis Mette Frederiksen fortsætter med dette skoleeksempel på hybris.

Om Mette Frederiksen har fået et tilbud hun ikke kunne afslå, eller hvad hun forventer at få som tak for denne ofring af danske interesser og suverænitet, ved jeg ikke. Givet er det, at det på ingen måde er i dansk interesse at indgå en sådan aftale. Det vil ikke forbedre den danske sikkerhed men kraftigt forværre den. Danmark vil flytte sig selv ind i kategorien af strategiske mål for atommagten Rusland. Danmark udstiller sig samtidigt som et land, der ikke længere frit kan handle og interagere med det voksende antal lande, der i lighed med den nylige Beijing-erklæring fra Rusland og Kina ikke længere vil acceptere en særlig vestlig ret til at bestemme de internationale spilleregler, men som mener, at vi skal have en multipolær inkluderende verdensorden, hvor alle nationer bliver respekteret og kan samarbejde uden først at skulle spørge om lov i London eller Washington.

At Mette Frederiksen foreslår dette samtidigt med at chefen for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Lars Findsen, er varetægtsfængslet under anklage for højforræderi og uden mulighed for at kommunikere med offentligheden, bør få mere end et enkelt øjenbryn til at løfte sig og få flere end blot mig til at spørge, hvad pokker der egentlig foregår? Vi må råbe vagt i gevær og få Folketingets medlemmer til at gøre op med den slappe følgagtighed, de plejer at udvise over for magtens arrogance, specielt blandt ”de gamle” partier, og sammen med modige patrioter i de danske institutioner få stoppet denne ødelæggelse af dansk suverænitet og danske interesser inden det er for sent.

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

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

Talerlisten inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsen fra Danmark.

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

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

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

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

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

Panel 1; kl. 16 dansk tid:

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

Talerlisten på engelsk:

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A Session

Panel 2: kl. 20 dansk tid:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A Session

———————

Den opringelige invitation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvem kan benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab?

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

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

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

Hvad er årsagerne til den humanitære krise i Afghanistan?

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

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

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

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

Andre talere vil være:

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

Temur Umarov, forsker ved Carnegie Moscow Center

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

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

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

———————

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her er Statsministerens udveksling med EIR-journalist Michelle Rasmussen:

EIR: Det er Michelle Rasmussen, Executive Intelligence Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jyllands-Posten.

EIR: Undskyld. Udenrigsministeren vil sige noget. 

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

KØBENHAVN, 27. januar 2022 — Schiller Instituttet i Danmark har gennemført et vigtigt, timelangt videointerview med Li Xing, ph.d., professor i udvikling og internationale relationer ved Aalborg Universitet i Danmark. Li Xing er medlem af det samfundsvidenskabelige fakultet på Institut for Politik og Samfund og leder af forskningscentret for udvikling og internationale relationer. Han er oprindeligt fra Jiaxing nær Shanghai og arbejdede i Beijing, inden han kom til Danmark i 1988 for at tage sin kandidat- og ph.d.-grad.

Det omfattende interview dækker Kinas forbindelser med USA, Europa (USA–Kina-rivalisering), Rusland (Kina ville støtte Rusland, hvis det blev smidt ud af Swift-betalingssystemet), Europa og Afrika (Kinas udviklingsprogram er en hjælp for Europa i forbindelse med flygtningeproblemet), Latinamerika (Kina har fremmet den økonomiske udvikling i USA’s baghave, mens USA har været fokuseret på krige og farverevolutioner), Afghanistan (med helhjertet støtte til Operation Ibn Sina) og andre udviklingslande.

Det omfatter også, hvad professor Li Xing ville sige til præsident Biden om forbindelserne med Kina, Xi Jinpings Davos-tale, Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og Xinjiang-spørgsmålet. Han opfordrer USA og Europa til at samarbejde med Kina om deres respektive nødvendige infrastrukturudvikling, for at fremme udviklingen af de underudviklede lande og for at droppe den geopolitiske taber-strategi. Han slutter med at rose Schiller Instituttets udviklingsprogrammer for verden.

Interviewet, der blev foretaget af Michelle Rasmussen, vil blive transskriberet til offentliggørelse i EIR og er nu tilgængeligt på Schiller Instituttets YouTube-kanal i Danmark.

Here is a pdf version published in Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 49, No. 5 (www.larouchepub.com/eiw). We encourage you to subscribe.:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW

Professor Li Xing

Cooperate with China – It Is Not the Enemy

The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Prof. Li Xing, PhD, conducted on Jan. 26 by Michelle Rasmussen, Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. Dr. Li is a professor of Development and International Relations at the Department of Politics and Society, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Aalborg University. Li Xing was born in Jiaxing, China, near Shanghai. He earned his BA at the Guangzhou Institute of Foreign Languages. He came to Denmark from Beijing in 1988 for his MA and later completed his PhD studies at Aalborg University.

Subheads have been added. A video of the interview is available here . https://youtu.be/rulm1czmaTE

Michelle Rasmussen: Welcome, Professor Li Xing, thank you so much for allowing me to interview you.

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you too.

Michelle Rasmussen: Li Xing, as we speak, there is an overhanging threat of war between the United States and NATO against Russia and China, countries which the war faction in the West sees as a threat to the disintegrating, unipolar Anglo-American world dominance.

On the other hand, the Schiller Institute has led an international campaign to try to get the U.S. and Europe to cooperate with Russia and China to solve the great crises in the world, especially the pandemic, the financial and economic crises, the underdevelopment of the poor countries, and the cultural crisis in the West. Our international president, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, has stated that the U.S.-China relationship will be the most important relationship in the future.

You recently gave a lecture at the Danish Institute for International Studies about the U.S.-China rivalry. And you are a contributor to the book The Telegram: A China Agenda for President Biden by Sarwar Kashmiri, which was published in 2021 by the Foreign Policy Association in New York City. The book is composed of statements by the contributors of what each would say if they were granted a personal meeting with President Biden. What would your advice be to President Biden regarding China?

Advice to President Biden

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you for giving me this chance for this interview. If I had the chance to meet the President, I would say to him:

Hello, President Biden. I think that it is a pity that you didn’t change Trump’s China policy, especially regarding the trade war and the tariff. We can see from the current situation that in the U.S., the shortages issue, the inflation issue, these are all connected with tariff issue. Many congressmen and senators are calling for the removal of the tariffs. So, I really think that the president should give second thoughts to continuing the trade war. Contrary to this, though, the data from 2020 and 2021 shows that the China-U.S. trade actually surged almost 30%, compared with early years. So, the trade war didn’t work.

The second issue is the competition in the area of high technology areas, especially regarding the chip industry. I’d say to him:

Mr. President, the U.S. has the upper hand in that technology, and China has the largest market. I think that if the U.S. continues to use a technology sanction on Chinese chips, then the whole country and the whole nation will increase the investment on the chips. Once China has the technology, then the U.S. would both lose the market, and also lose the advantage in that technology.

So, this is the second issue, I think the president should give a thought to.

The third issue, which I think is a very touchy issue, is the Taiwan issue. I would really advise the President:

Mr. President, to play the Taiwan card needs caution, because Taiwan is the center of Chinese politics, in its historical memory, and the most important national project in the unification process. So, to play the Taiwan card really needs caution.

But still, I would also say to the President:

Mr. President, China and the U.S. have a lot of areas for cooperation. For example, climate change; for example, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan; and last but not least, because China has great technology and skill in terms of infrastructure, so you, Mr. President, should invite China to come to the U.S. and play a role in the U.S. infrastructure construction projects. That would be an ideal situation to promote bilateral relations.

Attitude of the U.S. Toward China

Michelle Rasmussen: In your statement in the book, The Telegram, you address whether the United States should consider China as an enemy or as rival. What would you say to the American people about the attitude that the United States should have towards China?

Prof. Li Xing: I don’t think that the U.S. should regard China as an enemy, but as a rival. I think there is a truth in that because China is obviously a rival to the United States on many, many grounds, both in materials and also in ideation. Nevertheless, it is not an enemy. China and the U.S. have so many areas of cooperation as you point out, that this bilateral relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world. Were this relationship turned into an enemy relationship, it would be a disaster for the world.

Michelle Rasmussen: On January 17, Chinese President Xi Jinping addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos. What do you think is most important for people in the West to understand about his speech?

Prof. Li Xing: Xi Jinping was invited to the World Economic Forum, and he sent some messages. In his address he admitted that economic globalization has created problems, but that this should not constitute a justification to write off everything regarding globalization, regarding international cooperation. So, he suggested that the world should adapt and guide globalization.

He also rejected the protectionist forces on the rise in the West, saying that history has proved time and time again that confrontation does not solve problems; it only invites catastrophic consequences.

President Xi also particularly mentioned protectionism, unilateralism, indirectly referring to the U.S., emphasizing that this phenomenon will only hurt the interest of others as well as itself, meaning that the U.S. trade war, or sanctions against China, will hurt both. It’s not a win-win, it’s a lose-lose. President Xi delivered a message that rejects a “zero sum” approach. I think it was a very constructive message from President Xi Jinping. He totally rejects, if I interpret his address correctly, the Cold War mentality. He doesn’t want to see a Cold War mentality emerge in either the U.S., or in China.

The Belt and Road Concept

Michelle Rasmussen: Let’s move on now to the question of the Belt and Road Initiative. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Schiller Institute has worked to establish a new Silk Road, the World Land-Bridge, and many of these economic principles have been coming to life through China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Li Xing, in 2019 you wrote a book, Mapping China’s One Belt One Road Initiative, and have lectured on this. How has the Belt and Road Initiative created economic development in the underdeveloped countries?

Prof. Li Xing: First of all, I think that we need to understand the Belt and Road concept—the historicity behind the Belt and Road; that the Belt and Road is not an international aid program. We have to keep that in mind. It is an infrastructure project attempting to link Eurasia. It has two routes. One is a land route, consisting of six corridors. Then, it has another route called the Maritime Silk Road. Globally, about 138 countries, ranging from Italy to Saudi Arabia to Cambodia, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China. Just recently another country in Latin America signed up with the Belt and Road.

The idea of the Belt and Road is founded on two basic Chinese economic strengths. One is surplus capital. China has a huge amount of surplus capital in its banks, which it can use for investments. The second is that after 40 years of infrastructure development in China, China has huge technology and skill, particularly in the infrastructure development area. So, the Belt and Road is basically an infrastructure development project.

The driving force of China’s Belt and Road is that after 40 years of economic development, China is experiencing a similar situation experienced by the advanced countries in world economic history—for example, rising wages, overproduction, overcapacity, and a lot of surplus capital.

So, China is looking for what the Marxist analytical lens calls a ”spatial fix,” as in its domestic market, the mass production manufacturing is getting extremely large. In looking beyond Chinese territory at Chinese neighbors, China has discovered that all the countries around China are actually very, very far behind in infrastructure development. So, it’s kind of a win-win situation. The idea behind the Belt and Road is a kind of a win-win situation.

Historically, the Post World War II Marshall Plan in Europe, and the military aid to East Asia, were, you could say, like Belt and Road projects, helping those countries to enhance economic development. I recently came across a World Bank study pointing out that if the Belt and Road projects were successfully implemented, the real income level throughout the entire region would rise between two or four times. At the global level, the real income can rise between 0.7 -2.9%. So, you can say, the international financial institutions, and economic institutions like World Bank, are also very positive toward the Belt and Road.

However, the Belt and Road also has four areas which we need to be concerned about. Number one: the debt trap, which has been discussed quite a lot at the global level. Number two: transparency, whether the Belt and Road projects in different countries are transparent. This, too, is an issue for debate. Number three: corruption, whether Chinese investments in countries creates corruption by local officials. The number four area for concern is the environmental and social cost. So, these definitely need to be taken care of, both by China and those countries.

As a whole, I think the Belt and Road project is huge. It’s very constructive. But we also need to consider its potential to create bad effects. We need to tackle all these effects collectively.

‘Debt Trap’ Diplomacy

Michelle Rasmussen: When you spoke just now about a debt trap, our correspondent Hussein Askary, who covers the Muslim world, and also developments in Africa, has argued against the idea that China is creating a debt trap, pointing out that many of the countries owe much more money to Western powers, than they do to China, and that China has done things like forgiving debt, or transferring physical assets to those governments, because the debt trap accusation has been used as the primary argument against the Belt and Road. Do you think that this is a legitimate argument or that this is overplayed to try to just create suspicion about the Belt and Road?

Prof. Li Xing: No, I fully agree, actually, with the comment you just quoted from another study. It is true that the “debt trap” has been used by Western media, or those politicians who are against the Belt and Road, as an excuse, as a kind of a dark picture. But, according to my research, China actually understands this problem, and very often, the Chinese government uses different measures, or different policies, to tackle this problem. One is to write off the debt entirely, when the borrowing country would really suffer, if it had to repay. For example, the Chinese government announced that during the pandemic, debt service payments from some poor countries is suspended until their economic situation improves.

China is a central-government-based country. State policy plays a bigger role than in the political system of the West, where different interest groups drive their countries’ policies into different directions. Therefore, the Chinese central government is able to play a bigger role than Western governments in tackling debt problems.

Michelle Rasmussen: What has this meant for the underdeveloped countries, for example, in Africa, and other poor countries in Asia, in Ibero-America? What has the Belt and Road Initiative meant for their economic development?

Prof. Li Xing: The increasing number of countries that have signed up with the Belt and Road, shows that the Belt Road project is comparatively quite welcomed. I have also followed many debates in Africa, where many African leaders were asked the question and they completely agree. They say that the situation regarding the debt of the old time, their experiences with the colonial countries, is quite different from the debt incurred with China’s investment projects or development projects. So, they still have confidence in China’s foreign development policies, especially in the Belt and Road project. From the many studies and reports I have read so far; they have strong confidence in that.

Infrastructure Means Development

Michelle Rasmussen: What would you say about the role of infrastructure development in China in creating this unprecedented economic growth and lifting people out of poverty? What role has infrastructure played in the incredible poverty elimination policy that China actually succeeded in achieving this year?

Prof. Li Xing: The entire 40-year history of China’s economic growth and economic development, and China’s prosperity, is based on the lesson that infrastructure is one of the most important factors leading to China’s economic success. China has a slogan: “If you want to get rich, build a road.” Infrastructure is connected with every aspect of national economy. The raw materials industry, the metal industry, you name it. Cement industry, etc. Infrastructure is really the center of a nation’s economy, which can really get different areas of the country running. So, I think this experience of China is really a good lesson, not only for China itself, but also for the rest of the world, especially for developing countries.

That’s why China’s Belt and Road project, identified as infrastructure projects, is really welcomed by many people, and especially President Biden. Even though his budget was not passed, because of the resistance, or even if it’s shrunken, the idea about improving U.S. infrastructure, became a kind of hot spot. I think that the U.S. needs to increase its infrastructure investment as well. Definitely.

Europe-China Relations

Michelle Rasmussen: Let’s move on to Europe and China relations. You have edited the book China-U.S. Relations at a Crossroads: “Systemic Rivalry” or “Strategic Partnership.” What is your evaluation and recommendation about European-Chinese relations? When we spoke earlier, you had a comment about how the impact of African development, if there would be development or not in Africa, would impact Europe. Could you also include your idea about that?

Prof. Li Xing: EU-China relations are increasingly complex, and affected by a number of interrelated factors, such as China’s rise, the growing China-U.S. rivalry, U.S. global withdrawal, especially under the Trump administration, the trans-Atlantic split, the Brexit, and at the same time, the China-Russia comprehensive alliance. Under these broad transformations of the global order, EU-China relations are also getting very complex. Right now, I feel that the EU and China are struggling to find a dynamic and durable mode of engagement, to achieve a balance between opportunities on the one side, and challenges on the other, and also between partnership and rivalry.

For instance, China and the EU successfully reached what is called the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment treaty in December 2020. It was a joyful moment. However, in 2021, due to the Hong Kong events, the Xinjiang issue, and mutual sanctions in 2021, this investment treaty was suspended. Not abandoned but suspended. You can see that the relationship can be hurt by events. It’s really difficult to find a balance between strategic partnership and systemic rivalry. “Systemic rivalry” was the official term used in a European Commission document, “EU-China—A Strategic Outlook,” issued March 12, 2019. That document states that China is “simultaneously … an economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.”

So, you can see that a systemic rival means alternative normative values. That’s why it’s a new term, when used in that way. It shows that China’s development has both a material impact, and, also, an ideational impact—that many countries are becoming attracted by the Chinese success. For that reason, the Chinese, and the rise of China is increasingly regarded as a systemic rival.

On the other hand, the message from my book is also that the EU must, one way or another, become autonomous, and design an independent China policy. Sometimes I feel that the EU-China policy is somehow pushed around or carried by U.S. global interests, or affected by the U.S.-China competition. I really think Europe needs an independent China policy. You know, the EU is thinking of developing “defence independence.” That is, it is pursuing autonomy in defense. But that’s something else.

According to data from Kishore Mahbubani, a very well-known Singaporean public intellectual and professor, the Belt and Road has special meaning for Europe in relation to Africa. This is of importance to your question about Africa.

According to his data on the demographic explosion in Africa, Africa’s population in the 1950s was half of that of Europe. Today, Africa’s population is 2.5 times that of Europe. By 2100, Africa’s population will be 10 times of that of Europe. So, if Africa still suffers from underdevelopment, if any crisis appears, where will African refugees migrate? Europe!

From Kishore’s point of view, the Belt and Road is doing Europe a “favor,” so Europe should be very supportive of China’s Belt and Road project. I totally agree with that. What he says is also a part of the message of my book.

A ‘Differentiated’ Europe

Michelle Rasmussen: You were speaking about Europe becoming more autonomous in its relations with China. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated openly that Germany should not be forced to choose between the United States and China, that Germany needs to have relations with both. Can you say more about that? Is China Europe’s biggest trading partner?

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, since November last year.

Michelle Rasmussen: There’s differentiation inside Europe. For example, the Eastern European countries have a forum called “16+1,” where 16 Eastern European countries, plus China, have a more developed Belt and Road cooperation with China, than the Western countries. And there’s differentiation in the western European countries. You mentioned that some are making Hong Kong and Xinjiang into obstacles to improving European relations to China. What would you say to these concerns?

Prof. Li Xing: China-EU relations are being affected by many, many factors. One is, as you mentioned, about 16+1, but now it’s 17+1, because, I think two years ago, Greece became a part of 16+1, so now it’s 17+1. And the western part of the EU, was quite worried about the 17+1 because some think that the Belt and Road plays a role in dividing Europe. Because Europe has this common policy, common strategy, and common action toward the Belt and Road, they also see the 17+1 grouping as somehow playing a divisive role. So, the EU is not very happy about that. Because you’re right, the Belt and Road is more developed in the eastern part of the EU. This is one issue.

The second issue is that the EU has to make a balance between China on the one side, and the U.S. on the other. Right now, my assessment is that the EU is somehow being pushed to choose the U.S. side. It’s fine with me, from my analytical point of view, that the EU, most of the countries in the West, the traditional U.S. allies—like including Denmark—if they choose the U.S., that’s fine. But my position is that their choosing sides should be based on their own analysis, their own national interests, not purely on the so-called values and norms, that the U.S. and EU share norms, and therefore should have a natural alliance. I think that is not correct. I always advise Western politicians, thinktanks, and policy makers that they should study China-U.S. relations or EU-China-U.S. relations and try to find their own foreign policies. What is the correct direction? And based on their own judgment, based on their own research results, not based on what the U.S. wants them to do.

Michelle Rasmussen: One of Denmark’s top former diplomats, Friis Arne Petersen, has been Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, to China, and to Germany. At the Danish Institute for International Studies, he recently called for Europe to join the Belt and Road Initiative. Why do you think it would be in the interest of Europe and the United States to join or cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, instead of treating it as a geopolitical threat?

Prof. Li Xing: Well, on the Belt and Road, as we have already discussed, we must first understand what it is. I fully agree with Friis Arne Petersen. When he was Ambassador to Beijing, I met him at one of the international conferences. He was always very positive towards Denmark-China cooperation. I fully agree with his point on the Belt and Road. But we have to understand, first of all, why the West is nervous about the Belt and Road. This is very important, because the European’s or the American’s worry is based on two perspectives. One is geopolitics. The second is norm diffusion. Geopolitics means that through the Belt and Road, China’s economic political influence will gradually expand to cover all of Eurasia, which is not in the interest of the West. This is a geopolitical rationale.

Then the second perspective is norm diffusion, which means that through the Belt and Road, the Chinese development model spreads. As I mentioned before, because of the global attraction to China, the Chinese development model will be consolidated and extended through the Belt and Road, and that is also not in the interest of the West. That’s why China is a “systemic rival,” because it has a norm diffusion effect. We have to understand these two aspects.

But why should Europe support the Belt and Road? I have already discussed this issue in my answer to your previous question regarding the importance of infrastructure development, and regarding why Europe should support the Belt and Road, especially in the context of Africa.

Michelle Rasmussen: And you also spoke about the need for infrastructure development in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave the United States a grade point average of C- for the state of its infrastructure. Looking at high speed rail in China and in the United States, there’s nothing to compare.

Prof. Li Xing: No, no.

Michelle Rasmussen: In its 14th Five-Year Plan, China has committed itself to increase its high-speed rail lines by one third, from the present 38,000 kilometers to 50,000 kilometers by 2025. The U.S. has maybe a hundred and fifty kilometers.

Prof. Li Xing: I was told by American friends that the U.S. has not invested heavily in infrastructure for many, many decades, about half century, something like that. I was shocked to hear that. So, I think Biden’s idea of infrastructure investment is great, but somehow the bill could not be agreed on by the Congress, and also the Senate, due to partisan conflict.

Michelle Rasmussen: And it was not very ambitious in any case.

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, totally.

Reordering the World Order

Michelle Rasmussen: It was a step in the right direction, but was not very ambitious.

Let’s move on to Latin America, which we in the Schiller Institute call Ibero-America. That’s because our members say that the Spanish language did not proceed from Latin. The Iberian Peninsula is Portugal and Spain, so Ibero-America is a better term. In any case, Li Xing, you are working on a study, China-U.S. Rivalry and Regional Reordering in Latin America. Can you please share the main idea with us?

Prof. Li Xing: Yes. I’m working on this book, together with a group of Latin American scholars from different countries in the region. The objective of the book is to provide a good conceptualization, first, of the changing world order, and the reordering process. When we talk about that the world order is changing because of the U.S.-China rivalry, at the same time, we also suggest that the world is experiencing a reordering process, that we do not know the future order, or the new order, but the world is in the process of reordering, driven by the China-U.S. rivalry.

The book will also try to convey that the U.S.-China rivalry, according to our conceptualization, is “intra-core. According to the world system theory, you have a core which is the advanced economy countries, then you have a semi-periphery, and then you have a periphery. The semi-periphery is between periphery and the core, and the periphery is the vast number of developing countries. So the China-U.S. rivalry, competition, especially in high technologies in the security areas, is between these two core countries, or is intra-core.

The China-U.S. rivalry also represents a struggle between two types of capitalism. On the one side is Chinese state capitalism, very centralized, state led, with central planning. On the other side is the U.S. free market, individual capitalist economy. Somehow the China model is gradually appearing to be more competitive. Of course, the U.S. doesn’t agree with that assessment, at least from the current perspectives.

So, this rivalry must have a great impact on the whole world, especially on the developing world we call the Global South. Here we’ve tried to focus on the U.S.-China rivalry, and its impact on the Latin American and Caribbean region.

The message of the book is, first, that global redistribution of power is inevitable. It’s still in process, and the emerging world order is likely to be dominated by more than one superpower, so the world order will likely look like a polycentric world, with a number of centripetals competing for high positions or strong positions. This is the first message.

The second message is that the situation shows that the world is in a reordering process driven by the competition between the two superpowers, and it poses opportunities, and also constraints, to different regions, especially for the Global South, such as Latin America, because Latin America is the U.S. backyard; it is the subject of American doctrines—that North America and South America, are a sphere of U.S. influence.

The Monroe Doctrine

Michelle Rasmussen: You’re talking about the Monroe Doctrine?

Prof. Li Xing: The Monroe Doctrine. Thank you very much. North America and South America have to be within the U.S. hegemonic influence. No external power is allowed to have a hand in, or interference in these two regions. You can say that China’s relations with Latin America has really been increasing tremendously during the past two decades.

At the same time, the U.S. was busy with its anti-terrorism wars, and its creation of color revolutions in other parts of the world. If you look at the investment in infrastructure, and also imports of agriculture, China-Latin American trade and Chinese investment in Latin America are increasing tremendously, dramatically, which becomes a worry, a really deep worry, to the U.S.

The different scholars, the book’s chapter authors, will use different countries and country cases as examples to provide empirical evidence to our “theoretical conceptualization.” This book will be published around summertime by Brill, a very good publisher in Holland.

Michelle Rasmussen: Well, actually, the Monroe Doctrine was adopted in 1823, in the very early history of the United States. This is after the United States had become a republic and had freed itself from the British Empire. It was actually John Quincy Adams—

Prof. Li Xing: Exactly.

Michelle Rasmussen:—who was actually involved in the idea, which was that the United States would not allow imperialism, imperial powers to bring their great power games into Latin and South America, but that the United States would help those countries become independent republics. So the question becomes, will Chinese policy strengthen the ability of the Ibero-American countries to be republics and enjoy economic development, or is China’s intention also a kind of imperialism?

Prof. Li Xing: Based on your definitions, on your conceptualization of the Monroe Doctrine, you can say that there are two implications. One is that the U.S. should defend these two regions from imperialist intervention. The U.S. itself was not an imperial power at that time. The U.S. didn’t have intentions to become a global interventionist then, but today it is a different situation.

Second, that the U.S. definitely interprets Chinese investment and infrastructure cooperation, and economic investment in Latin America as “helping,” to consolidate the country’s independence? No, I don’t think that is the case. That would be a kind of positive-sum game. Today, unluckily, these two countries are trapped into a zero-sum game. Whatever China is doing in the South American region, is interpreted as not being good for United States. That’s a very unfortunate situation.

Michelle Rasmussen: Actually, we in the Schiller Institute have said that if the United States were to join with China to have even better economic development in Ibero-America; that would be a win-win policy. You spoke about the immigration challenge from Africa to Europe. It’s the same thing from Ibero-America to the United States. People would much rather stay in their own countries if there were jobs, if there were economic development,

Prof. Li Xing: Yes.

Michelle Rasmussen: And if the United States would join with China, then instead of—

Prof. Li Xing: —building the wall! Instead of building the wall!

Michelle Rasmussen: Exactly, exactly.

Prof. Li Xing: Yeah, I agree with you.

Operation Ibn Sina

Michelle Rasmussen: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the President of the Schiller Institute, has stated that one very important way to lessen the war danger between the United States, Russia and China would be for these countries to join forces to save the people of Afghanistan, where there is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world now, after the war, the drought, and the freezing of Afghanistan’s central bank assets by the western countries. She has proposed what she calls Operation Ibn Sina, named after the great physician and philosopher from that region, to build a modern health system in Afghanistan to save the people from disease, and as a lever to stimulate economic development.

I know that when we spoke about Afghanistan before, you also referred to very important discussions now going on in Oslo, for the first time, between the Taliban and Western governments, including in the United States.

But what do you think about this idea of China and the United States, and also Russia and other countries, joining hands to act to alleviate the terrible crisis for the people of Afghanistan?

Prof. Li Xing: It’s a superb idea. This is one of the initiatives by the Schiller Institute. When I read your website, you have many development projects, and this one is a great idea. This is one of the areas I mentioned where the U.S. and China have a common interest. Unfortunately, what is happening today is the Ukraine crisis and the China-U.S. rivalry—so many battle fronts—puts Afghanistan more into the background.

Right now, the Taliban delegation is talking with the West in Oslo, and I really hope there will be a constructive result, because after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s Taliban government immediately went to China. And it was a Chinese interest. It was in China’s fundamental interest to help Afghanistan, because if Afghanistan is safe and prosperous, then there will be no terror and terrorism coming from Afghanistan across the border. Many of the terrorists in Xinjiang actually based themselves in Afghanistan. So it is in China’s national interest to help Afghanistan.

Right now, I don’t know whether it is still in the U.S. interest to help Afghanistan. The U.S. might be tired of that region, because the U.S. lost two trillion dollars in the Afghanistan war, without any positive results. So, I do not know. I cannot tell the what the U.S. politicians’ feelings are, but the U.S. holds $9.5 billion of Afghanistan assets. And I think that money has to be released to help in the country’s rebuilding.

And particularly, the Schiller Institute’s suggestion of a health care system is the priority. When people are in good health, then people can work, and earn money. When people have a job or have a family, normally, people do not move. According to refugee studies, people normally do not move just because of a shortage. People move because of a situation devastated by war, by climate change, by various crises. Otherwise, people are relatively stable and want to stay in their homeland.

Xinjiang

Michelle Rasmussen: You mentioned Xinjiang again now. Do you have something to say about Xinjiang for people in the West?

Prof. Li Xing: I think that there are a lot of misunderstandings between the West and China, especially the misunderstanding from the Western side concerning Xinjiang. The other day, I saw a debate at Oxford University between an American former politician and a British former politician, about whether China is a friend or a foe. The American representative put forward the claim that in Xinjiang, we are experiencing what is called genocide. But later, at the end of his discussion, he admitted that there is no genocide, but he deliberately used genocide as a kind of provocation in order to receive attention from the world. The British representative asked if this view caused such a bad misunderstanding, misperception, then why not just give it up?

Do not use genocide. You can criticize China for human rights abuses. You can criticize China for its minority policies, etc. But to deliberately defame China is not a good way. I don’t think it’s a good way. We also have to be fair.

On the one side, you can criticize China’s policy treating problems in the minorities and others. But you have to also condemn terrorist actions because there were a lot of terrorist bomb killings in that region, especially from 2012-2015, around that time.

I was in Xinjiang as a tourist in 2011, and I was advised to not pass by some streets, because there could be some risks. You can see that it was a very tense situation because of a lot of bombings. People pointed out to me, here were some bombings, there were some bombings. You don’t understand. So, the West should be fair and condemn these things, while at same time, also advising the Chinese government to develop a more constructive policy to resolve the problem, rather than using harsh policies. It has to be fair. This is the first point.

Second, is that genocide not only defames China, it’s also contrary, it’s opposite to the facts. Twenty years ago, 30 years ago, Xinjiang’s Uighur population was about five million or eight million. But after 30 years, I think it’s about 11-13 million. I do not know exactly, but there has been a growth of population. How can you claim genocide, when the local population is increasing? Do you understand my point? So, this is not a good attitude. It is not a very good way to discuss with China and it makes China much more resistant in talking with you, when China fears that it is being defamed.

When some Western sources, in particular one German scholar, use a lot of data from a Turkish scholar, who is connected to the “minority resistance” from Xinjiang, then the credibility, reliability of the source is in question. You understand my point. So, the Xinjiang issue is rather complicated, but the West and China should have a dialogue, rather than use in this specific discourse rhetoric to frame China in a way that China is the bad guy. It should be condemned. I think this is not constructive.

The SWIFT System

Michelle Rasmussen: Going back to the war danger, what do you think the impact on China and on the world economy would be, were the U.S. to force Russia out of the SWIFT international payment system, or similar draconian measures?

Prof. Li Xing: Let me tell you that Olaf Scholz, the current German Chancellor, already expressed it very well, saying that if Russia were sanctioned and pushed out of the SWIFT payment system, then Europe could not pay Russia for its gas and oil. “If we can’t pay Russia, then Russia will not supply us. Then what should we do?”

I read in the news today that the U.S. said, “We could supply most of Russia’s oil and gas.” Then Europe began to ponder: “Well then, this war has become your war, you know—a very egoistical interest, because you actually want to replace Russia’s gas and oil supply. That’s why you want to instigate the war.”

So, I think it’s the U.S. that has to be very cautious in its sanctions, because the only sanctions possibilities for the United States today against major powers is financial, is payment—it’s the U.S. dollar. That’s the intermediate currency, the SWIFT system.

And when China sees this, that only strengthened China’s conclusion to develop what we call electronic currency. China is using a lot of energy today investing in electronic currency. This electronic currency is a real currency. It’s just electronic. It’s being implemented in some big cities in test trials.

Then, back to the SWIFT system, [if a country were thrown out] it would be rather impossible or would rather create a lot of problems in the international payment system, then the whole system will more or less collapse, because most countries watch this, and they will try to think about how they should react in the future if the U.S. uses the same system of sanctions against them. I just mentioned China, but also many other countries as well. They have to find an alternative.

One other alternative is to use currencies other than the U.S. dollar as much as possible. I just read in the news today that the Chinese yuan has surpassed the Japanese yen as the fourth international [reserve] currency. And the situation will accelerate in that direction. So, I think that the U.S. should think twice.

On China-Russia relations, I definitely think that China will help Russia in case the U.S. really implements a sanction of pushing Russia out of the SWIFT payment system. China definitely will help Russia, because both face the same pressure, the same struggle, the same robbery from the U.S.

So, it is very bad. It is extremely bad strategy from the U.S. side to fight, simultaneously, on two fronts with two superpowers. This is what Henry Kissinger had said many times during the entire Cold War period. The U.S. was able to keep relatively stable relations between U.S. and China and between U.S. and the Soviet Union, keeping the Russia and China fighting against each other. But now it’s the opposite situation. The U.S. is fighting with two big powers simultaneously. I don’t know what is in the mind of the U.S. politicians. I really think that the U.S. needs to redesign its strategic foreign policy.

The Schiller Institute

Michelle Rasmussen: Yeah. We’ve been speaking mostly about the U.S., but the British really are an instigator in this: the British Old Empire policy of trying to drive a wedge between the United States, Russia and China. That also has a lot to do with the current situation. We spoke before about that the Schiller Institute is trying to get the United States’ population to understand that the whole basis for the existence of the United States was the fight against the British Empire, and against this divide and conquer strategy, and, rather, to cooperate with Russia and China.

In conclusion, this conversation has been very wonderful. Do you have any parting words for our audience? We have many people in Europe and in the United States. Do you have any parting words of advice as to how we should look at China and what needs to be different about our policy?

Prof. Li Xing: No, I think that I want my last words, actually, to be invested in talking about the Schiller Institute. I think that some of your programs, some of your projects, and some of your applications are really interesting. The Schiller Institute has a lot of ideas. For example, you just mentioned your campaign for an Afghanistan health care system, but not only in Afghanistan. You promote these ideas for Africa, in developing countries. I really think that the Schiller Institute should continue to promote some of the ideas—a health care system in every country, especially now, considering the pandemic. The rich countries, including China, are able to produce vaccines, but not the developing countries. The U.S. has more vaccine doses stored up than necessary [for itself]. But Africa still has only a very low percentage of people [who have been vaccinated].

Michelle Rasmussen: I think 8%.

Prof. Li Xing: And we claim the Omicron variant of the coronavirus came from Africa. That’s an irony. That’s an irony, because it’s definite that one day, another variation will come from Latin America, or from some other part of the world.

So, it’s rather important for the West, and for China, to think about some of the positive suggestions by your Institute. I’m glad that you invited me for this interview, and I expect to have more cooperation with you. Thank you very much.

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Li Xing.

Dermed eksisterede der til alle tider i hjertet af Venedig en gådefuld og despotisk magt… som… var påvirket af et sæt af politiske leveregler der måske var ligeså hensynsløse, ligeså tyranniske og ligeså selviske, som sådanne nogensinde er blevet udtænkt af menneskets ondsindede opfindsomhed.

Introduktion af oversætteren Peter Møller

Til trods for al den velvilje vi finder hos mange mennesker verden over, de moderne teknologier der er til rådighed og de ofte udtrykte intentioner om grundlæggende udvikling, er et værdigt liv i økonomisk sikkerhed stadig en fjern drøm for størstedelen af vores medmennesker. Den egentlige fjende, som vi står over for, er dog ikke fattigdommen, selvom det er noget de fleste mennesker hurtigt kan blive enige om skal afskaffes; den er ikke hungersnød, selvom vi alle mærker uretfærdigheden knuge i vore maver, når endnu et barn dø af sult; ej heller er det den individuelle pengegriskhed, selvom alle afskyr dennes menneskeforagtende konsekvenser. Nej, menneskehedens egentlige fjende er et yderst kynisk system, som holder den vestlige verdens politiske beslutninger fanget i et jerngreb; som kontrollerer, som udnytter, som lyver, og nogle gange sågar dræber, dem, der ikke er villige til at underkaste sine tanker, ytringer og handlinger de påduttede spilleregler. Kernen af det er ikke et militært kompleks eller den amerikanske eller britiske regering som sådan, selvom de er en del af systemet; det er en oldgammel, oligarkisk tradition, som kontrollerer vestens banker og efterretningstjenester, samt en neo-kolonialistisk kontrol over en stor del af verdens ressourcer og produktion gennem et såkaldt »offshore«-finanssystem, centreret i et spindelvæv af Storbritanniens gamle kronkolonier med City of London, spindelvævets skaber, som det dominerende centrum1. Det er en ny version af det imperiale Venedig, hvis fondoer – de gamle familiers formuer – var kernen af det system, vi vil finde beskrevet nedenfor. Den største af disse var donationsfonden, Skt. Marks Basilika, der optog formuerne fra de familier, som ikke længere havde en arving; rundt om denne befandt de individuelle familieformuer sig så2. Hele Venedigs statssystem var lagt op på at beskytte og forøge magten af disse familier, som selv udgjorde statens »repræsentanter«. Det er reinkarnationen af dette gamle system, som det vandrede fra Venedig gennem Holland og til sidst til England, der forårsager nutidens fattigdom, krige, hungersnød og uretfærdighed, som nu må besejres, som et system, hvis vi skal gøre os reelle forhåbninger om at give alle mennesker en værdig fremtid.

Heldigvis befinder vi os i dag i en situation, hvor fundamentet for dette system – det transatlantiske finanssystem – er blevet så mørt, så insolvent, så råddent, at selve dettes magtstruktur er truet, og vi, som menneskehed, er blevet foræret den gyldne chance, endeligt at kunne afskaffe et ondskabsfuldt system, som i århundreder, hvis ikke årtusinder, har slukket utallige sjæles lys alt for tidligt. Men hér løber vi ind i det problem, at den almene forståelse af dette er så utilstrækkelig, at den medfører en manglende subjektiv evne til at gribe den objektive chance, som står, stor og håbefuld, foran os i dag. Hvis ikke dette rettes op på, kunne vi se muligheden fravriste sig vores usikre greb, og, som den glatte ål, igen glide ud i historiens dynamiske hav, mens vi synker ned i økonomisk kaos og håbløshed.

Den efterfølgende oversættelse er altså ikke blot en intellektuel godbid, som kunne nydes til søndagskaffen; nej, det er et bidrag til den påkrævede indsigt, nødvendig for at kunne besejre et oligarkisk system, der alt for længe har misbrugt menneskehedens evner og gode vilje til blot at fremme sine egne, selviske interesser.

Hvem var James Fenimore Cooper?3

For at forstå James Fenimore Coopers person, må vi først forstå hvad Den amerikanske Revolution (Frihedskrig) handlede om. Den var ikke blot en spontan revolte mod britiske, økonomiske indskrænkelser, som det nogle gange påstås, men derimod en lang og sej kamp gennem generationer, som strakte sig helt tilbage til grundlæggelsen af Massachusetts Bay-kolonien i 1630, en kamp om hvilket menneskesyn der skulle regere deres liv – et britisk system, der havde den menneskeforagtende, venetianske model som forbillede, eller en humanistisk republik, som anså visse »sandheder for selvindlysende, at alle mennesker er skabt lige, og at de af deres Skaber har fået visse umistelige rettigheder, heriblandt retten til liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke«. Det var for værdier som disse, at de forpligtede sig »overfor hinanden med vore liv, vore formuer og vor hellige ære«4, og som blev opnået gennem sejren ved Yorktown i 1781.

James Fenimore Cooper blev født i 1789 – året, hvor den nye nation, Amerikas Forenede Stater, med en helt enestående forfatning, endelig blev virkeliggjort. Han voksede op blandt revolutionens ledere og forfatningens ophavsmænd, mænd som Alexander Hamilton og John Jay, som var nære venner af hans far, William Cooper.

For at beskytte den nyfødte nation mod fortsat aggression, særligt fra det britiske imperium, havde lederne af den kontinentale hær[M1] stiftet en privat efterretningstjeneste i 1783 under navnet »Society of the Cincinnati« (Cincinnati-samfundet). Fenimore Coopers far var et medlem heraf, og da han selv var modnet til opgaven, blev Fenimore Cooper et ledende medlem. Andre personer i Cincinnati-samfundet inkluderede George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Washington Irving (forfatter), Samuel Morse (maler og opfinder af telegrafen) og Edgar Allan Poe (forfatter).

På det tidspunkt stod det klart for lederne af Den amerikanske Revolution, at denne ikke var tilendebragt før alle mennesker, ikke blot dem der var bosat i den nye republik, var blevet befriet fra oligarkisk overherredømme. Fenimore Cooper tog dermed den opgave på sig, ikke blot at holde revolutionens idealer i live i den amerikanske befolkning, men at udbrede disse til resten af verden. Hans skrifter blev verdensberømte – hans bog, Spionen, for eksempel, som omhandler én af George Washingtons spioner, blev oversat til fransk, tysk, italiensk, spansk, polsk, russisk, ungarsk og sågar persisk. I slutningen af 1820’erne og begyndelsen af 1830’erne førte hans arbejde ham, sammen med andre medsammensvorne, til Europa, og særligt til Frankrig (som havde været en stor støtte i løbet af den amerikanske revolution). Edgar Allan Poe, som medbragte en introduktion skrevet af Fenimore Cooper til den franske forfatter Alexandre Dumas, en anden medarbejder i den franske del af dette netværk, grundlagt af Marquis de La-Fayette, var også i Paris på dette tidspunkt5. Forsøget på at skabe en fransk republik i 1830 blev i sidste ende ikke realiseret, og La-Fayettes kompromis med Louis Philippe [M2], den nye konge, muliggjorde, at de oligarkiske kræfter igen kunne få taget om Frankrig.

Cooper gav ikke op, men efter 7 års kamp i Europa rejste han i 1832 tilbage til USA, og fortsatte der sine anstrengelser mod den britiske indflydelse i de amerikanske institutioner – en indflydelse som desværre næsten er altdominerende den dag i dag. Han døde i 1851, men ikke før han havde hjulpet med at opbygge en ny republikansk bevægelse, som senere førte til Lincolns præsidentskab og sejren over de britisk-sponsorerede sydstater i den amerikanske borgerkrig.

James Fenimore Coopers beskrivelse af det venetianske system fra sin bog, Bravoen, er altså, igen, ikke en akademisk diskussion foretaget fra en lyserød sky, men beskrivelsen af dét oligarkiske system, som han brugte sit liv på at bekæmpe. Om hans bestræbelser vil bære den fulde frugt eller ej, er også noget som vi, gennem vores handlinger i dag, i stor grad vil være med til at afgøre.

Giovanni Bellini, portrait of Doge Leonardo Loredan

James Fenimore Coopers beskrivelse af Venedigs statsform

I en tid, hvor de regerende var profane nok til at hævde, og de regerede svage nok til at tillade, at et menneskes ret til at regere over sine medmennesker var en direkte gave fra Gud, var en afvigelse fra det vovede og selviske princip, skønt det kun var en bekendelse, betragtet som tilstrækkeligt til at give skæret af frihed og sund fornuft til en nations regeringsform. Denne tro er ikke uden en vis berettigelse, eftersom det i det mindste i teorien etablerer regeringsgrundlaget på et fundament tilstrækkelig anderledes fra det, som antager, at al magt tilhører én, og at denne ene er repræsentativ for universets almægtige og ufejlbarlige enehersker. Med det første af disse principper6 har vi intet at gøre, andet end at tilføje, at der er påstande, i sig selv så falske, at de blot kræver at blive fremstillet ordentligt for at skabe deres eget modbevis; men vores emne bringer os nødvendigvis på en kort afvej om fejlene i det andet, som de fandtes i Venedig.

Det er sandsynligt, at da Skt. Marks patriarker skabte et samfund af politiske rettigheder i deres regeringsorgan, troede de, at deres stat havde gjort alt der var nødvendigt for at fortjene den høje og gavmilde titel, som den antog. De havde været opfindsomme på grundlag af et alment anerkendt princip, og de kan hverken kræve udmærkelsen af at være de første eller de sidste, som har forestillet sig, at det at tage de første spæde skridt i en politisk forbedring, svarer til øjeblikkeligt at opnå målet af perfektion. Venedig havde ingen doktrin om umistelige rettigheder, og eftersom dets prins ikke var meget mere end tom pragt, gjorde det modigt krav på at blive kaldt en republik. Det troede på, at en repræsentation af samfundets mest fremtrædende og strålende interesser var regeringens vigtigste mål, og tro mod den forførende men farlige fejltagelse, forvekslede det med den sidste, kollektiv magt for social lykke.

Det kan betragtes som et regerende princip i alle civile forhold, at de stærke vil vokse sig stærkere og de svage svagere, indtil de første bliver ude af stand til at regere eller de sidste ude af stand at udholde. I denne vigtige sandhed indeholdes hemmeligheden til undergangen af alle de stater, som er styrtet sammen under vægten af deres egne forgribelser. Den lærer nødvendigheden af at udvide samfundets fundament, indtil den almene befolkning har fået en bredde i stand til at sikre hver interesses retfærdige repræsentation, foruden hvilket det sociale maskineri er i fare for afbrydelse gennem dets egen bevægelse, og i sidste ende for tilintetgørelse gennem dets egne udsvævelser.

Venedig, skønt ambitiøs og ihærdig når det kom til navnet republik, var i virkeligheden et snæversynet, vulgært og yderst hjerteløst oligarki. Hvad den førstnævnte titel angår, havde det intet andet krav på denne end dets benægtelse af det nøgne princip allerede nævnt, imens dets praksis kunnes bebrejdes den sidstnævnte, i dets ekskluderende, umandige og snævre karakter, i alle dets udenrigspolitiske handlinger og i hvert tiltag i dets interne politik. Et aristokrati må altid mangle den dybe personlige følelse, som ofte mildner despotismen gennem lederens kvaliteter eller de gavmilde og menneskelige impulser fra en demokratisk regering. Det har fordelen af at erstatte mennesker med ting, det er sandt, men ulykkeligvis erstatter det helhedens ting med nogle få menneskers. Det deltager, og har altid deltaget, skønt det nødvendigvis mildnes af omstændigheder og de forskellige tidsaldres meninger, i alle foretagenders egoisme, hvori individets ansvar, mens dettes handlinger angiveligt er underordnet en kollektiv interesses umiddelbare nødvendigheder, går tabt i tallenes underopdeling. I perioden vi skriver om, havde Italien adskillige af disse selvudnævnte fællesstatssamfund, hvor ikke en eneste af dem havde en hæderlig og retfærdig betroelse af magten til befolkningens organ, skønt der måske ikke er en eneste af dem, der ikke er blevet nævnt før eller senere, som et bevis på menneskets manglende evne til at regere sig selv! For at påvise fejlen i et ræsonnement, der tager en sådan glæde i at forudse vores eget liberale systems undergang, støttet af eksempler taget fra Middelalderens transatlantiske stater, er det blot nødvendigt her at gengive en smule i detaljer de former, hvor igennem magt blev opnået og udøvet i den vigtigste af dem alle.

Forskel i rang, adskilt fuldstændigt fra nationens vilje, lagde grundlaget for venetiansk politik. Autoritet, skønt opdelt, var ikke mindre en fødselsret end i de regeringer, hvori det åbent blev erklæret at være en bestemmelse af Guds forsyn. Den patriarkalske orden havde sine store og eksklusive privilegier, som blev bevogtet og vedligeholdt med en dyb selvisk og altopslugende ånd. Ham, som ikke var født til at regere, havde ringe forhåbninger om nogensinde at få råderet over sine grundlæggende rettigheder; imens ham der, gennem tilfældighedens indgriben, var, kunne råde over en magt af den mest frygtelige og despotiske karakter. Ved en vis alder blev alle med senatorisk rang (for adelen havde, gennem en sofistisk fejlslutning, ikke taget sin sædvanlige betegnelse) optaget i nationens råd. De førende familiers navne blev indskrevet i et register, som havde den fine titel, den »Gyldne Bog«, og ham, som nød godt af den misundte udmærkelse af at have en forfader i et sådan selskab, kunne, med få undtagelser (sådan som den nævnt i Don Camillos sag), præsentere sig selv i Senatet og gøre krav på æren af den »hornede hætte«. Hverken vores begrænsninger eller vores opgave vil tillade en uddybning af tilstrækkelig længde til at udpege helheden af de bestemmende karaktertræk af et så ondskabsfuldt system, og som måske kun kunne tolereres af dem det regerede over, gennem de udefrakommende bidrag fra erobrede og underordnede provinser, hvor, i alle tilfælde af storbyers herredømme, undertrykkelsen i sandhed vejede tungest. Læseren vil med det samme se, at selve grunden til at den selvudnævnte republiks despoti kunne tolereres af dets egne borgere, blot var en anden årsag til dets endelige tilintetgørelse.

Imens Senatet blev for talrigt til at styre med tilstrækkelig hemmelighed og ekspedere anliggenderne af en stat, som forfulgte en politik, der var lige så snørklet som den var kompliceret, blev de mest overordnede af dens interesser betroet til et råd gjort op af trehundrede af dets medlemmer. For at undgå offentliggørelsen og forsinkelsen af et organ selv så stort som dette, blev en anden udvælgelse foretaget, som blev kendt som De 10’s Råd, og hvortil meget af den udøvende magt, som aristokratisk misundelse afholdt statens titulære overhoved fra, var betroet. Angående dette punkt gav den venetianske republiks politiske økonomi, hvor end fejlslagen, i det mindste en vis anerkendelse af enkelhed og ærlighed. Administrationens angivelige agenter var kendte, og selvom alt egentligt ansvar for nationen gik tabt i patriarkernes overvejende indflydelse og snævre politik, kunne magthaverne ikke fuldstændig undslippe fra den afsky, som den offentlige mening muligvis ville forbinde med deres uretfærdige og ulovlige fremgangsmåder. Men en stat, hvis velstand hovedsagligt var grundlagt på bidraget og understøttelsen af dem, der var afhængige af den, og hvis eksistens i tilsvarende grad var plaget af sine egne falske principper, og af andre og nærliggende magters vækst, havde brug for et endnu mere effektivt organ i fraværet af det overhoved, som dets egne republikanske påskud afholdt Venedig fra. En politisk inkvisition, som med tiden blev til ét af de mest frygtede politiapparater nogensinde set, var konsekvensen. En autoritet, ligeså uansvarlig som den var absolut, blev periodisk betroet til et andet og stadigt mindre organ, som mødtes og udøvede sine despotiske og hemmelige funktioner under navnet De 3’s Råd. Valget af disse midlertidige magthavere blev afgjort ved lodtrækning, og på en måde som forhindrede resultatet i at blive kendt af alle undtagen dem selv og få af de mest betroede af regeringens mere permanente embedsmænd. Dermed eksisterede der til alle tider i hjertet af Venedig en gådefuld og despotisk magt, som blev udøvet af mænd, der bevægede sig ukendt rundt i samfundet, og tilsyneladende var omringet af alle livets gængse goder; men som, i virkeligheden, var påvirket af et sæt af politiske leveregler, der måske var ligeså hensynsløse, ligeså tyranniske og ligeså selviske, som sådanne nogensinde er blevet udtænkt af menneskets ondsindede opfindsomhed. Det var, kort sagt, en magt som kun kunne betros, uden misbrug, til ufejlbarlig dydighed og uendelig intelligens, udtrykt i en forstand begrænset af menneskets evner; og dog var det her betroet til mænd, hvis titler var grundlagt på den dobbelte tilfældighed af fødsel og farverne på kugler, og igennem hvem den blev udøvet selv uden det offentliges tilsyn.

De 3’s Råd mødtes i hemmelighed, udstedte sædvanligvis sine dekreter uden samråd med nogle andre organer og fik dem håndhævet med en frygtindgydende mystik og en pludselighed i udførelsen, som mindede om slag fra skæbnen. Dogen selv var ikke denne autoritet overlegen, ej heller beskyttet mod dens beslutninger, mens det er bekendt, at en af de privilegerede tre er blevet fordømt af sine ligemænd. Der eksisterer stadig en lang liste af bystatens grundsætninger, som denne hemmelige domstol anerkendte som dens handlingsgrundlag, og man siger ikke for meget ved at hævde, at de tilsidesætter enhver anden overvejelse udover det belejlige – alle Guds anerkendte love og ethvert princip af retfærdighed, som agtes blandt mennesker. Det menneskelige intellekts fremgang, støttet af offentlighedens midler, kan mildne udøvelsen af en lignende uansvarlig magt i vores egen tidsalder; men i intet land er denne udskiftning af en valgt repræsentation med en sjæleløs myndighed blevet foretaget, hvori et lovsystem ikke er blevet nedsat, som regner den naturlige retfærdigheds love og borgerens rettigheder for ingenting. Enhver foregivelse af det modsatte, ved at sætte bekendelse i modsætning til praksis er kun at tilføje hykleri til udnyttelse.

Det synes at være en uundgåelig almen konsekvens, at misbrug skulle følge, når magt udøves af et permanent og uansvarligt organ, overfor hvem der ingen appel findes. Når denne magt udøves i hemmelighed, bliver misbruget stadigt mere alvorligt. Det er også værd at bemærke, at i de nationer som underkaster sig, eller har underkastet sig, disse unødige og farlige indflydelser, er foregivelserne af retfærdighed og gavmildhed af den mest overdrevne karakter; for imens den frygtløse demokrat højlydt lufter sine personlige klager, og stemmen fra det tilkendegivne despotis undersåt kvæles fuldstændigt, dikterer nødvendigheden selv den sømmelige politik til oligarken, som én af betingelserne for hans egen sikkerhed. Derfor roste Venedig sig af St. Marks retfærdighed, og få stater vedligeholdte med større pomp og pragt, eller fremsatte et højere krav på, besiddelsen af den hellige kvalitet, end den, hvis virkelige regeringsførelse og leveregler var tilsløret i en mystik, som selv tidens løse moral begærede.

1For yderligere detaljer, se dokumentaren »The Spider’s Web – Britain’s Second Empire« (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zT9pa5AOuE)

2Venice’s war against western civilization – https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1994/eirv21n46-19941118/eirv21n46-19941118_060-venices_war_against_western_civi.pdf

3Meget af det efterfølgende bygger på Patrick Ruckerts arbejde – https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3442cooper_fight_cincinnati.html

4https://da.wikisource.org/wiki/USA%27s_uafh%C3%A6ngighedserkl%C3%A6ring

5https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2009/eirv36n02-20090116/eirv36n02-20090116_057-edgar_allan_poe_the_lost_soul_of.pdf

6Et absolut monarki.

Billede af James Fenimore Cooper: Flickr, Bosc d’Anjou

“Uretfærdighed hvor som helst er en trussel mod retfærdighed når som helst.”

– Martin Luther King 

Tilmeld dig her for at få et direkte link: Konference, 17. januar 2022  

Eller se programmet på denne side på vores danske hjemmeside.

Når året 2022 begynder, lad os så i hele verden vende vores tanker, ikke kun mod Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., men mod hans mission: Etableringen af et “elsket fællesskab” af hele menneskeheden. Vi må indse, at den største sygdom, der truer menneskeheden, er “fordærvet ligegyldighed”, hvilket viser sig mest spektakulært i den bevidste udsultning lige nu af millioner af mennesker i Afghanistan “i menneskerettighedernes navn”. Hvis man lader en sådan uretfærdighed ske for andre, vil den samme uretfærdighed før eller senere ske for en selv. 

19 mennesker er netop omkommet i en forfærdelig brand i Bronx i New York. Der var over to dusin tidligere rapporterede overtrædelser i denne bygning. Blandt de døde var ni børn. Men hundredtusindvis af børn er ved at sulte ihjel i Afghanistan. Årsagen til uskyldige børns død i Afghanistan og i Bronx er den samme: Årsagen er en fordærvet ligegyldighed med hensyn til, om de ville eller burde overleve eller ej. 

Engang stræbte nationerne efter velstand for alle borgere; det blev kaldt “den generelle velfærd for os selv og vores efterkommere”. Nu, fordi vi nægter at stoppe Wall Street og City of Londons forgæves forsøg på at videreføre deres bankerotte system, “vinker” massedøden dagligt til os i hele den transatlantiske verden. Vi får at vide, at massedød desværre vil være “normalt”; den vil være “endemisk” i form af pandemier, krig eller “ekstreme begivenheder”. Hvis det er tilfældet, må det være et direkte resultat af vores fordærvede ligegyldighed, for vi kunne have behandlet de sygeste i verden først, men valgte i stedet at lade være, og vi vælger stadig at lade være.  

Vi siger “NEJ” til denne pagt med fortvivlelsen og døden. 

Der findes en plan, kaldet “Operation Ibn Sina”, som er udarbejdet af Schiller Instituttet, for at løse den uretfærdighed, der er i gang i Afghanistan, og derved skabe en fælles verdensomspændende indsats, for at rulle de grove uretfærdigheder inden for sundhedspleje og andre områder tilbage. Frigivelsen af Afghanistans 9 milliarder dollars i pengemidler er kun begyndelsen. 

Du har magten til at gennemføre Operation Ibn Sina ved at stå sammen med os og afvise den fordærvede ligegyldighed. Vejen til at bekæmpe uretfærdighed er at skabe retfærdighed i verden nu. På den måde kan den uretfærdige død for dem, der er døde ved branden i Bronx, af hungersnød i Afghanistan og pga. de tåbelige, dødsdømte imperialistiske ambitioner over hele verden, måske være inspirationen til at skabe det “elskede fællesskab”, som menneskeheden virkelig har brug for og fortjener.

Læs afskriftet på engelsk nedenunder.

KØBENHAVN — I lyset af den eskalerende spænding mellem USA/NATO og Rusland, som kan føre til en varm krig, ja endog atomkrig, foretog Schiller Instituttet i Danmark et timelangt engelsksproget video/lydinterview med Rusland-ekspert Jens Jørgen Nielsen den 30. december 2021.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er cand. mag. i idéhistorie og historie, og var i slutningen af​​ 1990’erne Politikens Moskva-korrespondent. Han er forfatter til flere bøger om Rusland og Ukraine, leder af Russisk-Dansk Dialog og lektor i kommunikation og kulturelle forskelle på Niels Brock handelshøjskole. Jens Jørgen Nielsen underviser på Folkeuniversitetet og andre steder, ligesom han arbejder med danske eksportvirksomheder, der vil ind på det russiske, ukrainske og hviderussiske marked. Han har i mange år arrangeret rejser til Rusland.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen, med mange års erfaring i at analysere Rusland, Ukraine og vestlige holdninger og handlinger i forhold til Rusland, taler tydeligt om konsekvenserne, hvis ikke Vesten er villig til seriøst at forhandle en diplomatisk løsning på de “røde linjer”, som Putin og andre førende russiske talsmænd har udtalt er ved at blive krydset: Hvis Ukraine tilslutter sig NATO, og hvis NATO’s ekspansion mod øst fortsætter, og hvorfor USA og NATO burde underskrive Putins foreslåede traktater om disse spørgsmål.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen tager fat på de ændringer, der er nødvendige på den vestlige side, som vil afgøre, om de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland om disse “røde linjer” den 10.-13. januar vil lykkes med at trække verden tilbage fra randen af krig.

Interviewet er endnu vigtigere efter bekendtgørelsen den 3. januar 2022 for første gang af en fælles erklæring fra stats- og regeringscheferne for de fem atomvåbenstater, som også er de permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd om, at “atomkrig ikke kan vindes og aldrig må udkæmpes”, og dermed anerkendelsen af hvad der er på spil under den nuværende krise.

—————————————-

 Nogle højdepunkter:

Et højdepunkt er Jens Jørgen Nielsens personlige diskussion i 1989 med Mikail Gorbatjov om NATO-udvidelse mod øst:

“Faktisk havde jeg en lang snak med Mikhail Gorbatjov, den tidligere leder af Sovjetunionen, i 1989, lige da NATO begyndte at bombe Serbien, og da de indlemmede Polen, Tjekkiet og Ungarn i NATO. Man bør huske på at Gorbatjov er en meget rar person. Han er en meget livlig person, med godt humør og en erfaren person. Men da vi begyndte at snakke, spurgte jeg ham om NATO-udvidelsen, som foregik præcis den dag, hvor vi snakkede. Han blev meget dyster, meget trist, fordi han sagde: Altså, jeg talte med James Baker, Helmut Kohl fra Tyskland og flere andre personer, og de lovede mig alle ikke at flytte en tomme mod øst, hvis Sovjetunionen ville lade Tyskland forene DDR (Østtyskland) og Vesttyskland, for at blive ét land, og komme til at blive medlem af NATO, men ikke bevæge sig en tomme mod øst.’… Det stod ikke skrevet, for, som han sagde, “Jeg troede på dem. Jeg kan se, at jeg var naiv.” 

Et andet vigtigt afsnit er, hvad Jens Jørgen Nielsen ville sige til Biden, og andre NATO-statschefer, i en privat diskussion før de kommende forhandlinger mellem USA/NATO og Rusland. “Jeg ville sige, ’Se, Joe, jeg forstår dine bekymringer. Jeg forstår, at du ser dig selv som en forkæmper for frihed i verden, … men ser du, det spil, du nu spiller med Rusland, er et meget, meget farligt spil. Og russerne, som et meget stolt folk, man kan ikke tvinge dem’, angående USA’s og nogle europæiske landes politik, til at skifte Putin ud med en anden præsident. “Jeg kan forsikre dig, Joe Biden, vær sikker på, at hvis det lykkes, eller hvis Putin dør i morgen, eller de på en eller anden måde får en ny præsident, kan jeg forsikre dig om, at den nye præsident vil være lige så hård som Putin, måske endda hårdere… Jeg tror,​​det ville være klogt for dig, lige nu, at støtte Putin, eller at handle med Putin, engagere sig med Putin og lave noget diplomati, fordi alternativet er en mulighed for krig, og du burde ikke gå over i historien som den amerikanske præsident, der sikrede menneskehedens udryddelse. Det ville være et dårligt, meget dårligt eftermæle for dig.’ 

Han forholder sig til den reelle mulighed for, at vi søvngængeragtigt går ind i atomkrig, som før 1. Verdenskrig, som svar på Schiller Instituttets memorandum Er vi søvngængeragtigt på vej til atomar 3. verdenskrig? den 24. december 2021.

“[Man] kan forestille sig, hvad der vil ske, hvis Kina, Iran og Rusland havde en militær alliance, der gik ind i Mexico, Canada, Cuba, måske også opstillede missiler dér… [T]anken om en atomkrig er forfærdelig for os alle, og det er derfor jeg synes, at politikere må komme til fornuft… for milliarder vil dø i dette. Og det er et spørgsmål, om menneskeheden vil overleve. Så det er et meget, meget alvorligt spørgsmål. Og jeg tror vi bør spørge om Ukraines ret til at have NATO-medlemskab, som dets egen befolkning egentlig ikke ønsker, er det virkelig værd at risikere en atomkrig for? Sådan vil jeg sige det.”

——————————

Interviewet har andre afgørende afsnit: 

Baggrund om NATO’s udvidelse mod øst.

Fuld støtte til seriøse forhandlinger med Rusland og underskrivelse af de to foreslåede traktater, som opfordret af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Forkerte forestillinger i vesten om Rusland og Putin, og manglen på vilje til at håndtere andre kulturer som ligeværdige, medmindre de er ligesom os.

Hvordan pro-vestlige holdninger i Rusland, herunder af Jeltsin og Putin, blev afvist, og Rusland derefter vendte sig mod Kina.

Hvordan Ukraine-krisen ikke startede med “annekteringen” af Krim, men med det han kalder “et kup” mod den ukrainske præsident Janukovitj, som ønskede økonomiske forbindelser både med EU og Rusland; plus baggrunden for Krim-spørgsmålet.

Vigtigheden af​​ en dialog mellem kulturer, herunder “Musikalsk dialog mellem Kulturer”-koncerterne i København, arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog og Det kinesiske Kulturcenter i København. 

Jens Jørgen Nielsens opbakning til mange af Schiller Instituttets idéer og indsatser.

Mere information, eller for at aftale et nyt interview, kontakt:

Michelle Rasmussen fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark: 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk, www.schillerinstitute.com; www.schillerinstitut.dk

Afskrift på engelsk: (Kortet på side 15 viser NATO, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Indledningen og interviews er på albansk, men nød musikken.
Read the English version below the Danish.

3. januar 2021 – En delegation af fantastiske albanske kunstnere fra Tirana, Albanien, gik sammen med en schweizisk-albansk pianist og to danske sangere om at indspille 50 albanske traditionelle sange, der var arrangeret af Lola Gjoka (Aleksi), den første albanske pianist. Lola Gjokas sange er en sammensmeltning af autentiske albanske folkesange og klassisk musik – en kulturskat, som nu efter syv årtier vil gense dagens lys.
Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) 1910-1985, var den første albanske pianist, og spillede en afgørende rolle for at bringe klassisk musik til Albanien. Lola arrangerede 50 albanske sange, baseret på autentiske albanske folkesange, der stadig var levende, som de blev sunget af lokalbefolkningen rundt om i landet. Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) skrev melodierne ned og komponerede derefter klaverakkompagnement til sangene, så det var så tro mod sangenes autenticitet som muligt. Disse sange blev en del af de klassiske koncerter, som hun gav sammen med de første bel canto-operasangere i Albanien.

I 1912 fik Albanien endelig sin uafhængighed efter 500 års brutal besættelse af Det Osmanniske Rige – en uafhængighed, der blev opnået mod alle odds. Da tyrkerne endelig var ude, forsøgte nabolandene alt, hvad de kunne, for at dele Albanien mellem sig, hvilket til dels lykkedes. Da vi endelig fik en nation, var ønsket om at komme ud af den ekstreme politiske, økonomiske og kulturelle tilbageståenhed levende i Albaniens sjæl og ånd.

Hvordan den klassiske musik fandt vej til Albanien
Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) blev født i Sevastopol på Krim. Hendes forældre var albanske indvandrere. Hendes far elskede at synge albanske folkesange, og han var en passioneret mandolinspiller. Han elskede musik og ønskede, at hans datter skulle have mulighed for at spille klaver, så han købte et klaver til Lola. Da hun var 9 år gammel, begyndte Lola at få klaverundervisning i skolen, og hendes klaverlærer var meget begejstret for Lolas musikalske talent. Lola Gjoka studerede på musikkonservatoriet i Sevastopol og havde et år tilbage, da hendes studier blev afbrudt. I 1932 blev der udstedt et ultimatum i form af en lov til indvandrerne: enten skulle de blive statsborgere i Sovjetunionen eller forlade landet. Familien var for patriotisk til at opgive deres albanske identitet, da de vidste, hvor hårdt det havde været for deres folk at opnå uafhængighed.
Derfor besluttede familien at vende tilbage til Albanien. Lola var 21 år gammel da hun ankom til Albanien som den første albanske pianist. Senere afsluttede hun sin uddannelse i Athen efter at have vundet en klaverkonkurrence i Wien.

Da Lolas familie forlod Krim, tog de klaveret med, da de vidste, at der ikke fandtes klaverer i Albanien. Turen endte tragisk, da Lolas lillebror døde på rejsen. Da de ankom til Korca i Albanien, hjalp gamle venner familien med at slå sig ned, og Lola begyndte at give undervisning til piger og drenge fra mere velhavende familier for at tjene til livets ophold for familien, som havde mistet hele deres opsparing på grund af hyperinflation.

Da Lola kom til Korca, var kimen til en kulturel renæssance allerede blevet lagt af den første albanske lyriske operasanger, Mihal Ciko, som var kommet tilbage fra udlandet i 1920’erne. Han var den første albaner, der studerede i Milano på Guiseppe Verdi-konservatoriet. Mihal skabte stor begejstring, og ikke kun i Albanien. Han deltog i den internationale folkesangskonkurrence på Fiera di Milano i 1924, hvor han fremførte albanske folkesange. Sange som aldrig var blevet sunget uden for Albanien før. Mihal Cikos fortolkning var så bevægende, at han vandt konkurrencen.

Lola Gjoka og Mihal slog sig sammen og flere operasangere kom tilbage til Albanien – sopranerne Jorgjia Felice Truja, Tefta Tashko, Maria Kraja, tenoren Kristaq Antoniu og barytonen Kristaq Koco. Kimen til en kulturel renæssance blev dannet, med Lola Gjoka i epicentret.

Den store pianist akkompagnerede alle sangerne i Verdi- og Puccini-arier, tyske sange og meget mere og albanske folkesange var ligeledes en vigtig del af koncerterne. Tefta Tashko og de andre sangere kom til Lola med sange fra forskellige dele af Albanien, så Lola kunne skrive dem ned og arrangere klaverakkompagnement til dem, med respekt for folkesangenes autenticitet. Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) og Tefta Tashko blev beskrevet som bier, der samlede honning fra alle de forskellige blomster i den albanske have.

Disse sange blev en kulturel skat, der fyldte folkets hjerter med skønhed, kærlighed, optimisme og håb om en bedre fremtid. Dette var starten på en kulturel renæssance i 30’erne og 40’erne, som varede i flere årtier.

I 1970’erne omarbejdede Lola sine sange endnu en gang, og hendes sidste ønske, inden hun døde i 1985, var, at disse sange skulle være tilgængelige for den nye generation. På grund af helbredsproblemer udgav Juki, Lolas eneste barn, først en bog med sin mors 52 sange i 2007, men de blev aldrig indspillet.

Jeg blev først introduceret til nogle af Lola Gjokas (Aleksi) sange af den schweizisk-albanske pianist Ermira Lefort, som kom til Danmark i 2019 for, sammen med mig, at opføre to af Lola Gjokas sange ved koncerten »A Musical Dialogue of Cultures«, arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog og Det Kinesiske Kulturinstitut. Ermira og jeg blev derefter af det danske konsulat i Tirana inviteret til at give en koncert med et dansk-albansk program. På grund af Corona blev koncerten udsat til den 5. juni 2021. Skæbnen ville, at Ermira ikke var i stand til at komme til Tirana, og jeg derfor havde brug for en erstatning. Det blev pianisten Rudina Ciko, og det var virkelig held i uheld.

Da jeg i maj havde mødt Rudina i Tirana, havde hun givet mig bogen med de samlede sange af Lola Gjoka (Aleksi). Det var nogle uger før vores koncert og indimellem havde jeg tid til at kigge på sangene og opdagede, at hver enkelt af dem var både speciel og meget smuk. Efter koncerten i Tirana, på vej tilbage til Danmark, fik jeg den idé, at disse sange burde indspilles. Hver sang var som en perle i en række af perler, der tilsammen udgjorde en smuk halskæde, Folk burde have tilgang til denne skat.

Gnisten, der ventede på at blive til rigtig ild
Jeg besluttede mig for at gøre mit for at få disse sange indspillet. Gennem Rudina Ciko mødte jeg hendes mand, dirigenten Zhani Ciko, søn af den berømte bel canto-sanger Mihal Ciko, Lola Gjokas (Aleksi) veninde. Zhani Ciko var et barn af den kulturelle renæssance og bar den levende arv fra den albanske kulturelle renæssance i sit hjerte og sind. Zhani Ciko organiserede også den første opførelse af Beethovens 9. symfoni i Albaniens historie i 1970’erne.

Da jeg fortalte Zhani idéen om at indspille alle Lola Gjoka (Aleksis) sange, blev han meget begejstret og begyndte straks at arbejde på at realisere den. Zhani organiserede en gruppe af talentfulde sangere, herunder den meget kendte sopran Mariana Leka, sopranen Erlinda Agolli, tenoren Gerald Murraj, barytonen Antonio Zefi og Rudina Ciko, der akkompagnerede på klaver. Sammen med den store pianist Ermira Lefort, den kendte danske tenor Stig Fogh Andersen og mig selv, en dansk-albansk sopran, blev der dannet en gruppe, som kunne realisere ideen.
Vi mødtes alle i Danmark for at gennemføre projektet. Takket være Knud Rasmussen, organist i Virum Kirke, så åbnede Virum Kirke sine døre for os, så vi kunne lave optagelserne der. Og takket være Stig Fogh Andersen, hans søn Ask og Stigs gode veninde Heidrun Beer, så fik vi gennemført optagelserne. Det lykkedes at indspille de 50 sange på mindre end fire dage den 27.-30. december 2021. Vi afsluttede optagelserne med at filme en lille koncert i kirken, da Corona gjorde publikum umuligt.

Indspilningen af disse 50 sange er en historisk begivenhed, da det aldrig er sket før. Udgivelsen af de samlede sange på en dobbelt-cd vil finde sted i slutningen af februar i år og vil ikke kun være en skat, der atter vil blive en del af den albanske kulturarv, men også en perle, der vil blive indføjet i den europæiske kulturskat.

Må cd’erne så være en inspiration til at holde mange koncerter og kulturelle udvekslinger mellem Albanien og mange andre nationer.

For at bestille kopier af cd’erne kan man kontakte Feride Gillesberg på: feridegillesberg@gmail.com.
———————
Udgivet i Executive Intelligence Review Volume 49, Number 6, February 11, 2022.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Earlier article:

Historic Event in Copenhagen – An Albanian Musical Treasure Revived

By Feride Istogu Gillesberg

January 3, 2021 — A delegation of fantastic Albanian artists from Tirana, Albania, joined forces with a Swiss-Albanian pianist, and Danish musicians, to record 50 Albanian traditional songs, arranged by the first Albanian pianist, Lola Gjoka (Aleksi). Lola Gjoka`s songs are a fusion of authentic Albanian folk songs and classical music — a cultural treasure that will now see daylight, after seven decades.

Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) 1910-1985, was the first Albanian pianist, who played a crucial role in bringing classical music to Albania. Lola arranged 50 Albanian songs, based on authentic Albanian folk songs that were still alive, as sung by local people around the nation. Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) wrote down the notes, and composed the piano accompaniment to the songs, as truthful to the authenticity of the songs as possible. These songs became a part of the classical concerts she gave, together with the first bel canto opera singers in Albania.

In 1912, Albania finally got its independence, after 500 years of a brutal occupation by the Ottoman Empire — an independence achieved against all odds. When, finally, the Turks were out, the neighboring countries tried everything they could to divide Albania among them, which partly succeeded. When we finally had a nation, the desire for rising out of extreme backwardness, politically, economically, and culturally, was vividly in the soul and spirit of the people of Albania.

How classical music made its way to Albania

Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) was born in Sevastopol, Crimea. Her parents were Albanian immigrants. Her father loved singing Albanian folk songs, and he was a passionate mandolin player. Lola Gjoka’s father loved music and wanted his daughter to have the possibility of playing the piano, so he bought a piano for Lola. When she was 9-years-old, Lola started getting piano lessons at school, and her piano teacher was very excited about Lola’s musical talent. Lola Gjoka studied at the music conservatory in Sevastopol. She had one year left, when her studies were disrupted. In 1932, an ultimatum, in the form of a law, was issued to the immigrants: either become Soviet Union nationals, or leave the country. The family was too patriotic to give up their Albanian identity, knowing how hard the achievement of independence had been for their people. So, the family left to go back to Albania. Lola was 21 years old. She arrived in Albania as the first Albanian pianist. Later, she finished her diploma in Athens, after winning a piano competition in Vienna.

When Lola’s family left the Crimea, they took the piano along, since they knew that there were no pianos in Albania. The tour ended tragically, when Lola`s little brother died on their journey. Arriving in Korca, Albania, old friends helped the family settle down, and Lola began giving lessons to girls and boys of wealthier families, to make a living for their family, which had lost all their savings due to hyperinflation.

When Lola came to Korca, a seed for a cultural renaissance had already been planted by the first Albanian lyric opera singer, Mihal Ciko, who had come back from abroad in 1920s. He was the first Albanian who studied in Milan at the Guiseppe Verdi Conservatory. Mihal created a lot of excitement, not only in Albania. He took part in the international folk song competion in “Fiera di Milano” in 1924, where he performed Albanian folk songs, songs that had never been sung outside Albania before. Mihal Ciko’s interpretation was so moving, that he won the competion.

Lola Gjoka and Mihal joined forces. More opera singers came back to Albania — the sopranos Jorgjia Felice Truja, Tefta Tashko, Maria Kraja, tenor Kristaq Antoniu, and baritone Kristaq Koco. The seed of a cultural renaissance was formed, with Lola Gjoka in the epicenter.

The great pianist accompanied all the singers in Verdi and Puccini arias, German Lieder, and much more. Albanian folk songs were an important part of the concerts. Many traditional Albanian folk songs were written down by Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) who arranged piano accompaniments, carefully keeping the authenticity of the old folk songs. Tefta Tashko and the other singers would come to her with songs from different parts of Albania, so Lola could write them down and arrange piano accompaniments. Lola Gjoka (Aleksi) and Tefta Tashko were described as bees that collected the honey from all the different flowers in the Albanian garden.

These songs became a cultural treasure that filled the hearts of the people with beauty, love, optimism and hope for a better future. This was the start of a cultural renaissance in the 30s and 40s, that lasted for several decades.

In the 1970s, Lola reworked her songs once again. Her last wish before she died in 1985, was to have these songs available for the new generation. Due to health problems, Lola’s only child, Juki, first published a book of her mother’s 52 songs in 2007, but they were never recorded.

I was first introduced to some songs by Lola Gjoka ( Aleksi) by the Swiss-Albanian pianist Ermira Lefort, who came to Denmark in 2019 to perform two of Lola Gjoka’s songs with me at the concert, “A Musical Dialogue of Cultures,” organized by the Schiller Institute, Russian-Danish Dialogue, and the Chinese Cultural Center. Ermira and I were invited by the Danish consul in Tirana to give a concert with a Danish-Albanian program. Due to corona, the concert was postponed to June 5, 2021. As destiny played out, Ermira was not able to come to Tirana, and I needed a replacement. The pianist Rudina Ciko was her replacement, a blessing in disguise.

When I met Rudina in May in Tirana, she had given me the book with the collected songs of Lola Gjoka (Aleksi), some weeks before our concert. In between, I had the time to look through the collected songs, and discovered that each of them was very special and beautiful. After the concert in Tirana, on my way back to Denmark, I was thinking that these songs ought to be recorded. Each song is like a pearl in the row of a treasure necklace, and people should have access to this treasure.

The spark that waited to be transformed into fire

I decided to do my part to get these songs recorded. Through Rudina Ciko, I met her husband, the conductor Zhani Ciko, the son of the famous bel canto singer Mihal Ciko, Lola Gjoka ( Aleksi’s) friend. Zhani Ciko was a child of the cultural renaissance, and carries the living heritage of the Albanian cultural renaissance in his heart and mind. Zhani Ciko also organized the first performance of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony in the history of Albania, in 1970s.

When I spoke to Zhani about the idea of recording all of Lola Gjoka (Aleksi’s) songs, he became very excited. He immediately began working on realizing this idea. Zhani organized a group of great singers, including the very well-known soprano Mariana Leka, soprano Erlinda Agolli, tenor Gerald Murraj, baritone Antonio Zefi and Rudina Ciko playing the piano. Together with the great pianist Ermira Lefort, Stig Fogh Andersen, a very well-known Danish tenor, and myself, a Danish-Albanian soprano, a group was formed that could realize the idea. We all met in Denmark to carry out the project.

Thanks to Knud Rasmussen, the organist at Virum Church, the church opened their doors for us to make the recordings there. And thanks to Stig Fogh Andersen, his son Ask, and his good friend Heidrun Beer, we were able to make the recordings. Thanks to all the musicians, we succeeded in recording the fifty songs in less than four days (December 27- 30, 2021).

We concluded by holding a little concert.

This recording is an historical event, as it has never been done before. Publishing Lola Gjoka (Aleksi’s) collected songs on a double CD in the spring of this year will not only be a treasure that will be given back to the Albanian cultural heritage, but, also, be a pearl to be added to the European cultural treasure.

May the CDs be an inspiration for many concerts and cultural exchanges between Albania and many nations.

To order the CDs, contact Feride Gillesberg at: feridegillesberg@gmail.com

Udgivet på Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) tidsskrift bind 49, række 2 den 14. januar 2022. Her er en pdf-version:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Kortet på side 15 viser NATO udvidelse, hvis Ukraine og Georgien bliver medlemmer.

The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen, by Michelle Rasmussen, Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Demark, conducted December 30, 2021. Mr. Nielsen has degrees in the history of ideas and communication. He is a former Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s. He is the author of several books about Russia and the Ukraine, and a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization. In addition, he is an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark.

Michelle Rasmussen: Hello, viewers. I am Michelle Rasmussen, the Vice President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark. This is an interview with Jens Jørgen Nielsen from Denmark.

The Schiller Institute released a [[memorandum]][[/]] December 24 titled “Are We Sleepwalking into Thermonuclear World War III.” In the beginning, it states, “Ukraine is being used by geopolitical forces in the West that answer to the bankrupt speculative financial system, as the flashpoint to trigger a strategic showdown with Russia, a showdown which is already more dangerous than the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and which could easily end up in a thermonuclear war which no one would win, and none would survive.”

Jens Jørgen, in the past days, Russian President Putin and other high-level spokesmen have stated that Russia’s red lines are about to be crossed, and they have called for treaty negotiations to come back from the brink. What are these red lines and how dangerous is the current situation?

%%Russian ‘Red Lines’

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Thank you for inviting me. First, I would like to say that I think that the question you have raised here about red lines, and the question also about are we sleepwalking into a new war, is very relevant. Because, as an historian, I know what happened in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War—a kind of sleepwalking. No one really wanted the war, actually, but it ended up with war, and tens of million people were killed, and then the whole world disappeared at this time, and the world has never been the same. So, I think it’s a very, very relevant question that you are asking here.

You asked me specifically about Putin, and the red lines. I heard that the Clintons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry, and many other American politicians, claim that we don’t have things like red lines anymore. We don’t have zones of influence anymore, because we have a new world. We have a new liberal world, and we do not have these kinds of things. It belongs to another century and another age. But you could ask the question, “What actually are the Americans doing in Ukraine, if not defending their own red lines?”

Because I think it’s like, if you have a power, a superpower, a big power like Russia, I think it’s very, very natural that any superpower would have some kind of red lines. You can imagine what would happen if China, Iran, and Russia had a military alliance, going into Mexico, Canada, Cuba, maybe also putting missiles up there. I don’t think anyone would doubt what would happen. The United States would never accept it, of course. So, the Russians would normally ask, “Why should we accept that Americans are dealing with Ukraine and preparing, maybe, to put up some military hardware in Ukraine? Why should we? And I think it’s a very relevant question. Basically, the Russians see it today as a question of power, because the Russians, actually, have tried for, I would say, 30 years. They have tried.

I was in Russia 30 years ago. I speak Russian. I’m quite sure that the Russians, at that time, dreamt of being a part of the Western community, and they had very, very high thoughts about the Western countries, and Americans were extremely popular at this time. Eighty percent of the Russian population in 1990 had a very positive view of the United States. Later on, today, and even for several years already, 80%, the same percentage, have a negative view of Americans. So, something happened, not very positively, because 30 years ago, there were some prospects of a new world.

There really were some ideas, but something actually was screwed up in the 90s. I have some idea about that. Maybe we can go in detail about it. But things were screwed up, and normally, today, many people in the West, in universities, politicians, etc. think that it’s all the fault of Putin. It’s Putin’s fault. Whatever happened is Putin’s fault. Now, we are in a situation which is very close to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which you also mentioned. But I don’t think it is that way. I think it takes two to tango. We know that, of course, but I think many Western politicians have failed to see the compliance of the western part in this, because there are many things which play a role that we envisage in a situation like that now.

The basic thing, if you look at it from a Russian point of view, it’s the extension to the east of NATO. I think that’s a real bad thing, because Russia was against it from the very beginning. Even Boris Yeltsin, who was considered to be the man of the West, the democratic Russia, he was very, very opposed to this NATO alliance going to the East, up to the borders of Russia.

And we can see it now, because recently, some new material has been released in America, an exchange of letters between Yeltsin and Clinton at this time. So, we know exactly that Yeltsin, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs at this time, were very much opposed to it. And then Putin came along. Putin came along not to impose his will on the Russian people. He came along because there was, in Russia, a will to oppose this NATO extension to the East. So, I think things began at this point.

And later on, we had the Georgian crisis in 2008, and we had, of course, the Ukraine crisis in 2014, and, also, with Crimea and Donbass, etc.

And now we are very, very close to—I don’t think it’s very likely we will have a war, but we are very close to it, because wars often begin by some kind of mistake, some accident, someone accidentally pulls the trigger, or presses a button somewhere, and suddenly, something happens. Exactly what happened in 1914, at the beginning of World War I. Actually, there was one who was shot in Sarajevo. Everyone knows about that, and things like that could happen. And for us, living in Europe, it’s awful to think about having a war.

We can hate Putin. We can think whatever we like. But the thought of a nuclear war is horrible for all of us, and that’s why I think that politicians could come to their senses.

And I think also this demonization of Russia, and demonization of Putin, is very bad, of course, for the Russians. But it’s very bad for us here in the West, for us, in Europe, and also in America. I don’t think it’s very good for our democracy. I don’t think it’s very good. I don’t see very many healthy perspectives in this. I don’t see any at all.

I see some other prospects, because we could cooperate in another way. There are possibilities, of course, which are not being used, or put into practice, which certainly could be.

So, yes, your question is very, very relevant and we can talk at length about it. I’m very happy that you ask this question, because if you ask these questions today in the Danish and Western media at all—everyone thinks it’s enough just to say that Putin is a scoundrel, Putin is a crook, and everything is good. No, we have to get along. We have to find some ways to cooperate, because otherwise it will be the demise of all of us.

%%NATO Expansion Eastward

Michelle Rasmussen: Can you just go through a little bit more of the history of the NATO expansion towards the East? And what we’re speaking about in terms of the treaties that Russia has proposed, first, to prevent Ukraine from becoming a formal member of NATO, and second, to prevent the general expansion of NATO, both in terms of soldiers and military equipment towards the East. Can you speak about this, also in terms of the broken promises from the Western side?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Actually, the story goes back to the beginning of the nineties. I had a long talk with Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, in 1989, just when NATO started to bomb Serbia, and when they adopted Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into NATO. You should bear in mind that Gorbachev is a very nice person. He’s a very lively person, with good humor, and an experienced person.

But when we started to talk, I asked him about the NATO expansion, which was going on exactly the day when we were talking. He became very gloomy, very sad, because he said,

[[[begin quote indent]]]

Well, I talked to James Baker, Helmut Kohl from Germany, and several other persons, and they all promised me not to move an inch to the East, if Soviet Union would let Germany unite the GDR (East Germany) and West Germany, to become one country, and come to be a member of NATO, but not move an inch to the East.

[[[end quote indent]]]

I think, also, some of the new material which has been released—I have read some of it, some on WikiLeaks, and some can be found. It’s declassified. It’s very interesting. There’s no doubt at all. There were some oral, spoken promises to Mikhail Gorbachev. It was not written, because, as he said, “I believed them. I can see I was naive.”

I think this is a key to Putin today, to understand why Putin wants not only sweet words. He wants something based on a treaty, because, basically, he doesn’t really believe the West. The level of trust between Russia and NATO countries is very, very low today. And it’s a problem, of course, and I don’t think we can overcome it in a few years. It takes time to build trust, but the trust is not there for the time being.

But then, the nature of the NATO expansion has gone step, by step, by step. First, it was the three countries—Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic—and then, in 2004, six years later, came, among other things—the Baltic republics, and Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria. And the others came later on—Albania, Croatia, etc. And then in 2008, there was a NATO Summit in Bucharest, where George Bush, President of the United States, promised Georgia and Ukraine membership of NATO. Putin was present. He was not President at this time. He was Prime Minister in Russia, because the President was [Dmitry] Medvedev, but he was very angry at this time. But what could he do? But he said, at this point, very, very clearly, “We will not accept it, because our red lines would be crossed here. We have accepted the Baltic states. We have retreated. We’ve gone back. We’ve been going back for several years,” but still, it was not off the table.

It was all because Germany and France did not accept it, because [Chancellor Angela] Merkel and [President François] Hollande, at this time, did not accept Ukraine and Georgia becoming a member of NATO. But the United States pressed for it, and it is still on the agenda of the United States, that Georgia and Ukraine should be a member of NATO.

So, there was a small war in August, the same year, a few months after this NATO Summit, where, actually, it was Georgia which attacked South Ossetia, which used to be a self-governing part of Georgia. The incumbent Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili did not want to accept the autonomous status of South Ossetia, so Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Russian soldiers were deployed in South Ossetia, and 14 of them were killed by the Georgian army. And you could say that George W. Bush promised Georgian President Saakashvili that the Americans would support the Georgians, in case Russia should retaliate, which they did.

The Russian army was, of course, much bigger than the Georgian army, and it smashed the Georgian army in five days, and retreated. There was no help from the United States to the Georgians. And, I think, that from a moral point of view, I don’t think it’s a very wise policy, because you can’t say “You just go on. We will help you”—and not help at all when it gets serious. I think, from a moral point of view, it’s not very fair.

%%A Coup in Ukraine

But, actually, it’s the same which seems to be happening now in Ukraine, even though there was, what I would call a coup, an orchestrated state coup, in 2014. I know there are very, very different opinions about this, but my opinion is that there was a kind of coup to oust the sitting incumbent President, Viktor Yanukovych, and replace him with one who was very, very keen on getting into NATO. Yanukovych was not very keen on going into NATO, but he still had the majority of the population. And it’s interesting. In Ukraine, there’s been a lot of opinion polls conducted by Germans, Americans, French, Europeans, Russians and Ukrainians. And all these opinion polls show that a majority of Ukrainian people did not want to join NATO.

After that, of course, things moved very quickly, because Crimea was a very, very sensitive question for Russia, for many reasons. First, it was a contested area because it was, from the very beginning, from 1991, when Ukraine was independent—there was no unanimity about Crimea and it´s status, because the majority of Crimea was Russian-speaking, and is very culturally close to Russia, in terms of history. It’s very close to Russia. It’s one of the most patriotic parts of Russia, actually. So, it’s a very odd part of Ukraine. It always was a very odd part of Ukraine.

The first thing the new government did in February 2014, was to forbid the Russian language, as a language which had been used in local administration, and things like that. It was one of the stupidest things you could do in such a very tense situation. Ukraine, basically, is a very cleft society. The eastern southern part is very close to Russia. They speak Russian and are very close to Russian culture. The western part, the westernmost part around Lviv, is very close to Poland and Austria, and places like that. So, it’s a cleft society, and in such a society you have some options. One option is to embrace all the parts of society, different parts of society. Or you can, also, one part could impose its will on the other part, against its will. And that was actually what happened.

So, there are several crises. There is the crisis in Ukraine, with two approximately equally sized parts of Ukraine. But you also have, on the other hand, the Russian-NATO question. So, you had two crises, and they stumbled together, and they were pressed together in 2014. So, you had a very explosive situation which has not been solved to this day.

And for Ukraine, I say that as long as you have this conflict between Russia and NATO, it’s impossible to solve, because it’s one of the most corrupt societies, one of the poorest societies in Europe right now. A lot of people come to Denmark, where we are now, to Germany and also to Russia. Millions of Ukrainians have gone abroad to work, because there are really many, many social problems, economic problems, things like that.

And that’s why Putin—if we remember what Gorbachev told me about having things on paper, on treaties, which are signed—and that’s why Putin said, what he actually said to the West, “I don’t really believe you, because when you can, you cheat.” He didn’t put it that way, but that was actually what he meant: “So now I tell you very, very, very, very clearly what our points of view are. We have red lines, like you have red lines. Don’t try to cross them.”

And I think many people in the West do not like it. I think it’s very clear, because I think the red lines, if you compare them historically, are very reasonable. If you compare them with the United States and the Monroe Doctrine, which is still in effect in the USA, they are very, very reasonable red lines. I would say that many of the Ukrainians, are very close to Russia. I have many Ukrainian friends. I sometimes forget that they are Ukrainians, because their language, their first language, is actually Russian, and Ukrainian is close to Russian.

So, those countries being part of an anti-Russian military pact, it’s simply madness. It cannot work. It will not work. Such a country would never be a normal country for many, many years, forever.

I think much of the blame could be put on the NATO expansion and those politicians who have been pressing for that for several years. First and foremost, Bill Clinton was the first one, Madeline Albright, from 1993. At this time, they adopted the policy of major extension to the East. And George W. Bush also pressed for Ukraine and Georgia to become members of NATO.

And for every step, there was, in Russia, people rallying around the flag. You could put it that way, because you have pressure. And the more we pressure with NATO, the more the Russians will rally around the flag, and the more authoritarian Russia will be. So, we are in this situation. Things are now happening in Russia, which I can admit I do not like, closing some offices, closing some media. I do not like it at all. But in a time of confrontation, I think it’s quite reasonable, understandable, even though I would not defend it. But it’s understandable. Because the United States, after 9/11, also adopted a lot of defensive measures, and a kind of censorship, and things like that. It’s what happens when you have such tense situations.

We should just also bear in mind that Russia and the United States are the two countries which possess 90% of the world’s nuclear armament. Alone, the mere thought of them using some of this, is a doomsday perspective, because it will not be a small, tiny war, like World War II, but it will dwarf World War II, because billions will die in this. And it’s a question, if humanity will survive. So, it’s a very, very grave question.

I think we should ask if the right of Ukraine to have NATO membership—which its own population does not really want— “Is it really worth the risk of a nuclear war?” That’s how I would put it.

I will not take all blame away from Russia. That’s not my point here. My point is that this question is too important. It’s very relevant. It’s very important that we establish a kind of modus vivendi. It’s a problem for the West. I also think it’s very important that we learn, in the West, how to cope with people who are not like us. We tend to think that people should become democrats like we are democrats, and only then will we deal with them. If they are not democrats, like we are democrats, we will do everything we can to make them democrats. We will support people who want to make a revolution in their country, so they become like us. It’s a very, very dangerous, dangerous way of thinking, and a destructive way of thinking.

I think that we in the West should study, maybe, a little more what is happening in other organizations not dominated by the West. I’m thinking about the BRICS, as one organization. I’m also thinking about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in which Asian countries are cooperating, and they are not changing each other. The Chinese are not demanding that we should all be Confucians. And the Russians are not demanding that all people in the world should be Orthodox Christians, etc. I think it’s very, very important that we bear in mind that we should cope with each other like we are, and not demand changes. I think it’s a really dangerous and stupid game to play. I think the European Union is also very active in this game, which I think is very, very—Well, this way of thinking, in my point of view, has no perspective, no positive perspective at all.

%%Diplomacy to Avert Catastrophe

Michelle Rasmussen: Today, Presidents Biden and Putin will speak on the phone, and important diplomatic meetings are scheduled for the middle of January. What is going to determine if diplomacy can avoid a disaster, as during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just called this a “reverse missile crisis.” Or, if Russia will feel that they have no alternative to having a military response, as they have openly stated. What changes on the Western side are necessary? If you had President Biden alone in a room, or other heads of state of NATO countries, what would you say to them?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I would say, “Look, Joe, I understand your concerns. I understand that you see yourself as a champion of freedom in the world, and things like that. I understand the positive things about it. But, you see, the game you now are playing with Russia is a very, very dangerous game. And the Russians, are a very proud people; you cannot force them. It’s not an option. I mean, you cannot, because it has been American, and to some degree, also European Union policy, to change Russia, to very much like to change, so that they’ll have another president, and exchange Putin for another president.”

But I can assure you, if I were to speak to Joe Biden, I’d say, “Be sure that if you succeed, or if Putin dies tomorrow, or somehow they’ll have a new President, I can assure you that the new President will be just as tough as Putin, maybe even tougher. Because in Russia, you have much tougher people. I would say even most people in Russia who blame Putin, blame him because he’s not tough enough on the West, because he was soft on the West, too liberal toward the West, and many people have blamed him for not taking the eastern southern part of Ukraine yet—that he should have done it.

“So, I would say to Biden, “I think it would be wise for you, right now, to support Putin, or to deal with Putin, engage with Putin, and do some diplomacy, because the alternative is a possibility of war, and you should not go down into history as the American president who secured the extinction of humanity. It would be a bad, very bad record for you. And there are possibilities, because I don’t think Putin is unreasonable. Russia has not been unreasonable. I think they have turned back. Because in 1991, it was the Russians themselves, who disbanded the Soviet Union. It was the Russians, Moscow, which disbanded the Warsaw Pact. The Russians, who gave liberty to the Baltic countries, and all other Soviet Republics. And with hardly any shots, and returned half a million Soviet soldiers back to Russia. No shot was fired at all. I think it’s extraordinary.

“If you compare what happened to the dismemberment of the French and the British colonial empires after World War II, the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact was very, very civilized, in many ways. So, stop thinking about Russia as uncivilized, stupid people, who don’t understand anything but mere power. Russians are an educated people. They understand a lot of arguments, and they are interested in cooperating. There will be a lot of advantages for the United States, for the West, and also the European Union, to establish a kind of more productive, more pragmatic relationship, cooperation. There are a lot of things in terms of energy, climate, of course, and terrorism, and many other things, where it’s a win-win situation to cooperate with them.

“The only thing Russia is asking for is not to put your military hardware in their backyard. I don’t think it should be hard for us to accept, certainly not to understand why the Russians think this way.”

And we in the West should think back to the history, where armies from the West have attacked Russia. So, they have it in their genes. I don’t think that there is any person in Russia who has forgot, or is not aware of, the huge losses the Soviet Union suffered from Nazi Germany in the 1940s during World War II. And you had Napoleon also trying to—You have a lot of that experience with armies from the West going into Russia. So, it’s very, very large, very, very deep.

Michelle Rasmussen: Was it around 20 million people who died during World War II?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: In the Soviet Union. There were also Ukrainians, and other nationalities, but it was around 18 million Russians, if you can count it, because it was the Soviet Union, but twenty-seven million people in all. It’s a huge part, because Russia has experience with war. So, the Russians would certainly not like war. I think the Russians have experience with war, that also the Europeans, to some extent, have, that the United States does not have.

Because the attack I remember in recent times is the 9/11 attack, the twin towers in New York. Otherwise, the United States does not have these experiences. It tends to think more in ideological terms, where the Russians, certainly, but also to some extent, some people in Europe, think more pragmatically, more that we should, at any cost, avoid war, because war creates more problems than it solves. So, have some pragmatic cooperation. It will not be very much a love affair. Of course not. But it will be on a very pragmatic—

%%The Basis for Cooperation

Michelle Rasmussen: Also, in terms of dealing with this horrible humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and cooperating on the pandemic.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Of course, there are possibilities. Right now, it’s like we can’t even cooperate in terms of vaccines, and there are so many things going on, from both sides, actually, because we have very, very little contact between—

I had some plans to have some cooperation between Danish and Russian universities in terms of business development, things like that, but it turned out there was not one crown, as our currency is called. You could have projects in southern America, Africa, all other countries. But not Russia, which is stupid.

Michelle Rasmussen: You wrote two recent books about Russia. One is called, On His Own Terms: Putin and the New Russia, and the latest one, just from September, Russia Against the Grain. Many people in the West portray Russia as the enemy, which is solely responsible for the current situation, and Putin as a dictator who is threatening his neighbors militarily and threatening the democracy of the free world. Over and above what you have already said, is this true, or do you have a different viewpoint?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Of course, I have a different point of view. Russia for me, is not a perfect country, because such a country does not exist, not even Denmark! Some suppose it is. But there’s no such thing as a perfect society. Because societies are always developing from somewhere, to somewhere, and Russia, likewise. Russia is a very, very big country. So, you can definitely find things which are not very likable in Russia. Definitely. That’s not my point here.

But I think that in the West, actually for centuries, we have—if you look back, I have tried in my latest book, to find out how Western philosophers, how church people, how they look at Russia, from centuries back. And there has been kind of a red thread. There’s been a kind of continuation. Because Russia has very, very, very often been characterized as our adversary, as a country against basic European values. Five hundred years back, it was against the Roman Catholic Church, and in the 17th and 18th Centuries it was against the Enlightenment philosophers, and in the 20th century, it was about communism—it’s also split people in the West, and it was also considered to be a threat. But it is also considered to be a threat today, even though Putin is not a communist. He is not a communist. He is a conservative, a moderate conservative, I would say.

Even during the time of Yeltsin, he was also considered liberal and progressive, and he loved the West and followed the West in all, almost all things they proposed.

But still, there’s something with Russia—which I think from a philosophical point of view is very important to find out—that we have some very deep-rooted prejudices about Russia, and I think they play a role. When I speak to people who say, “Russia is an awful country, and Putin is simply a very, very evil person, is a dictator,” I say, “Have you been in Russia? Do you know any Russians?” “No, not really.” “Ok. But what do you base your points of view on?” “Well, what I read in the newspapers, of course, what they tell me on the television.”

Well, I think that’s not good enough. I understand why the Russians—I very often talk to Russian politicians, and other people, and what they are sick and tired of, is this notion that the West is better: “We are on a higher level. And if Russians should be accepted by the West, they should become like us. Or at least they should admit that they are on a lower level, in relation to our very high level.”

And that is why, when they deal with China, or deal with India, and when they deal with African countries, and even Latin American countries, they don’t meet such attitudes, because they are on more equal terms. They’re different, yes, but one does not consider each other to be on a higher level.

And that’s why I think that cooperation in BRICS, which we talked about, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, I think it’s quite successful. I don’t know about the future, but I have a feeling that if you were talking about Afghanistan, I think if Afghanistan could be integrated into this kind of organization, one way or another, I have a feeling it probably would be more successful than the 20 years that the NATO countries have been there.

I think that cultural attitudes play a role when we’re talking about politics, because a lot of the policy from the American, European side, is actually very emotional. It’s very much like, “We have some feelings—We fear Russia. We don’t like it,” or “We think that it’s awful.” And “Our ideas, we know how to run a society much better than the Russians, and the Chinese, and the Indians, and the Muslims,” and things like that. It’s a part of the problem. It’s a part of our problem in the West. It’s a part of our way of thinking, our philosophy, which I think we should have a closer look at and criticize. But it’s difficult, because it’s very deeply rooted.

When I discuss with people at universities and in the media, and other places, I encounter this. That is why I wrote the latest book, because it’s very much about our way of thinking about Russia. The book is about Russia, of course, but it’s also about us, our glasses, how we perceive Russia, how we perceive not only Russia, but it also goes for China, because it’s more or less the same. But there are many similarities between how we look upon Russia, and how we look upon and perceive China, and other countries.

I think this is a very, very important thing we have to deal with. We have to do it, because otherwise, if we decide, if America and Russia decide to use all the fireworks they have of nuclear [armament] power, then it’s the end.

You can put it very sharply, to put it like that, and people will not like it. But basically, we are facing these two alternatives: Either we find ways to cooperate with people who are not like us, and will not be, certainly not in my lifetime, like us, and accept them, that they are not like us, and get on as best we can, and keep our differences, but respect each other. I think that’s what we need from the Western countries. I think it’s the basic problem today dealing with other countries.

And the same goes, from what I have said, for China. I do not know the Chinese language. I have been in China. I know a little about China. Russia, I know very well. I speak Russian, so I know how Russians are thinking about this, what their feelings are about this. And I think it’s important to deal with these questions.

%%‘A Way to Live Together’

Michelle Rasmussen: You also pointed out, that in 2001, after the attack against the World Trade Center, Putin was the first one to call George Bush, and he offered cooperation about dealing with terrorism. You’ve written that he had a pro-Western worldview, but that this was not reciprocated.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes. Afterwards, Putin was criticized by the military, and also by politicians in the beginning of his first term in 2000, 2001, 2002, he was criticized because he was too happy for America. He even said, in an interview in the BBC, that he would like Russia to become a member of NATO. It did not happen, because—there are many reasons for that. But he was very, very keen—that’s also why he felt very betrayed afterward. In 2007, at the Munich Conference on Security in February in Germany, he said he was very frustrated, and it was very clear that he felt betrayed by the West. He thought that they had a common agenda. He thought that Russia should become a member. But Russia probably is too big.

If you consider Russia becoming a member of the European Union, the European Union would change thoroughly, but they failed. Russia did not become a member. It’s understandable. But then I think the European Union should have found, again, a modus vivendi.

Michelle Rasmussen: A way of living together.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, how to live together It was actually a parallel development of the European Union and NATO, against Russia. In 2009, the European Union invited Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, to become members of the European Union, but not Russia. Even though they knew that there was really a lot of trade between Ukraine, also Georgia, and Russia. And it would interfere with that trade. But they did not pay attention to Russia.

So, Russia was left out at this time. And so eventually, you could say, understandably, very understandably, Russia turned to China. And in China, with cooperation with China, they became stronger. They became much more self-confident, and they also cooperated with people who respected them much more. I think that’s interesting, that the Chinese understood how to deal with other people with respect, but the Europeans and Americans did not.

%%Ukraine, Again

Michelle Rasmussen: Just before we go to our last questions. I want to go back to Ukraine, because it’s so important. You said that the problem did not start with the so-called annexation of Crimea, but with what you called a coup against the sitting president. Can you just explain more about that? Because in the West, everybody says, “Oh, the problem started when Russia annexed Crimea.”

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, if you take Ukraine, in 2010 there was a presidential election, and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] monitored the election, and said that it was very good, and the majority voted for Viktor Yanukovych. Viktor Yanukovych did not want Ukraine to become a member of NATO. He wanted to cooperate with the European Union. But he also wanted to keep cooperating with Russia. Basically, that’s what he was like. But it’s very often claimed that he was corrupt. Yes, I don’t doubt it, but name me one president who has not been corrupt. That’s not the big difference, it’s not the big thing, I would say. But then in 2012, there was also a parliamentary election in Ukraine, and Yanukovych’s party also gained a majority with some other parties. There was a coalition which supported Yanukovych’s policy not to become a member of NATO.

And then there was a development where the European Union and Ukraine were supposed to sign a treaty of cooperation. But he found out that the treaty would be very costly for Ukraine, because they would open the borders for European Union firms, and the Ukrainian firms would not be able to compete with the Western firms.

Secondly, and this is the most important thing, basic industrial export from Ukraine was to Russia, and it was industrial products from the eastern part, from Dniepropetrovsk or Dniepro as it is called today, from Donetsk, from Luhansk and from Kryvyj Rih (Krivoj Rog), from some other parts, basically in the eastern part, which is the industrial part of Ukraine.

And they made some calculations that showed that, well, if you join this agreement, Russia said, “We will have to put some taxes on the export, because you will have some free import from the European Union. We don’t have an agreement with the European Union, so, of course, anything which comes from you, there would be some taxes imposed on it.” And then Yanukovych said, “Well, well, well, it doesn’t sound good,” and he wanted Russia, the European Union and Ukraine to go together, and the three form what we call a triangular agreement.

But the European Union was very much opposed to it. The eastern part of Ukraine was economically a part of Russia. Part of the Russian weapons industry was actually in the eastern part of Ukraine, and there were Russian speakers there. But the European Union said, “No, we should not cooperate with Russia about this,” because Yanukovych wanted to have cooperation between the European Union, Ukraine, and Russia, which sounds very sensible to me. Of course, it should be like that. It would be to the advantage of all three parts. But the European Union had a very ideological approach to this. So, they were very much against Russia. It also increased the Russian’s suspicion that the European Union was only a stepping-stone to NATO membership.

And then what happened was that there was a conflict, there were demonstrations every day on the Maidan Square in Kiev. There were many thousands of people there, and there were also shootings, because many of the demonstrators were armed people. They had stolen weapons from some barracks in the West. And at this point, when 100 people had been killed, the European Union foreign ministers from France, Germany and Poland met, and there was also a representative from Russia, and there was Yanukovych, a representative from his government, and from the opposition. And they made an agreement. Ok. You should have elections this year, in half a year, and you should have some sharing of power. People from the opposition should become members of the government, and things like that.

All of a sudden, things broke down, and Yanukovych left, because you should remember, and very often in the West, they tend to forget that the demonstrators were armed. And they killed police also. They killed people from Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions, and things like that. So, it’s always been portrayed as innocent, peace-loving demonstrators. They were not at all. And some of them had very dubious points of view, with Nazi swastikas, and things like that. And Yanukovych fled.

Then they came to power. They had no legitimate government, because many of the members of parliament from these parts of the regions which had supported Yanukovych, had fled to the East. So, the parliament was not able to make any decisions. Still, there was a new president, also a new government, which was basically from the western part of Ukraine. And the first thing they did, I told you, was to get rid of the Russian language, and then they would talk about NATO membership. And Victoria Nuland was there all the time, the vice foreign minister of the United States, was there all the time. There were many people from the West also, so things broke down.

%%Crimea

Michelle Rasmussen: There have actually been accusations since then, that there were provocateurs who were killing people on both sides.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Yes, exactly. And what’s interesting is that there’s been no investigation whatsoever about it, because a new government did not want to conduct an investigation as to who killed them. So, it was orchestrated. There’s no doubt in my mind it was an orchestrated coup. No doubt about it.

That’s the basic context for the decision of Putin to accept Crimea as a part of Russia. In the West, it is said that Russia simply annexed Crimea. It’s not precisely what happened, because there was a local parliament, it was an autonomous part of Ukraine, and they had their own parliament, and they made the decision that they should have a referendum, which they had in March. And then they applied to become a member of the Russian Federation. It’s not a surprise, even though the Ukrainian army did not go there, because there was a Ukrainian army. There were 21,000 Ukrainian soldiers. 14,000 of these soldiers joined the Russian army.

And so, that tells a little about how things were not like a normal annexation, where one country simply occupies part of the other country. Because you have this cleft country, you have this part, especially the southern part, which was very, very pro-Russian, and it’s always been so. There’s a lot of things in terms of international law you can say about it.

But I have no doubt that you can look upon it differently, because if you look it at from the point of people who lived in Crimea, they did not want—because almost 80-90% had voted for the Party of the Regions, which was Yanukovych’s party, a pro-Russian party, you could say, almost 87%, or something like that.

They have voted for this Party. This Party had a center in a central building in Kiev, which was attacked, burned, and three people were killed. So, you could imagine that they would not be very happy. They would not be very happy with the new government, and the new development. Of course not. They hated it. And what I think is very critical about the West is that they simply accepted, they accepted these horrible things in Ukraine, just to have the prize, just to have this prey, of getting Ukraine into NATO.

And Putin was aware that he could not live, not even physically, but certainly not politically, if Sevastopol, with the harbor for the Russian fleet, became a NATO harbor. It was impossible. I know people from the military say “No, no way.” It’s impossible. Would the Chinese take San Diego in the United States? Of course not. It goes without saying that such things don’t happen.

So, what is lacking in the West is just a little bit of realism. How powers, how superpowers think, and about red lines of superpowers. Because we have an idea in the West about the new liberal world order. It sounds very nice when you’re sitting in an office in Washington. It sounds very beautiful and easy, but to go out and make this liberal world order, it’s not that simple. And you cannot do it like, certainly not do it like the way they did it in Ukraine.

Michelle Rasmussen: Regime change?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, regime change.

%%The Importance of Cultural Exchanges

Michelle Rasmussen: I have two other questions. The last questions. The Russian-Danish Dialogue organization that you are a leader of, and the Schiller Institute in Denmark, together with the China Cultural Center in Copenhagen, were co-sponsors of three very successful Musical Dialogue of Cultures Concerts, with musicians from Russia, China, and many other countries. You are actually an associate professor in cultural differences. How do you see that? How would an increase in cultural exchange improve the situation?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, it cannot but improve, because we have very little, as I also told you. So, I’m actually also very, very happy with this cooperation, because I think it’s very enjoyable, these musical events, they are very, very enjoyable and very interesting, also for many Danish people, because when you have the language of music, it is better than the language of weapons, if I can put it that way, of course. But I also think that when we meet each other, when we listen to each other’s music, and share culture in terms of films, literature, paintings, whatever, I think it’s also, well, it’s a natural thing, first of all, and it’s unnatural not to have it.

We do not have it, because maybe some people want it that way, if people want us to be in a kind of tense situation. They would not like to have it, because I think without this kind of, it’s just a small thing, of course, but without these cultural exchanges, well, you will be very, very bad off. We will have a world which is much, much worse, I think, and we should learn to enjoy the cultural expressions of other people.

We should learn to accept them, also, we should learn to also cooperate and also find ways—. We are different. But, also, we have a lot of things in common, and the things we have in common are very important not to forget, that even with Russians, and even the Chinese, also all other peoples, we have a lot in common, that is very important to bear in mind that we should never forget. Basically, we have the basic values we have in common, even though if you are Hindu, a Confucian, a Russian Orthodox, we have a lot of things in common.

And when you have such kind of encounters like in cultural affairs, in music, I think that you become aware of it, because suddenly it’s much easier to understand people, if you listen to their music. Maybe you need to listen a few times, but it becomes very, very interesting. You become curious about instruments, ways of singing, and whatever it is. So, I hope the corona situation will allow us, also, to make some more concerts. I think it should be, because they’re also very popular in Denmark.

Michelle Rasmussen: Yes. As Schiller wrote, it’s through beauty that we arrive at political freedom. We can also say it’s through beauty that we can arrive at peace.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes.

%%The Role of Schiller Institute

Michelle Rasmussen: The Schiller Institute and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, its founder and international President, are leading an international campaign to prevent World War III, for peace through economic development, and a dialogue amongst cultures. How do you see the role of the Schiller Institute?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Well, I know it. We have been cooperating. I think your basic calls, appeals for global development, I think it’s very, very interesting, and I share the basic point of view. I think maybe it’s a little difficult. The devil is in the details, but basically, I think what you are thinking about, when I talk about the Silk Road, when I talk about these Chinese programs, Belt and Road programs, I see much more successful development that we have seen, say, in Africa and European countries developing, because I have seen how many western-dominated development programs have been distorting developments in Africa and other parts of the world. They distort development.

I’m not uncritical to China, but, of course, I can see very positive perspectives in the Belt and Road program. I can see really, really good perspectives, because just look at the railroads in China, for instance, at their fast trains. It’s much bigger than anywhere else in the world. I think there are some perspectives, really, which I think attract, first and foremost, people in Asia.

But I think, eventually, also, people in Europe, because I also think that this model is becoming more and more—it’s also beginning in the eastern part. Some countries of Eastern Europe are becoming interested. So, I think it’s very interesting. Your points of your points of view. I think they’re very relevant, also because I think we are in a dead-end alley in the West, what we are in right now, so people anyway are looking for new perspectives.

And what you come up with, I think, is very, very interesting, certainly. What it may be in the future is difficult to say because things are difficult.

But the basic things that you think about, and what I have heard about the Schiller Institute, also because I also think that you stress the importance of tolerance. You stress the importance of a multicultural society, that we should not change each other. We should cooperate on the basis of mutual interests, not changing each other. And as I have told you, this is what I see as one of the real, real big problems in the western mind, the western way of thinking, that we should decide what should happen in the world as if we still think we are colonial powers, like we have been for some one hundred years. But these times are over. There are new times ahead, and we should find new ways of thinking. We should find new perspectives.

And I think it goes for the West, that we can’t go on living like this. We can’t go on thinking like this, because it will either be war, or it’ll be dead end alleys, and there’ll be conflicts everywhere.

You can look at things as a person from the West. I think it’s sad to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and those countries, Syria to some extent also, where the West has tried to make some kind of regime change or decide what happens. They’re not successful. I think it’s obvious for all. And we need some new way of thinking. And what the Schiller Institute has come up with is very, very interesting in this perspective, I think.

Michelle Rasmussen: Actually, when you speak about not changing other people, one of our biggest points is that we actually have to challenge ourselves to change ourselves. To really strive for developing our creative potential and to make a contribution that will have, potentially, international implications.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Definitely

Michelle Rasmussen: The Schiller Institute is on full mobilization during the next couple of weeks to try to get the United States and NATO to negotiate seriously. And Helga Zepp-LaRouche has called on the U.S. and NATO to sign these treaties that Russia has proposed, and to pursue other avenues of preventing nuclear war. So, we hope that you, our viewers, will also do everything that you can, including circulating this video.

Is there anything else you would like to say to our viewers before we end, Jens Jørgen?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: No. I think we have talked a lot now. Only I think what you said about bringing the U.S. and Russia to the negotiation table, it’s obvious. I think that it should be, for any prudent, clear-thinking person in the West, it should be obvious that this is the only right thing to do. So of course, we support it 100%.

Michelle Rasmussen: Okay. Thank you so much, Jens Jørgen Nielsen

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I thank you.

Tilmeld dig her for at modtage et link til din e-mail, talerlisten og opdateringer,

eller se den på denne side.

På engelsk:

Will the Omicron COVID variant be the warning bell we heed?

Eight months ago, in March 2021, epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease specialists from twenty-eight nations warned of the dangers to come without a full international vaccination roll-out. Most believed that we had a year or less before truly dangerous mutations proliferated widely. Gregg Gonsalves, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University eight months ago put it this way: “With millions of people around the world infected with this virus, new mutations arise every day. Sometimes they find a niche that makes them more fit than their predecessors. These lucky variants could transmit more efficiently and potentially evade immune responses to previous strains. Unless we vaccinate the world, we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines …The virus doesn’t respect borders and new variants somewhere on the planet mean none of us are safe.”

But vaccinations alone will not stop COVID. Only full modern health systems everywhere, which require the simultaneous rapid build-out of electricity production and delivery, the provision of clean water–new water systems, and all other required infrastructure, to support the hospitals, the clinics and the ongoing health concerns of people can do the job. 

Only if we develop a full international, in-depth response to the escalation warnings from epidemiologists, virologists and infection disease specialists as advocated by the Schiller Institute beginning in March 2020, and repeated by former U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders just a few days ago, can we stop the growing death, economic despair and that has wrecked so many human lives.

Join us in this conference, and recruit others to join the mission.

Baggrund:

Omicron: Urgent Need for a Modern Health System in Every Nation

Nov. 30: Helga Zepp-LaRouche has now urged the movement associated with her, in every nation where it is active and has outreach, to focus on the necessity to catalyze the construction of a modern system of hospital, healthcare, and research facilities in every nation, as a defense of the human race and the planet against pandemics. Taking the worldwide spread and capabilities of pandemic viruses seriously, has been postponed and played with for long enough in the COVID case—possibly too long.

Truly worldwide vaccination, which is urgent, is only one step back from the brink.

Already 21 months ago, on March 13, 2020, Helga LaRouche wrote an editorial statement for the Schiller Institute in EIR, “COVID-19 Pandemic Forces Re-Thinking: International Cooperation Indispensable!,” with an accompanying fact sheet “Urgent Physical-Economic Requirements To Fight the Pandemic.” She wrote then: “If we want to prevent the coronavirus pandemic from spreading in waves and migrating from the Northern to the Southern Hemisphere and back— thus potentially creating the breeding grounds for additional similar and worse viruses—we must initiate radical changes.

“Hospitals with isolation wards must be built throughout the world, following the example of the city of Wuhan and Hubei Province, which built a total of 14 temporary hospitals, including the necessary intensive care beds. World Health Organization standards must be observed in doing so. China, for example, built facilities with 16,000 new hospital beds in just one month.

“International scientific research centers must be established for research on the COVID-19 virus and other viral and bacterial pathogens. Vaccines must be developed and tested. The results of research in biophysics, nuclear biology and space medicine must be made available immediately to all nations. The point of reference for this is the conception of a Strategic Defense of Earth (SDE) developed by Lyndon LaRouche, in which the protection of human life from pandemics is one focal point.”

A great mobilization was needed then, and now: 10 million new hospital beds worldwide in 30,000 new hospitals and clinical centers; new laboratory facilities; 200 new gigawatts of reliable baseload electric power which is essential to such capacities; a tremendous years-long recruitment, including among youth, of 9-10 million physicians and assistants, nurses, engineers, laboratory technicians.

“These worldwide measures,” Zepp-LaRouche wrote, “require investments that cannot be made under the conditions of the present, collapsing financial system. The current actions of the central banks in injecting liquidity into this financial system by the trillions of dollars, and even the allocation of budget funds by governments, is due to a hyperinflationary monetary explosion, and is unsustainable.”

Therefore, she concluded, the “four economic laws” proposed by her husband Lyndon LaRouche were needed for this international construction, beginning with Glass-Steagall bank reorganization and introduction of Hamiltonian national banking.

Read Helga’s statement here.

Now former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, in an open letter Nov. 23, days before the Omicron variant of the COVID virus was identified, “called upon virologists and medical experts throughout the globe to undertake an international, coordinated and integrated educational campaign to establish a sane approach to deal with this and potentially future pandemics.” Dr. Elders was in 2020 the co-founder with Helga LaRouche of the Committee on the Coincidence of Opposites, which has cooperative contacts with physicians and nurses organizations and with medical educators. She asks for a mobilization of ideas, as Helga LaRouche did in March 2020, on these questions (på dansk):

• Hvad er en pandemi?
• Hvordan bekæmpes en pandemi?
• Hvad er offentlig sundhed og hvordan bør vi arbejde sammen for at gennemføre anvendte og allerede testede, fundamentale sundhedstiltag, herunder hygiejne, rent drikkevand og næringsrig mad, og en forsyning af forebyggende og lindrende medicin, inklusive vacciner, som er afgørende for at overvinde pandemien?
• Hvad er den sammenlignede virkningsgrad af de forskellige vacciner og andre tiltag, som nu bruges i forskellige nationer og regioner, for at forhindre alvorlig sygdom og død?
• Hvordan sikrer vi tilstrækkelige antal af sygehuse, sundhedsklinikker og sundhedspersonale i hver nation, herunder den systematiske rekruttering af unge, lokale sundhedsmedarbejdere for at hjælpe nu, med at bringe pandemien under kontrol?

Læs hele Dr. Elders’ brev her.

An emergency meeting is called for broadcast on the Internet this Saturday, Dec. 4 at 19:00 Danish time. Join in helping to organize it.

Can a Strategic Crisis Between the Major Powers Be Avoided? — Panel 1 from Schiller Institute on Vimeo.

The Science of Physical Economy — Panel 2 from Schiller Institute on Vimeo.

There Are Not Limits to Growth in the Universe from Schiller Institute on Vimeo.

The Beauty of True Human Culture — Panel 4 from Schiller Institute on Vimeo.

Schiller Instituttets Konference: En ny mørk tidsalder eller fred gennem udvikling

14. november (EIRNS) – Schiller Instituttets internationale konference, afholdt den 13.-14. november med titlen: »Alle menneskehedens moralske ressourcer skal samles: Menneskeheden må være den udødelige art!«, begyndte meget passende med sopranen Lisa Bryces opførelse af Johannes Brahms’ lied, Von ewiger Liebe (»Af evig kærlighed«). Aldrig før har der været et øjeblik i historien, hvor selve civilisationens eksistens har været så truet, hvor kreativitetens og kærlighedens magt, de kvaliteter som adskiller mennesket fra dyret, så tydeligt påkrævet af verdens borgere for at sikre, at menneskeheden overlever for at bevare denne særlige art, skabt i Guds billede (»Imago viva Dei«).

Lyndon LaRouche sagde følgende i et videoklip fra en tale i Tyskland, givet den 2. juli 2011, og som blev vist på konferencen: »Hvad er der i os, som ikke findes i andre levende arter vi kender til? Som måske, på en eller anden måde, mirakuløst, kunne udstikke en skæbne for vores menneskerace, som vi ikke ser i nogen anden levende art? Navnet på den specifikke kvalitet, som vi erkender i den menneskelige art, der ikke eksisterer i nogen anden kendt, levende art? Der er en kreativ kvalitet, som er absolut unik for menneskeheden. Og hvis man ikke er kreativ, og hvis man ikke forstår kreativitet, så har man ingen billet til at overleve endnu! Fordi kreativitet vil ikke redde dig, medmindre du gør brug af den. Alt du skal gøre er at vedtage en -politik for nulvækst, en politik med nul teknologisk vækst: Jeg kan garantere dig for, at din udryddelse vil komme, leveret til tiden! Jeg ved ikke hvornår den tid er, men det er snart, i den geologiske og galaktiske tids målestok.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident, begyndte sin tale med et »tankeeksperiment«, hvor hun bemærkede: »Det ville faktisk være ganske enkelt at løse næsten hvert eneste af de mange problemer vi konfronteres med hver dag, hvis størstedelen af de europæiske nationers regeringer, og muligvis sågar den amerikanske administration, ville sige: ’Okay, vi tog fejl. Vi bliver nødt til at forandre vores tankegang. Vi begik en masse fejl’«. Hun henviste til nogle af de fejltagelser: at overgive finanssystemet til spekulation, at forsømme udvidelse af infrastruktur og landbrug, at føre krig for krigens skyld, alt imens man forvandlede Rusland og Kina til fjender frem for venner, at privatisere sundhedsvæsenet, at fremme det grimme og perverse som ”underholdning” og fremme falsk videnskab om klimaet.

Men, fortsatte hun, sandsynligheden for sådan en ærlig beskrivelse af vores fejltagelser er ikke særlig stor, »fordi Vestens etablissement indtil videre, til trods for den ene politiske fejltagelse efter den anden, har vist nul evne til at erkende og tilstå deres fejl og vedtage de passende korrektioner. Som konsekvens er det mere sandsynligt, at hele det transatlantiske system er ved at disintegrere.«

Men, udtalte Zepp-LaRouche, »[v]i i Vesten kunne muligvis også genvinde vores integritet og moralske værdighed, som vi har brug for, for at komme ud af denne krise. Lad os huske alle de store tænkere og filosoffer fra vores traditioner for i fællesskab at tilslutte os denne indsats.« Ved at deltage sammen med Kina i det største infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekt i historien, Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, sagde hun, kan vi skabe et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden.

Hun afsluttede som følger: »Det er derfor en udfordring for alle seriøse videnskabsfolk, rundt om i verden, at undersøge hvorfor Lyndon LaRouche var så fuldstændig præcis i forudsigelsen af timingen og karakteren af den nuværende, verdensomspændende, finansielle, monetære og økonomiske sammenbrudskrise, samt hans fysisk økonomiske metode, hvis vi ønsker at udvikle vores planet til at være beboelig for alle mennesker, også for dem der lever i fremtiden. I denne ånd, lad os agere med den antagelse, at vi er den enestående, kreative art i universet, at vi ikke blot er jordboere, men potentielt set en udødelig art i universet. Mange tak.«

Første panel: »Kan en strategisk krise mellem stormagterne undgås?«

En anden taler på det først panel var fr. Chen Xiaohan, stedfortrædende general-sekretær for Det kinesiske folks forening for fred og Nedrustning, tog fat på spørgsmålet: »Relationer blandt de store nationer og global udvikling«. Hun forklarede: »Hele verden er gået ind i en periode med turbulens og forandring«, men fortsatte: »Den nye situation frembringer nye muligheder, ligeså vel som udfordringer«. Imens hun opfordrede alle nationer, særligt stormagterne, til at arbejde sammen for udviklingen af alle nationer, italesatte hun også forskellige synspunkter om »demokrati«, i Vesten såvel som i Kina. Hun sagde: »Som Præsident Xi har understreget, er demokrati ikke en udsmykning, eller en fremvisning, men for at løse problemer, som folk bliver nødt til at løse. Demokrati er alle befolkningers rettighed, ikke et monopol af få lande. Om et land er demokratisk eller ej, burde afgøres af dets egen befolkning, ikke gennem at pege fingre af få udenforstående; burde bedømmes af det internationale samfund, ikke af et selvhøjtideligt fåtal… Det er udemokratisk at bedømme verdens farverige politiske systemer med en enkelt målestok og undersøge menneskehedens farverige politiske civilisationer med ensfarvede øjne.« Fr. Chen beskrev befolkningens deltagelse på alle niveauer i lokale, regionale og nationale politiske diskussioner og i udvælgelsen af lederskabet.

Hun betonede det »Globale Udviklingsperspektiv«, foreslået af Præsident Xi Jinping ved den Generelle Debat af det 76. møde i FN’s generalforsamling, »som opfordrede til overholdelse af begrebet om at vægte udvikling først og mennesker først«, og »et mere lige og afbalanceret globalt partnerskab, for at give en ny impuls til udviklingslande for at fremskynde udvikling«.

To førende repræsentanter fra Rusland adresserede den uhyrlige spænding mellem USA og Rusland, og tilskyndede til nødtiltag for at undgå krig gennem samarbejde. Ambassadør Anna Evstigneeva, den permanente, stedfortrædende repræsentant for den Russiske Føderations mission ved FN, talte om situationen i Afghanistan, hvor den hastige tilbagetrækning af USA’s tropper efterlod alle, herunder også Taliban, ude af stand til at håndtere de sammenstyrtede strukturer efter 20 års krig. Hvis Afghanistan tillades at »falde ned i afgrunden«, kunne det bringe hele regionen med sig. Hun foreslog, at den »udvidede trojka«, som består af et samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Pakistan, må tage skridtet til at frigøre pengene, som tilhører den afghanske befolkning, gøre en ende på sanktionerne og samarbejde for at genoprejse økonomien.

Dr. Andrey Kortunov, administrerende direktør for Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender (RIAC), stillede spørgsmålet: »Findes der en vej frem til et forbedret forhold mellem USA og Rusland?« Imens han mådeholdent talte om de yderst store provokationer fra USA’s og NATO’s styrker, som finder sted langs Ruslands grænser, rejste Kortunov spørgsmålet om Friedrich Schillers åndelige arv, som en poet og filosof, og opfordrede os alle til at leve i vores århundrede, uden at blive dets kreatur, samt Schillers advarsel om at give folk hvad de har brug for, frem for det de ønsker. De små skridt hen mod samarbejde med Biden-administrationen – indenfor våbenkontrol, i forhindringen af spredning af masseødelæggelsesvåben og indenfor cyberangreb – er vigtige, sagde han, men der har ikke været noget gennembrud, ingen forandring til det bedre. Ingen ny begyndelse er mulig, eftersom USA fortsætter med at anklage Rusland for mange ting, som ikke har noget sandfærdigt grundlag. De næste få måneder er kritiske, men han forudser ingen dramatisk forandring indtil 2024, når der kunne komme et »generationsskifte« i Det hvide Hus og i Kongressen. Overlevelsen af denne krise kræver en erkendelse af en »Global Fællesnævner«.

Oberst Richard H. Black (tidl.), tidligere senator i staten Virginia og tidligere Chef for Hærens afdeling for Kriminalret, Kontoret for Auditør ved Pentagon, talte angående spørgsmålet: »Amerikansk-kinesiske relationer: Potentialet for undgåelse af krig og Samarbejde«. Han gennemgik genåbningen af Kina efter Præsident Nixons besøg i 1972, og den store fordel af Kinas opstigning for både USA, Kina og resten verden, og advarede imod det voksende anti-Kina-hysteri. Provokationerne omkring Taiwan truer med at underminere verdensfreden, sagde han, ligesom dette er tilfældet for de vilde løgne om uighurerne, hvor al-Qaeda-relaterede terrorister blandt uighurerne blev overvundet, hovedsageligt gennem et enormt uddannelsesprogram for unge uighurer i midlertidige interneringslejre, samt den økonomiske udvikling af regionen.

Dr. George Koo, formand for Burlingame-stiftelsen og en ledende fortaler for det amerikansk-kinesiske samfund, fortsatte denne tanke: »Vores verdens fortsatte beståen afhænger af om USA og Kina kan enes«. Han gennemgik de mange angreb på Kina, en efter en, og viste hvordan de både er falske og selvhævdende, men også er meget farlige. FBI’s angreb på kinesiske videnskabsfolk, som arbejder i USA, er et eksempel på at skyde os selv i foden. Han hævdede, at Kina helt sikkert vil overgå USA økonomisk, såvel som i videnskab og teknologi, meget snart, men at USA’s egeninteresse, frem for at begrænse eller sågar at konkurrere, er at tilslutte sig Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

Den tidligere NSA-analytiker, Kirk Wiebe, gennemgik arbejdet han foretog sig i samarbejde med Bill Binney, i at afsløre Russiagate-svindelnummeret, »at historien om at Rusland hackede den Demokratiske nationale Komité på ingen måde kunne bekræftes af bevismateriale«. Han sagde, at hvis Julian Assange og Edward Snowden var blevet tilladt at tale til den amerikanske befolkning, ville krigene for regimeskifte ikke være blevet støttet af befolkningen.

Andet panel: Videnskaben om Fysiske Økonomi:

Dette panel begyndte med en opførelse af en del af Mendelssohns oratorium, Elias, med bassen Kevin Thompson, akkompagneret af Dura Jun. Hovedtalen blev givet af EIR’s økonomiske medredaktør, Paul Gallagher, som belyste den tilsigtede skabelse af den nu omsiggribende hyperinflation ved hjælp af Lyndon LaRouches Typiske Kollapsfunktion (»trippelkurven«) til at påvise den enorme pengetrykning, særligt efter 2008, efterfulgt af den famøse konference i Jackson Hole i 2019, hvor Mark Carney og BlackRock-gruppen bekendtgjorde »regimeskiftet« i det vestlige finanssystem. Den forandring blev formelt godkendt ved COP26 i Glasgow denne måned, hvor den samme gruppe skabte et vestligt bankkartel for at overtage kontrollen over suveræne regeringer for at være i stand til at diktere kreditpolitikken indenfor energi, industri og landbrug til fordel for en ny grøn boble, i håbet om at redde det kollapsende vestlige banksystem i blot lidt længere tid, imens gælden bliver udslettet gennem en kæmpe devaluering af dollaren. Gallagher påviste den inflation på 11%, som førte til sammenbruddet i 2008, efterfulgt af nær ingen inflation indtil 2019, og nu en pludselig stigning på 30% siden 2019, med 125% fra juli til oktober. Denne fascistiske politik vil slå fejl, ligesom den fra nazisternes finansminister, Hjalmar Schacht, og kun indførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven kan forhindre en disintegration af det vestlige finanssystem.

Et afsnit om Afghanistan efterfulgte, begyndende med Pino Arlaachi, der, som FN’s ansvarlige for narkotikabekæmpelse fra 2000-2001, forhandlede succesfuldt med Taliban for at udslette næsten al valmueproduktion. USA’s politik i dag, sagde han, synes at være at udsulte befolkningen for at kunne opnå et regimeskifte – en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden ifølge international lovgivning.

Amna Malik, præsidenten for Centret for pakistanske og internationale Relationer (COPAIR), fordømte den humanitære katastrofe, som udfolder sig i Afghanistan og krævede handling, herunder en »donorkonference« for at skaffe de nødvendige finansielle midler. Hun henviste til den »udvidede trojka« med USA, Rusland, Kina og Pakistan, som mødes i Islamabad den 11. november, og opfordrede dem til at vedtage fælles nødtiltag.

Dr. Shah Mehrabi, på nuværende tidspunkt en professor i USA, men også et medlem i guvernørernes bestyrelse i Afghanistans centralbank (siden 2002) og formand for dets tilsynskomité, betonede, at situationen i sit land allerede var ved at falde fra hinanden længe inden tilbagetrækningen af USA’s styrker den 15. august og Talibans overtagelse. Den fuldkomne afskæring fra al bistand, som havde båret 60% af økonomien i løbet af USA’s og NATO’s besættelse, tvinger økonomien hen imod »fuldt stop«. Han opfordrede til et omgående samarbejde med Taliban og bemærkede, at Taliban ikke havde gjort noget forsøg på at overtage de pengemidler, som er blevet i centralbanken – rent faktisk har de indsamlet 50 millioner dollars fra korruption i de tidligere regeringsmedlemmers hjem og overdraget dem til centralbanken, hvilket modbeviser USA’s påstand om, at de ikke kan stole på Taliban, og derfor ikke frigiver det afghanske folks penge.

Iliad Alexander Terra, stifter og præsident af Rådet om globale Relationer, sagde, at nogle afghanere er så desperate, at de sælger deres børn for at få mad. Han henviste til det faktum, at Afghanistan har været i krig i de sidste 40 år, men at ødelæggelsen af den tidligere blomstrende region går tilbage til »Det store Spil« (»The Great Game«) mellem det Britiske Imperium og det Russiske Imperium i det 19. århundrede. Han opfordrede det internationale samfund og de afghanske borgere i udlandet til at arbejde sammen med Schiller Instituttet for at mobilisere de nødvendige kræfter for at redde landet.

Dennis Small, EIR’s redaktør for Sydamerika, præsenterede den enorme vækst i narkotikaproduktion og -misbrug under »A/S Narkotika«, bankkartellet, som har kontrolleret den internationale narkotikahandel i løbet af det sidste årti. Marihuana er det stof, hvoraf der er den største mængde og pengeindtjening i dag på grund af legaliseringen i de fleste amerikanske stater. Både Afghanistan og Haiti står nu på randen til et komplet sammenbrud på grund af A/S Narkotikas magt, hvor banker, som ikke blot »tillader« dette, men driver det og forhindrer den hårdt krævede assistance nødvendig for at stoppe det. Han viste, at en økonomisk udviklingspolitik, der skaber arbejdspladser til ungdommen, er det eneste som kan gøre det muligt at slå ned på de bander som kontrollerer Haiti, samt andre nationer verden over.

Mange andre talere talte om Haitis krise, kampen mod fattigdom og kampen for at oprette et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert land. Udskrivningen af alle præsentationerne og diskussionen vil være tilgængelig i den EIR-udgave, som udkommer den 26. november. Hele videoen af panelet kan ses her:

https://vimeo.com/644513050?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=88023605

Tredje panel: »Der er ingen grænser for vækst i Universet«

Panelet åbnede med en opførelse af Beethovens sang, »Abendlied unter’m gestirnten Himmel« (»Aftensang under Stjernehimlen«), af John Sigerson, akkompagneret af Margaret Greenspan.

Hovedtalen fra en leder af LaRouche-Organisationen, Jason Ross, påviste hvordan den vanvittige »Grønne New Deal« og anti-udviklings-politikken ikke kommer fra den tankeløse »venstrefløj« og hjernevaskede børn, som råber op på gaderne, men fra det højeste niveau i oligarkiet, der overgiver den økonomiske politik til det globale bankkartel for at gennemtvinge dets malthusianske ødelæggelse af menneskeracen. Han forklarede, at LaRouche længe har sammenlignet dette grønne folkemord med historien om Prometheus, som blev tortureret af de olympiske guder for sin »forbrydelse« – at give ildens magt til menneskeheden.

Dr. Augstinus Berkhout, emeritus professor i geofysik ved Delfts teknologiske Universitet og et medlem af Hollands kongelige akademi for kunst og Videnskab, præsenterede sit stærke »Budskab til de unge mennesker ved COP26«. [https://clintel.org/message-to-the-young-people-present-at-cop26/] Han henviste til de »stinkende rige« oligarker, der samledes i Glasgow, og som fortalte de unge, at deres fædre og oldefædre havde forårsaget en katastrofe ved at opdage nye principper indenfor videnskaben, som havde forøget befolkningsantallet og samtidig skabt en højere levestandard, og løj om at det ødelagde planeten og ødelagde deres fremtid. Han præsenterede syv punkter under overskriften: »Kære unge, vær venlig at vågne op«, herunder fakta om, at CO2 er et stort gode for planeten og for menneskeheden, imens det nærmest ikke har nogen indflydelse på klimaet, og at klimaet og miljøet er to forskellige fænomener. Han påpegede, at videnskaben selv er i en krise, som et resultat af dette bedrageri, der udbredes i vores skoler og i medierne.

Prof. Sergey Pulinets fra Rumforskningsinstituttet i Moskva og Det russiske Videnskabsakademi, talte om »Forudsigelser af jordskælv ved videnskabens Grænseområder«, og omtalte både gennembruddene i rumbaserede teknikker for forudsigelse af jordskælv, samt grunden til at »etablissementets« seismologer insisterer på, at forudsigelse af jordskælv er umuligt.

Prof. Carl Otto Weiss, direktør og professor (tidl.) for Det tyske hovedinstitut for Meteorologi i Braunschweig i Tyskland, afslørede de gentagne »forudsigelser« om, at verden ville blive tilintetgjort på et sådant eller hint tidspunkt, som aldrig fandt sted. Han gennemgik menneskehedens historie fra stenalderen til bronzealderen, jernalderen, jæger- og samlerparadigmet til dampmaskinen til forbrændingsmotoren til kernekraft og før eller senere fusionskraft, og viste hvordan hver opdagelse af en ny teknologi omdefinerede de ressourcer, som var værdifulde for menneskeheden – dvs., at der ikke findes sådan noget som »begrænsede ressourcer«.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm, en atomfysiker og tidligere formand for Det sydafrikanske selskab for Atomenergi, præsenterede et »Post Mortem for COP26: Afslut øko-kolonialismen gennem Klimasandhed«. Han sagde, at energi er hver økonomis leveblod, og at den gentagede bemærkning, at »videnskabsmænd siger at CO2 forårsager global opvarmning«, ikke kommer fra videnskabsfolk, men fra medierne og bankerne og politikkerne, som ønsker at man tror på løgnen. Han bemærkede, at drivhusgasserne, der opvarmede planeten, har gjort livet på Jorden muligt, men at CO2 grundlæggende set ikke har noget med det at gøre. Faktisk er det åbenlyst, fra et videnskabeligt standpunkt, at varmere klimaer, forårsaget gennem variationer i solcyklusserne, samt galaktiske variationer, tenderer til at forårsage CO2-forøgninger, ikke omvendt.

Mike Thompson, er meteorolog, som nu er statssenator i Kansas og formand for Senatets komité for Virksomheder, sagde: »Hold op med at gøre videnskaben til et våben«. Han sagde, at Al Gore i 1997 indbød meteorologer til Det Hvide Hus, ham selv inkluderet, for at udbrede sin løgn om CO2. De fleste af dem slugte det, men det gjorde han ikke, og han har undersøgt og bekendtgjort sandheden om Milankovitch-cyklusserne og klimaet lige siden.

Prof. Franco Battaglia, professor for fysisk kemi ved Universitet i Modena i Italien og et medlem af Iværksætterkomitéen for underskriftsindsamlingen om menneskeskabt global opvarmning i juni 2019, viste, at nobelprisvinderen, som ”beviste” at global opvarmning er forårsaget af menneskehedens handlinger, havde brugt beviseligt falske computermodeller. Dette blev bevist ved at teste modellerne for deres evne til at ”forudse” tidligere klimaforandringer, såsom den varme periode under Romerriget eller Den lille Istid, og modellerne slog fuldstændig fejl. Affald ind, affald ud. Se hele panelet her: https://vimeo.com/645740574?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=88023605

Fjerde panel: »Skønheden ved en sand, menneskelig kultur«

Det fjerde panel begyndte med en opførelse af spiritualen, »He’s got the whole world in his Hands«, arrangeret af Moses Hogan, sunget af alten Linda Childs, og akkompagneret af Dura Jun. Dette blev efterfulgt af en opførelse af den sidste sats, Agnus Dei, fra Beethovens storslåede Missa Solemnis, opført af Schiller Instituttets kor fra New York City. Messen blev opført i løbet af pandemi-nedlukningen, så hver sanger optog deres del alene, og disse blev sammensat til én samlet opførelse. Den sidste del, Dona nobis Pacem – giv os fred – var et passende, sidste musikalsk bidrag til denne historiske konference.

Jacques Cheminade, præsidenten for det LaRouche-allierede Solidarité et Progrés i Frankrig, åbnede panelet med en påvisning af den vestlige kulturs forfald, ved at fremvise computerspil og fjernsynets forherligelse af hensynsløs dræben, ekstrem vold og seksuelle perversiteter, og henviste til Game of Thrones (lovprist af Dronning Elisabeth) og det sydkoreanske computerspil, Squid. Han drog en forbindelse mellem dette og H.G. Wells’ rolle i at fremme universel fascisme efter 1. verdenskrig, som skabte kulturel pessimisme. Cheminade modstillede dette med den kulturelle optimisme, som er i samklang med menneskets sande natur.

Prof. Zaher Wahab, en professor emeritus for uddannelse og tidligere rådgiver til den afghanske minister for videregående uddannelse, tog den universelle krise op, som hans adopterede nation, USA, konfronteres med, samt ødelæggelsen af hans hjemland, Afghanistan. Efter at have ankommet til USA for at tage sin videregående uddannelse for 50 år siden, udtrykte han sin rædsel og afsky af hvordan landet er faldet fra hinanden, og den »højst irrationelle og anti-videnskabelige« ideologi, som nu overskygger nationen, herunder sågar truslen om en atomkrig.

Tre lærere, fra USA, Kina og Tyskland, italesatte spørgsmålet om forfaldet af Vestens uddannelsessystem, og modstillede dette til uddannelsessystemet i Kina. Denise Rainey, en pensioneret lærer og rektor i Rochester i New York, som har tilbragt tid i Kina i et udvekslingsprogram om uddannelse, gav en lidenskabelig beskrivelse af optimismen, entusiasmen og disciplinen i uddannelsen i Kina, herunder familiens nære deltagelse i deres børns skolegang, set i modsætning til den demoraliserede, fordummede uddannelsessituation i USA.

Xu Wang, dekan for Boaos Institut for kultur og Kreativitet i Kina, talte om »Den æstetiske uddannelse i Kina«, og beskrev et projekt for 6-10-årige elever, som havde til opgave at konstruere skoler ud fra deres egen forståelse af, hvad uddannelsens rolle er. Nogle byggede fysiske strukturer og andre computerskabte strukturer, og konkurrencen involverede hundredvis af elever, som arbejdede i hold, med utrolige resultater til følge .

Prof. Ole Doering, PhD, en tysk sinolog og filosof, som er lærer, både i Tyskland og i Kina, beskrev de oplyste og entusiastiske elever i Kina, og gennemgik deres filosofiske tradition helt tilbage til Konfucius, Mencius og det 12. århundredes geni, Zhu Xi, som udlagde det universelle eksaminationssystem, der indeholdt filosofi, videnskab, poesi og musik, og var de kvalificerende krav for politisk lederskab. Han sammenlignede idéerne fra Konfucius og Schiller, som værende de rødder, som vi må gendanne for at undslippe nutidens forfald indenfor kultur og uddannelse.

Diane Sare, som ledte panelet, tog også spørgsmålet om den moralske transformation op, som fandt sted under boykotten af busserne i Montgomery i 1955, og hvordan dette forandrede borgerne og ungdommen gennem deres deltagelse i handlinger baseret på moralske sandheder. Hun foreslog et »ungdomskorps« for nutidens ungdomsgeneration, der kan bidrage med den nødforsyning, som sundhedssektoren har brug for i USA og rundt om i verden, som værende en opløftende, moralsk oplevelse for at ændre retningen væk kulturelt forfald.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede konferencen med en appel til amerikanere om at lære noget om andre store kulturer, og henviste til Lyndon LaRouches mange artikler i 1960’erne, som advarede om at »rock-narkotika-sex«-modkulturen ville ødelægge befolkningens kognitive evner. Som vi ser i dag, har det liberale opråb, »alt er tilladt«, opnået præcist dette. Vi må skabe en renæssance, der bygger på det bedste fra hver kultur i menneskehedens historie, som beskæftiger sig med menneskets forhold til universet, naturloven og det skønne. Hun opfordrede til støtte for sit begreb om »Ibn-Sina-projektet« i Afghanistan og for menneskeheden til at opløfte alle kulturer til det kreatives og skønnes niveau.

There is an English version below.

København, 10. november (EIRNS) – Den tidligere danske ambassadør Friis Arne Petersen holdt en yderst vigtig tale i går, hvor han opfordrede Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BRI), og udfordrede Europa og USA til at lære fra Kina, hvordan man skaber økonomisk vækst ved hjælp af investeringer i storstilet, højteknologisk infrastruktur. Hans konklusion var, at vi bliver nødt til at forstå infrastrukturens rolle i at skabe økonomisk vækst. Hvis vi sørger for vandforsyning, energi og transport, så vil der være vækst, fordi mennesker er kreative.

Friis Arne Petersen var dansk ambassadør til USA, Kina og Tyskland (5 år i hvert land fra 2005 til 2020), såvel som tidligere direktør for det danske udenrigsministerium. Før dette var han direktør for udenrigsministeriets russiske og østeuropæiske afdeling. Han er også økonom.

Konferencen »Geoøkonomi eller Geopolitik«, som både fandt sted fysisk og blev live-streamet, blev afholdt på Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), den førende udenrigspolitiske tænketank som er tilknyttet det danske udenrigsministerium. Den kan ses på engelsk ovenover eller her: http://www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics

En repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet uddelte konferenceindbydelser til alle deltagere og stillede to spørgsmål (ved 1 time 54 minutter). Se nedenfor.

Først forklarede Lars Erslev Andersen, en DIIS-forsker, Halford Mackinders idé om britisk geopolitik og det eurasiske kerneland (11:50 minutter inde). Han stillede spørgsmålet, hvad det betyder for Europa, at Kina investerer i det centralasiatiske kerneland – er det geopolitik eller geoøkonomi?

Her er højdepunkterne fra Friis Arne Petersens tale, som havde titlen »Er Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet geoøkonomi eller geopolitik?« (begynder 30 minutter inde).

Lær af Kina: Vi koncentrerer os ikke nok om, hvordan Kina skabte deres succesfulde økonomiske udvikling. Hvorfor er infrastruktur så vigtigt for Kina, både indenfor og udenfor landets grænser?

Finansiel udvikling: Kineserne var utilfredse med Den internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Verdensbanken, så de oprettede Den asiatiske infrastruktur- og Investeringsbank (AIIB). Til trods for opposition fra USA, efter at Storbritannien tilsluttede sig, og dernæst Frankrig og Tyskland, ringede Friis Arne Petersen til København og sagde, at vi bliver nødt til at varetage nationale interesser og tilslutte os.

Infrastruktur for en forenet nation: Udfordringen for Kina var ikke blot ulighed, men nationens samhørighed. Det vestlige Kina måtte udvikles. Det har også en global indvirkning. De opbyggede industrierne for at forsyne infrastrukturen med goder. De forsøgte at udvikle de bedste, billigste teknologier og i deres målrettethed forårsagede de en overproduktion, hvilket BRI hjælper dem af med.

Manglen på strategiske visioner indenfor infrastruktur i USA og Europa: Han kritiserede USA’s program med kvantitative lempelser, siden Obama og fremefter, for ikke at investere i de nyeste transportteknologier ligesom Kina, der byggede et højhastighedstognet på tusindvis af kilometer. Han henviste til Los Angeles’ forældede havn og transportinfrastruktur som den medvirkende årsag til den nuværende forsyningskrise.

Europa: Friis Arne Petersen fortalte en historie om den tid, da SF’s formand, transportminister Pia Olsen Dyhr, mødtes med den kinesiske transportminister, imens Friis Arne Petersen var ambassadør. Den kinesiske minister spurgte hende om den nyligt forhandlede (meget uambitiøse) danske togfond og bemærkede, »Tja, det er en begyndelse, men vi eksperimenterer allerede med tog, der kan køre 500 km/t«. De skaber forskningsbaseret innovation. Den danske ambassade i Kina begyndte gradvist at forstå transportøkonomi. Tyskland var et negativt eksempel ved at nægte at hjælpe Danmark med at bygge Femern Bælt-forbindelsen (mellem Danmark og Tyskland).

Tilbagevisningen af beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati: Friis Arne Petersen citerede en rapport fra forskere fra Johns Hopkins University og Harvard Business School, »Kinesiske banker er villige til at omstrukturere betingelserne for de eksisterende lån, og har faktisk aldrig beslaglagt et andet lands aktiver, mindst af alt havnen i Hambantota [i Sri Lanka]«. Han sagde også, at landene langs BRI har en større gæld til vestlige kreditorer, end til Kina. (Den tredje taler ved begivenheden, DIIS-forsker Yang Jiang, satte også spørgsmålstegn ved beskyldningen om gældsdiplomati.)

Den tredje tale, »Centralasien: Konkurrencen om Kernelandet«, givet af Yang Jiang, omhandlede forskellige asiatiske landes, samt Tyrkiets, investeringer i Centralasien.

Spørgerunden: Efter at have identificeret sig selv, takkede en repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet, Michelle Rasmussen, Friis Arne Petersen for hans vigtige tale og sagde, at Schiller Instituttet har kørt en kampagne for at Danmark, Europa og USA tilslutter sig BRI, frem for at betragte det som en trussel. Hun henviste til sin uddeling af flyveblade og sagde, at videokonferencen denne uge vil besvare nogle af disse spørgsmål.

Hun stillede to relaterede spørgsmål. Det første var, hvordan vi kan få USA og Europa til at holde op med at betragte Kina, og særligt BRI, som en trussel, og i stedet se fordelene ved et økonomisk samarbejde. Vores motto er Fred gennem økonomisk Udvikling, fordi fortsættelsen af at betragte Kina og Rusland som trusler, og forfølgelsen af en konfrontationspolitik, fører til faren for krig.

Det andet spørgsmål var, hvad han mente om at integrere Afghanistan med BRI – kineserne er beredte på at gøre dette. Ville det ikke være vigtigt for USA og Europa – særligt de lande der var engagerede i krigen – at håndtere denne skrækkelige økonomiske krise i Afghanistan gennem et samarbejde med Kina?

Friis Arne Petersen svarede, at der er for mange opdelinger, snak om rivalisering eller de mange usikkerheder, som findes i forbindelse med Asiens fremgang. På samme tid som der er en vækst i den vestlige handel med Asien, for eksempel USA’s køb af mange kinesiske produkter nu efter pandemien, er vi fuldstændig besat af ideen om politisk konfrontation og systemiske udfordringer.

Jeg betragter verdensordenen gennem økonomi. Fremskridtet i retningen af FN’s udviklingsmål, takket være Asiens økonomiske præstation, giver mig en optimisme mht., at disse alarmister og folk, som ønsker at politisere og se farer og militære modstandere overalt, vil tabe. Vi bliver nødt til at betragte vores nationers samlede interesser.

På den ene side har Kina, med sine 14 nabolande, en større strategisk udfordring end USA, men Kina ser altid disse nabolande som muligheder, ligesom det som BRI for eksempel kunne opnå i Afghanistan. USA og Vesten har en meget klar interesse i at Afghanistans naboer, som for eksempel Kina, Pakistan og Indien, forsøger at tage vare på deres region, fordi de muligvis kan gøre dette bedre, end vi gjorde det i løbet af de sidste 20 år.

——————————-

English:

COPENHAGEN, Nov. 10 (EIRNS) — Former Danish ambassador Friis Arne Petersen gave an extremely important speech yesterday calling for Europe to join the Belt and Road Initiative, and challenging Europe and the U.S. to learn from China how to generate economic development through large scale, high-technology infrastructure investment. His conclusion was we have to understand the role of infrastructure in growth economics. If we ensure water, power and transportation, there will be growth, because humans are creative. 

Friis Arne Petersen was the Danish ambassador to the U.S., China and Germany (5 years in each country from 2005-2020), as well as the former director of the Danish Foreign Ministry, and, before that, director for the Foreign Ministry’s Russia/Eastern Europe division. He is also an economist.

The event, "Geoeconomics or geopolitics," both on-site and streamed, was held at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS), the leading foreign policy think tank, affiliated with the Danish Foreign Ministry. See it, in English, here. (www.diis.dk/en/event/geoeconomics-or-geopolitics) 

A Schiller Institute representative distributed conference invitations to all attendees, and asked two questions (at 1 hour 54 minutes), see below. 

First, Lars Erslev Andersen, a DIIS researcher, explained Halford Macinder’s idea of British geopolitics and the Eurasian heartland (at 11:50 minutes). He posed the question, what does it mean for Europe, that China is investing in the Central Asian heartland, is it geopolitics or geoeconomics? 

Here are highlights from Friis Arne Petersen’s speech, entitled, "Is the Belt and Road Initiative geoeconomics or geopolitics?," (at 30 minutes). 

Learn from China: We are not concentrating enough on how China created their successful economic development. Why is infrastructure so important for China, both inside and outside the country? 

Financing development: The Chinese were dissatisfied with the IMF and World Bank, so they created the AIIB. Despite opposition from the U.S., after the UK joined, then France and Germany, Friis Arne Petersen called Copenhagen and said that we have to take care of our national interest and join. 

Infrastructure for a unified nation: The challenge for China was not just inequality, but the cohesion of the nation. Western China had to be developed. It also has global impact. They simultaneously built up the industries to provide the products for the infrastructure, trying to develop the best, cheapest technologies, and in their zeal, causing overproduction, which the BRI helps alleviate. 

Lack of strategic infrastructure vision in the U.S. and Europe: The U.S.: He attacked the U.S. stimulus programs from Obama onwards, for not investing in the newest transportation technologies, like China, which built thousands of miles of high-speed rail. He referenced the Los Angeles port’s antiquated harbor and transportation infrastructure as the contributing cause for the current bottleneck. 

Europe: Friis Arne Petersen told an anecdote about the time SF's chairman Pia Olsen Dyhr met with the Chinese transportation minister while Friis Arne Petersen was ambassador. The Chinese minister asked her about the newly negotiated (very unambitious) Danish train plan, and he replied, “Well, that’s a beginning, but we are experimenting with trains that can run 5-600 miles per hour.” The Danish Embassy in China gradually started to understand transportation economics. Germany was a negative example for refusing to help Denmark build the Fehmarnbelt tunnel (between Denmark and Germany). 

Debunking the debt diplomacy accusation: Friis Arne Petersen cited a report from researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Business School, “Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota [Sri Lanka].”  He also said that BRI countries owe much more to Western lenders, than China. (The third speaker at the event, DIIS researcher Yang Jiang, also challenged the debt diplomacy accusation.)

The third speech was “Central Asia: competing for the Heartland,” about investment in Central Asia by different Asian countries and Turkey by Yang Jiang.

Q&A: After identification, Schiller Institute organizer Michelle Rasmussen thanked Friis Arne Petersen for his important speech, and said that the Schiller Institute has been campaigning for Denmark, Europe, and the U.S. to join the BRI, instead of looking at it as a threat. She referenced her leaflet distribution, and said that our video conference this weekend will answer some of these questions.

She posed two related questions. One is, how can we get the U.S. and Europe to stop looking at China, and specifically the BRI, as a threat, and to see the advantages of economic cooperation? Our slogan is peace through development, because if we continue to regard China and Russia as threats, and pursue a confrontation policy, we are threatened with war. 

The other question is what you think about integrating Afghanistan into the BRI — the Chinese are ready to do that. Wouldn’t it be important for the U.S. and Europe, especially the countries in the war, to deal with this terrible economic crisis in Afghanistan, through cooperating with China?

Friis Arne Petersen said that there are too many division lines, talk of rivalry, or the many uncertainties that lie in the advance of Asia. At the same time that there is an increase of western trade with Asia, for example, the U.S. buying so many Chinese products now after the pandemic, we are totally obsessive about political confrontation, and systemic challenges. 

I approach the world order through economy. The progress towards the UN development goals due to the economic performance of Asia makes me optimistic that these alarmists, and people who want to politicize and see danger and military adversaries everywhere, will lose. We have to look at the total interests of our nations.

On the one hand, China, with its 14 neighboring countries, is more strategically challenged than the U.S., but China always sees the  neighboring countries as opportunities, like what the BRI will do in Afghanistan. The U.S. and the West have a very clear interest in having Afghanistan’s neighbors, like China, Pakistan and India, try to manage their region, because they, possibly, can do that better than we did during the last 20 years.

Se videokonferencen her på denne side.

Videokonference kan også ses bagefter.

Panel 1: Lørdag kl. 16 dansk tid:

Can a Strategic Crisis Between the Major Powers Be Avoided?

Moderator: Dennis Speed (U.S.), The Schiller Institute

Johannes Brahms, Von ewiger Liebe, Op. 43 No. 1
Lisa Bryce, Soprano; Dura Jun, piano

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and President of The Schiller Institute
Keynote Address: “A Terrible End or a New Paradigm?”

Ms. Chen Xiaohan (China), Deputy Secretary General, The Chinese People’s Association for Peace and Disarmament (CPAPD)
Topic: “Major Country Relations and Global Development”

Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva (Russia), Deputy Permanent Representative, the Russian Federation Mission to the UN
Topic: “Situation in Afghanistan after Foreign Troops Withdrawal”

Dr. Andrey Kortunov (Russia), Director General, Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)
Topic: “Is There a Pathway for an Improved Relationship Between the U.S. and Russia?”

Question and Answer Session

Part 2 of Panel 1

Col. Richard H. Black (ret.) (U.S.), former State Senator; former Chief of the Army Criminal Law Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, The Pentagon
Topic: “U.S.-China Relations: Potential for War Avoidance and Cooperation”

Dr. George Koo (U.S.), Chairman, Burlingame Foundation; Retired international business consultant
Topic: “The Survival of Our World Depends on Whether the U.S. and China Can Get Along”

Kirk Wiebe (U.S.), Senior Analyst (Ret.), U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Topic: “До́брое бра́тство — лу́чшее бога́тство –Brotherhood is the Best Wealth”

Question and Answer Session to include discussants:

Madison Tang (U.S.), CODEPINK,
Dr. Nikolay Megits (U.S.), President of Institute of Eastern Europe and Central Asia
Earl Rasmussen (U.S.), The Eurasia Center

Panel 2: Lørdag kl. 20 dansk tid:
The Science of Physical Economy

Moderator: Claudio Celani (Italy), Executive Intelligence Review

Felix Mendelssohn: Elijah, No. 14- Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel
Kevin Thompson, Bass; Dura Jun, piano

Paul Gallagher (U.S.), Co-Editor, Executive Intelligence Review
Keynote Address: “Stopping Today’s Hyperinflationary Policies”

Pino Arlacchi (Italy), Sociology Professor at Sassari University, Former Executive Director of the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, and former European Parliament Rapporteur on Afghanistan
Topic: “Avoiding the Coming Catastrophe in Afghanistan”

Mrs. Amna Malik (Pakistan), president, Center of Pakistan and International Relations (COPAIR)
Topic: “Socioeconomic Conditions in Afghanistan and the Role of Global Community”

Dr. Shah Mehrabi (Afghanistan), Member of Board of Governors of Central Bank of Afghanistan and Chairman of Audit Committee
Topic: “How to Avoid a Collapsing Economy and Humanitarian Crisis in Afghanistan”

Question and Answer Session with discussants:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder and President, The Schiller Institute
Prof. Zaher Wahab (Afghanistan), Former Advisor to the Afghanistan Minister of Higher Education, and
Iliad Alexander Terra, (U.S.) Founder and President, Council on Global Relations

Part 2 of Panel 2

Dennis Small (U.S.), Ibero-American Director, Executive Intelligence Review
Topic: “A Strategy for Destroying Dope, Inc. in the 21st Century”

Billy Anders Estimé (Haiti), Co-Founder Cafe Diplo Haiti
Topic: “Make the Schiller Institute Plan to Develop Haiti Known Everywhere”

Domingo Reyes (Dominican Republic), former professor of Economics, Masters Degree in Higher Education
Topic: “Infrastructure and Education: Key to Developing Haiti and the Dominican Republic”

Dr. Joycelyn Elders (U.S.), former United States Surgeon General
Topic: “The Urgent Need for a World Health System — Not To Care is Unforgivable”

Eric Walcott – Director, Strategic Partnerships at Institute of Caribbean Studies, Washington, D.C
Topic :“Haiti and Afghanistan: Needed Lessons for Nation Building, Not Chaos”

Major General (Ret) Carroll D. Childers (U.S.) former Commanding General of the only light division in the National Guard Reserve Components for VA, MD, MA, CT and NJ
Topic: “The Potential of U.S. Reserve Army Units To Aid in Economic Reconstruction in the U.S. and Around the World”

Dr. Walter Faggett (US.), Former Chief Medical Officer, Washington D.C. Dept of Health, co-chair D.C. Ward 8 Health Council
Topic: “Community Healthcare Workers in DC– Now A Model for the World”

Dr. Khadijah Lang (U.S.), Chairman, National Medical Association (NMA) Council on International Affairs; President, Golden State Medical Association
Topic: “The Committee’s Mozambique Project – Model for What Can Be Done on a Global Scale”

Dr. Ernest Johnson (U.S.) , President Emeritus Louisiana NAACP, attorney, professor of law Southern University Law Center, Baton Rouge, LA
Topic: “Healthcare is a Basic Human Right, Not a Privilege”

Robert Baker (U.S.), Schiller Institute Agriculture Advisor
Topic: Live Report from Convention of The Kansas Cattlemen’s Association

Alf Schmidt (Germany), Independent farmer, Leader of Farmers Demonstrations in Berlin

Jhonny Estor (Haiti), Founder, “Renaissance Haiti”
Topic: “Greetings to The Schiller Institute & Distinguished Guests”

Question and Answer Session – to include discussant:

Richard Freeman, (U.S.), Executive Intelligence Review and co-author of Schiller Institute Plan to Develop Haiti.

Panel 3: Søndag kl. 16 dansk tid:
There Are No Limits to Growth in the Universe

Moderator: Megan Dobrodt, president, The Schiller Institute (U.S.)

Ludwig van Beethoven: Abendlied unter’m gestirnten Himmel, WoO 150
John Sigerson, Tenor; Dura Jun, piano

Jason Ross (U.S.), Science Liaison, The Schiller Institute
Topic: “The LaRouche Movement’s Role in Defeating Malthusianism”

Dr. Augustinus Berkhout (Netherlands), Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, Delft University of Technology, Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science
Topic: “Message to the Young People at COP26”

Prof. Sergey Pulinets (Russia), Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia; Russian Academy of Sciences
Topic: “Earthquake Forecasting at the Frontiers of Science”

Prof. Carl Otto Weiss, PhD (Germany), Director and Professor (former), German Principal Institute of Metrology, Braunschweig, Germany,
Topic: “On Sustainability”

Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa), nuclear physicist, former Chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
Topic: “A COP26 Post-Mortem: End Eco-Colonialism Through Climate Truth”

State Senator Mike Thompson (U.S.-Kansas), Kansas State Senate, Chairman, Senate Utilities Committee
Topic: “Stop the Weaponization of Science”

Prof. Franco Battaglia (Italy), Professor of Physical Chemistry, Univ. of Modena; Member of the Initiating Committee of the Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming of June 2019
Topic: “Nobel Winners’ Climate Models are Wrong”

Question and Answer Session

Panel 4: Søndag kl. 20 dansk tid:
The Beauty of True Human Culture

Moderator: Diane Sare (U.S.), The Schiller Institute

Traditional Spiritual, arr. Moses Hogan: He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands
Linda Childs, Alto; Dura Jun, piano

Ludwig van Beethoven: Agnus Dei from Missa Solemnis, Opus 123
Schiller Institute NYC Chorus

Jacques Cheminade (France), President, Solidarité et Progrès
Keynote Address: “Squid Game and Other Things to Come”

Xu Wang (China), Executive Dean of Boao Culture and Creativity institute, “On the Aesthetic Education in China”

Prof. Zaher Wahab (Afghanistan), Professor Emeritus of Education; Former Advisor to the Afghanistan Minister of Higher Education
Topic: “Education: Race Against Time”

Denise Rainey (U.S.), retired educator and principal, Rochester, N.Y.
Topic: “The Chinese Commitment to Education as Observed by an American Teacher”

Prof. Ole Doering, PhD (Germany), Sinologist and Philosopher
Topic: “On Education”

Diane Sare (U.S.), Founder, Schiller Institute NYC Chorus

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany), Founder and President of The Schiller Institute

Question and Answer Session

Invitation:

Efter Præsident Richard Nixons opløsning af Bretton Woods-systemet den 15. august 1971 advarede den afdøde statsmand og økonom, Lyndon LaRouche, om, at fortsættelsen på den samme monetaristiske politiks vej uundgåeligt ville føre til faren for en ny depression, ny fascisme og en ny verdenskrig – som denne gang ville være en atomkrig – medmindre en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden ville blive dannet.

Nu, 50 år senere, er vi på præcis det punkt, som LaRouches fremsynede forudsigelse havde advaret om. Tegnene på finanssystemets hyperinflationære eksplosion er tydelige i eksplosionen i energi- og fødevarepriser, og selv ledende embedsmænd, såsom Raphael Bostic, præsidenten for den Føderale Centralbank i Atlanta, har så sent som den 12. oktober erklæret, at inflationen ikke er »midlertidig«, som nogle har påstået. Finansoligarkiet, der er klar over, at dets spekulative system er færdigt, forsøger, med en sidste gigantisk anstrengelse, at forlænge det skøre kasinospil blot én runde til, gennem bedraget kaldet ”Den store Nulstilling”. Oligarkiet håber på at skabe en ny, sidste boble ved »at skifte billionerne« til de grønne teknologier, som indebærer at stille uret tilbage til det udviklingsniveau, der eksisterede før den industrielle revolution. Med det niveau af energigennemstrømningstæthed pålagt en CO2-fri økonomi, ville befolkningstætheden også falde stejlt til disse førindustrielle niveauer – hvilket er det, som de rent faktisk ønsker.

Formen er anderledes, indholdet er det samme: Det er Hjalmar Schachts fascistiske politik. Det er fra dette forstyrrede synspunkt, at de (hovedsageligt asiatiske) lande, som skyder i vejret, bliver kaldt »rivaler«, »modstandere« og »fjender«. Og det er der faren for en ny verdenskrig opstår.

Heldigvis udvikles alternativet for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden allerede. Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ (BVI) er allerede blevet til samlingspunkt for omkring 150 nationer, alle besluttet på at følge den kinesiske model, som overvinder fattigdom og underudvikling gennem hjælp fra videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt. Denne politik er i høj grad i overensstemmelse med Lyndon LaRouches og hans bevægelses vision, som han iværksatte i 1970’erne, hvor han udarbejdede konkrete udviklingsplaner for Afrika, Sydamerika, Asien og USA. Disse udviklingsplaner blev fremsat og udgivet af Schiller Instituttet i begyndelsen af 1991, først i form af Den eurasiske Landbro og derefter i studiet »Den nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« i 2014.

Det er mere presserende end nogensinde at bringe politik tilbage til naturvidenskabens og den klassiske kulturs grundlag. Fundamentet for et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer vil blive skabt, hvis det baseres på en dialog mellem menneskehedens bedste kulturelle traditioner. Disse områder vil blive diskuteret i fire paneler.

Første panel: Lørdag den 13. november kl. 16:00

»Kan en strategisk krise mellem stormagterne undgås?«

Dette panel vil tage følgende op:

·     Konflikten mellem USA og Kina, AUKUS, Taiwan

·     Amerikansk-russiske relationer

·     LaRouches begreb om »firemagtsaftalen« (USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien)

·     Et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer

Andet panel: Lørdag den 13. november kl. 20:00

»Videnskaben bag fysisk økonomi«

Panelet vil tage følgende op:

·     Bevæggrundene bag Den stor Nulstilling

·     Hjalmar Schacht i dag

·     Afghanistan og Haiti som vendepunkter

·     Den globale rolle af Londons »A/S Narkotika«

·     Nødvendigheden af et globalt sundhedssystem

Tredje panel: Søndag den 14. november kl. 16:00

»Der er ingen grænser for vækst i universet«

Dette panel vil tage følgende op:

·     Videnskaben bag klimaforandringer

·     Revolutionen udløst gennem en fusionsbaseret økonomi

·     Menneskeheden bliver voksen: i rummet!

Fjerde panel: søndag den 14. november kl. 20:00

»Det smukke ved en sand, menneskelig kultur«

Dette panel vil tage følgende op:

·     Hvad er mest ødelæggende? Squid-spillet eller stoffer?

·     Afkriminalisering af stoffer og Den nye Opiumkrig

·     Hvorfor Kina vinder den »systemiske konkurrence« med »Vesten«

·     Æstetisk uddannelse

·     Dialog blandt klassiske kulturer

Vi byder spørgsmål velkommen i løbet af konferencen.

Send dem til questions@schillerinstitute.org

Tilmeld dig her for at modtage talerlisten opdateringer og et link sendt til din e-mail.

Ellers kan du også se den her, både live eller bagefter.