Interview: Li Xing, phd: Den fælles erklæring fra Kina og Rusland af 4. februar:
En erklæring om en ny æra og en ny verdensorden

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.

Interview med freds- og fremtidsforsker Jan Øberg:
Om Ukraine-Rusland-USA-NATO krisen,
Danmarks forhandlinger om amerikanske soldater i Danmark, og
Xinjiang spørgsmålet, den 21. februar 2022

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

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her:

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


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.

Forhenværende dansk diplomat, Friis Arne Petersen,
opfordrer Europa til at slutte sig til Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet
og lære om infrastrukturøkonomi fra Kina

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:

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.



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. ( 

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.

Ny dokumentar: Genoplivelsen af det Amerikanske System med kinesiske Karaktertræk af Peter Møller

Udgivet af LaRouche-organisationen i USA den 17. august 2021.

Hvordan kineserne lærte om økonomisk udvikling fra Det amerikanske System, der var promoveret af Lyndon LaRouches organisation, som amerikanerne har glemt.

18. august 2021 — I går udgav LaRouche-Organisationen en ny dokumentar med titlen: „Genoplivelsen af det Amerikanske System med kinesiske Karaktertræk”, som er et bidrag til at få USA til at deltage i Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ (BVI) og endelig løsrive sig fra det britisk centrerede, geopolitiske system. Videoen viser hvordan dette ikke blot er det rigtige at gøre, men at BVI er baseret på de samme principper der ligger til grund for det der historisk er kendt som det ’Amerikanske System’ – hvis USA afviser BVI, ville det dermed afvise sin egen historiske identitet.

Videoen begynder med fejringen af hundredårsjubilæet for Uafhængighedserklæringen i Philadelphia i 1876, som var centralt i udbredelsen af det Amerikanske System til resten af verden. Den viser adskillige eksempler på dette – blandt andet i Kina – og hvordan det Britiske Imperium manøvrerede for at stoppe denne eksistentielle trussel til deres maritimt dominerede kontrol over verdens begivenheder, ved at spille alle de nationer, som deltog i det, ud mod hinanden – en konflikt der er nu er kendt som 1. Verdenskrig.

Videre viser den genoplivelsen af det Amerikanske System, først med livsværket af Sun Yat-sen – grundlæggeren af det moderne Kina – og hvordan Deng Xiaoping – efter ødelæggelsen forårsaget af 2. Verdenskrig, den kinesiske borgerkrig og kulturrevolutionen – i hvert fald implicit, videreførte Suns vision for Kina, som derefter begyndte at udvikle sig til en moderne, industriel nation.

Med sammenbruddet af Sovjetunionen begynder Lyndon og Helga LaRouche en kampagne for Den eurasiske Landbro og opfinder navnet ’Den nye Silkevej’. Dette program, baseret på idéerne fra Henry C. Carey og det Amerikanske System, blev vedtaget af det kinesiske lederskab og genkendes i dag i af Bælte- og Vejinitiativets omsiggribende succes.

Men spørgsmålet forbliver: Vil USA blive en del af dette ”Amerikanske System”-initiativ, eller vil det afvise sin egen historiske identitet og fortsætte sin underdanighed til en britisk centreret, geopolitisk ideologi, der allerede er ved at bringe verden tættere og tættere på en krig, som kun få ville overleve længe nok til at berette om? Det kapitel er stadig ikke nedskrevet – et kapitel som vi alle spiller en mulig rolle i.

Erklæring fra kinesiske eksperter fra hele verden

Kontakt Schiller Instituttet, hvis du gerne vil skriv under.

En international kampagne imod Kina har eskaleret i længere tid, hvor tænketanke, almindelige medier og strategiske rapporter af enhver art tegner et billede af Kina og dets påståede intentioner, som simpelthen ikke er sandt og er ekstremt farligt. Der projiceres et fjendebillede, der i værste fald fører til krig.

Vi, underskrivere, der alle har haft direkte erfaring med Kina, enten fordi vi har boet eller arbejdet der, eller fra gentagne rejser over længere perioder, kunne således følge, hvordan det kinesiske samfund har transformeret sig på en hidtil uset måde siden traumet fra Den kulturelle Revolution. Takket være en politik fokuseret på befolkningens velfærd, udført af Folkerepublikkens politiske lederskab, og det kinesiske folks ekstraordinære hårde arbejde, kunne 850 millioner mennesker befries fra fattigdom med det resultat, at befolkningen grundlæggende er mere optimistisk med hensyn til fremtiden end Vesten, hvor fattigdom er voksende, som følge af den nyliberale politik. Tillid til regeringen er væsentligt større end hos os, en tendens illustreret og styrket af den effektive måde, hvormed Kina bragte COVID-19-pandemien under kontrol.

Kina er en 5.000 år gammel kulturnation, der førte an inden for teknologi indtil det 17. århundrede, og det er derfor ikke overraskende, at dagens Kina med 1,4 mia. mennesker stræber efter en ligeværdig plads på verdensscenen. Kinas socialisme med kinesiske karakteristika er stærkt formet af den 2.500 år gamle konfutsianske tradition, som var​​ dets moderne grundlægger, Sun Yat-sens, orientering med hensyn til Abraham Lincoln [en regering af folket, gennem folket og for folket], og selvom kineserne holder traditionen for Karl Marx i hævd, er deres nuværende økonomiske system mere påvirket af Det amerikanske System under Alexander Hamilton og Friedrich List, den mest berømte ikke-kinesiske økonom i Kina. Kina lærer af de bedste.

Kina har en rig kultur indenfor filosofi, poesi, maleri, arkitektur og vidunderlig folkemusik. Præsident Xi Jinping understreger vigtigheden af ​​æstetisk uddannelse, frem for alt for ungdommen, som en forudsætning for udviklingen af ​​en smuk sjæl, en idé fremmet af Cai Yuanpei, den første uddannelsesminister i Kinas første republik, som stammer fra Friedrich Schiller og Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Kinas succes med at lægge vægt på videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og innovation viser, at Kina klarer sig godt med det vi i Vesten tilsyneladende har glemt, og vi ville have fordele ved at takke ja til tilbuddet om samarbejde, i stedet for at søge konfrontation.

Det ville være bedre at antage den store filosof og grundlægger af moderne matematik, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’, synspunkt og indgå i en dialog af kulturer, for at finde en måde at løse de kriser, der udfordrer hele menneskeheden.

Kontakt Schiller Instituttet, hvis du gerne vil skriv under: 53 57 00 51,


Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president, Schiller-Institut, Germany

Uwe Behrens, logistics manager and author, Berlin, Germany

Prof. Dr. Ole Doering, Berlin, Germany, and Changsha, China

Marcelo Muñoz, founder and former President of Cátedra China (Spain), experienced in China since 1978.

Simón Levy, Gründer von Cátedra México-China an der Nationalen Autonomen Universität von Mexico (UNAM)

Sebastiano Brusco, Pianist, Italien

Jacqueline Myrrhe, freie Journalistin für Raumfahrt, Neubrandenburg, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Frau Mileva, Opernsängerin, Deutschland

Professor Elena Bazhenova, and Prof. Andreii Ostrovskii, Far East Institute Russian Academy of Sciences.

Prof. Mohamed Ali Ibrahim, Ph.D, Professor of Economics, Founder and Former Dean, College of International Transport and Logistics AASTMT, Egypt Former Director of AASTMT Port Said branch, Former Advisor to H .E Egyptian Transport Minister

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomat), Editor, Analyst, Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan

Yiorgos Veis, Ambassador ad honorem, Deputy First Secretary at the Greek Embassy in Beijing 1991-1994, Consul General in Hong Kong 2000-2004, Poet

Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, Ambassador ad honorem, Deputy Ambassador at the Greek Embassy in Beijing (1991-1993)

Juergen Heiducoff, Afghanistanveteran und Autor

Prof.Dr.-Ing Reinhold Meisinger,

Leena Maliki, Opera singer from Sweden,

Associate Professor Verner D. Worm, Department of International Economics, Government and Business, Copernhagen Business School.

Enzo Siviero, Bridge Builder, Rector of eCampus University, Online Italy,

Eng. Spartak Nano, Vice/President of Albaninan Confindustria

Professor Blagoje Babic, Serbia

Carlo Levi Minzi, pianist, Italy

Mr. Thore Vestby, Former Member of Norwegian Parliament, Co-founder of Ichi Foundation.

Jasminka Simić, PhD, editor-journalist of Radio-television of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

Bernd Matthes, Consultant, Dresden, Jinan-Deutschland Büro

Haider Alrubaye, President of the Iraqi-Chinese Friendship Association, Honorary member of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce, Iraq.

Professor Wilfried Schreiber (Militärökonom), Philosoph, Friedensforscher,

Dr. Alawi Swabury, ESSB KG / Europe-Asia-Africa Consulting Institute Berlin .

Ruben Dario Guzzetti, International affairs analyst, Argentine Institute of Geopolitical Studies (IADEG)

Andrea Szegö, Professor of Sociology (PhD), Budapest

Živadin Jovanović, president of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Serbia

Bassam El Hachem, Professor of Political Sociology at the Arts and Human and Social Sciences Doctoral School of the Lebanese University.

DeWayne Hopkins, Alderman at Large for the City of Muscatine, Iowa; former Mayor of Muscatine

Michele De Gasperis, Founder and President, Italian One Belt One Road Institute, Italy

Prof. Dr. Wolf Dietrich Karl Rückert, industrial consultant, descendant of the poet Friedrich Rückert, Austria

George Floras, Managing Partner, Belt and Road Associates, Greece.

Elisabeth Kiderlen, CEO, Hainan Treasure Business COnsulting Services, (U.S. citizen, since 17 years in China)

Mario Cavolo, Senior Fellow, Center for China & Globalization


Helga Zepp-LaRouche om ‘Besked fra Biden-administrationen:
Atomkrig er en reel mulighed’ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Billede: DOD/Lisa Ferdinando


POLITISK ORIENTERING den 29. januar 2021:
Regimeskifte i USA og den “grønne genstart” fjerner ikke verdens problemer

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: (via Zoom)


eller her på YouTube.



Schiller Instituttet · Regimeskifte i USA og den "grønne genstart" fjerner ikke verdens problemer.


Fusionskraft og Kina. Interview med Dr. Luo Delong, direktør for ITER Kina
foretog af Michelle Rasmussen i København.

Den følgende artikel blev udgivet i EIR tidsskrift den 21. januar 2021:

The following interview was conducted on February 27, 2018, at the Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen, by Michelle Rasmussen of EIR Copenhagen. It was published in Europe at that time, but never published in the United States. The video of the interview can be seen here, and an interview with the Communications Director of Fusion For Energy, the European section of ITER, can be seen here. 

EIR: Hello. We’re reporting from the Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen, Denmark. I’m very happy that Dr. Luo Delong, who is China’s director for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER China), has been kind enough to speak to us about the Chinese fusion energy program. Dr. Luo, could you say something about China’s involvement generally, why China thinks it’s important to develop fusion energy, and also, about China’s involvement in the ITER project, and any other projects?…

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Dansk videokonference søndag den 8. november:
Verden efter valget i USA


Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen? (på dansk)

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (
Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika. (på engelsk)

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:
Beethoven 250 år. (på dansk)


Hussein Askarys præsentation som skærskilt video:

Hussein Askary’s presentation as a separate video in English:

Kan Trump og den amerikanske befolkning forsvare Trumps valgsejr imod valgsvindlen?

Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

USA: Valgsvindel med stemmerne i svingstaterne for at få Joe Biden valgt som USA’s præsident er en del af den farvede revolution i USA for at få et regimeskifte og få afsat Donald Trump.

Dette regimeskifte har været fokus for efterretningstjenesterne og deres partnere i medierne siden Trump vandt præsidentvalget i 2016. Først med beskyldningerne om tråde til Rusland (Steel-rapporten fra britiske efterretningstjeneste, der kom med falske beskyldninger), så løgnen om Russigate, der er blevet modbevist, rigsretssagen og 4 års angreb fra medierne.

Mediernes erklæring af, at Biden har vundet valget og NATO-landes lykønskning af Biden, er et forsøg på at etablere et fait accompli og forhindre at valgsvindlen bliver afsløret.

Trump forsøger at få valgene i delstaterne undersøgt så valgsvindlen kan blive afdækket og retfærdigheden ske fyldest. Mobilisering af vælgerne for at forsvare demokratiet og beskytte Trumps valgsejr.

Massiv censur i medierne og på sociale medier for at forhindre præsident Trump i at tale til befolkningen.

Trump fik over 7 millioner flere stemmer end i 2016 selvom ikke alle stemmerne på ham er blevet tilskrevet ham.

Konkrete historier om valgsvindelen begynder at komme frem.

Tidligere NSA tekniker beskriver hvorledes programmet “Scorecard” kan bruges til at ændre stemme rapporterne fra valgstederne.

Vil USA’s befolkning lykkes med at forsvare den demokratiske proces og Trumps valgsejr?

Hvis kuppet lykkes vil demokraterne forsøge at vinde de to sidste senatspladser i Georgia så Bidens kontrollører også kan kontrollere Senatet, udvide Højesteret og få magten der.

Hvis Biden bliver præsident er der konfrontation med Rusland og Kina på dagsorden. Vil vi få krig? Atomkrig?

Oveni COVID-19 krisen i USA og dens økonomiske effekter venter en nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Med en grøn New Deal vil utilfredsheden i befolkningen blive enorm. Hvad følger efter den censur imod dissidenter, der allerede er i gang?

Topmøde i Davos 9.-11. november med blandt andet Mark Carney, den nye chef for Bank of England Andrew Bailey, Blackrocks Fink, IMF, ECB, Bill Gates etc. om at gennemtvinge kredittørke imod alle investeringer, der ikke er “grønne”. Digitale valutaer så centralbankerne får den fulde økonomiske magt.

Der er en verden uden for Vestens og NATO’s kontrol. Kina og Rusland er ikke kuede.

COVID-19 var et lille bump på vejen for Kina. Man har igen vækst og Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet og international økonomisk opbygning fortsætter.

Vesten kan ikke stoppe Kina. Vil man forsøge krig? En atomkrig kan ikke vindes, men vil gale hoveder i Vesten forsøge alligevel?

Vil vi i stedet få en “Sputnik-effekt”, hvor Vesten må skifte kurs tilbage til økonomisk, videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt for at kunne konkurrere med Kina og alle de, der vil samarbejde med Kina? Eller vil Vesten blive irrelevant?

De, der satser på økonomisk vækst drevet af menneskelig kreativitet og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt vinder i det lange løb.

Vi lever i farlige tider men står også potentielt over for det største spring fremad i menneskehedens historie.

Lyt til hele talen her.


Nu skal USA og Europa tilslutte sig Kinas nye Silkevej, og mobilisere 
fødevareressourcer til bekæmpelse af sult i Afrika.

Gæstetaler: Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, bestyrelsesmedlem, Bælte- og Vejinitiativ Institut i Sverige (

Hussein Askary præsenterede den akutte voksende sultekatastrofe i Afrika og hvordan den kan løses. Dels gennem en nødaktion for at fragte fødevarer fra USA, Europa, Rusland og Kina, men også gennem at opbygge Afrikas egne fødevareproduktion og skabe økonomisk udvikling, især infrastrukturprojekter og industrialisering i samarbejde med Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ. 

Hussein Askary præsenterede Afrikas egne udviklingsplaner, Kinas rolle i at virkeliggøre dem, og hvorfor USA og Europe skal deltage.  

Hussein Askary brugte en Powerpoint præsentation til illustration under talen, som også findes, som en særskilt video på engelsk her.


Beethoven 250 år og menneskehedens æstetiske opdragelse

Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Vi har en civilisationskrise: en konfrontationspolitik, som kan føre til krig med Rusland og Kina, en COVID-19-pandemi, økonomiske og finansielle kriser og en voksende sultkatastofe i Afrika.  
Vil vi etablere en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden eller vil det ende i kaos og krig? 
Det er en kamp mellem helt forskellige menneskesyn. 
LaRouche understregede altid: hvad er forskellen mellem mennesker og dyr? 
Er vi dyriske? 
Eller har vi en iboende kreativ erkendelsesevne, som gør os i stand til at opdage nye principper — noget nyt, som ingen andre har tænkt på. 
I videnskab opdager vi nye naturvidenskabelige principper. 
I kunst opdager vi nyt om vores egne kreative evner, som kan deles med andre, som i et orkester eller kor eller med tilhørerene. 
Skønhed, som Schiller sagde, forædle vores følelser og vores intellekt — 
ikke kun rå følelser som dominerer os uden intellekt,  
ikke kun intellekt uden medfølelse og næstekærlighed. 
Men gennem at lege, speciel gennem kunst, at spille, kan de to går op i en højere enhed, som vi kalder en æstetisk tilstand, når vi er omfavnet af skønhed.  
Det var Schillers løsning efter den franske revolution, som ikke endte som den amerikanske, men i et blodbad. 
Platon skrev, at den vigtigste uddannelse for sjælen var musik — at fylde sjælen med skønhed og gøre den skøn. 
Mennesket ville så lovprise skønhed, modtage den med glæde i sin sjæl, og blive til en skøn sjæl. 
Den 16. december fejrer vi Beethoven 250-års fødselsdag. 
Vi fejrer ham, som en af de mest kreative sjæle i historien, men vi fejrer også menneskehedens erkendelsesmæssige evner.  
Studér Beethoven for bedre at forstå, hvad vi mennesker er. 
Beethoven, selv da han ikke var i stand til at høre sin egne musik, hørte den alligevel i sit sind, og udfordrede sig selv til at lave det ene gennembrud efter det anden. 
Der var ingen stilstand eller entropi, men hvad LaRouche kalder ikke-entropi.  
At viljemæssigt blive mere og mere bevist om, at kende sine egne erkendelsesmæssige evner, og presse dem til det yderste for at kunne stige op til det næste niveau, og som han skrev, at nærme sig Guds egen skaberkraft. 
Og han havde et formål: at opløfte den trængende menneskehed.  
Han var bevidst om musikkens rolle med at forædle menneskene.  
Gennem at spille, synge eller lytte, kan Beethovens kreativitet deles med andre —  
noderne på papiret, er ikke kun toner, men nøglen til Beethovens kreative sind.  
Og dermed kan andre mennesker bekræfte et positivt menneskesyn, som også havde en politisk dimension for Beethoven — stræben efter frihed.  
Som Schiller sagde, vejen til frihed går gennem skønhed. 
For at fejre Beethoven så lyt til eller syng og spil hans værker. Genoplev hans åndelige gennembrud, bekræft den menneskelig kreativitet, skab et samfund, hvor vi kan genopdage den tabte kunst at skabe skøn musik,  
måske endnu mere kreativ end Beethoven, og udvikle vores erkendelsesmæssige evner, for hele menneskehedens skyld. 
Så blev der spillet den første del af 2. sats af Beethovens 7. symfoni, dirigeret af Wilhelm Furtwängler, som eksempel.  
Ud fra en enkel begyndelse tilføjes flere og flere stemmer for at skabe noget stort og opløftende. 



Billede af det amerikanske flag. WikiImages fra Pixabay 

Videokonferencen onsdag den 21. oktobert kl. 16:
Kina og vesten ansigt til ansigt: rivalisering eller samarbejde

På engslek:

The direction of relations between China and the West may well be the decisive issue that determines the future of all mankind – from economics to politics to culture. And yet those relations today are characterized by rising tensions.

Cátedra China and the Schiller Institute are hosting an international videoconference dialogue on this subject, because we firmly believe that the current slide into rivalry and disagreement must be stopped before it is too late. China and the West are part of a “community with a shared future for mankind,” and it is essential to learn about, share, and promote the best in each of our respective cultures. The joint efforts that will come from such a dialogue, and its adoption by leading political figures and governments in the West, are the key to working together to solve the existential crises facing all mankind, including the current COVID-19 pandemic and the related economic crisis.

We invite you to participate in an in-depth dialogue with leading international experts in the field. There will be participants from Spain, France, Italy, Germany, the United States, and various countries in Latin America. The event will also be broadcast live over YouTube.

Moderator: Rosa Cervera, President of Cátedra China, architect, professor at the Universidad de Alcalá de Henares (Madrid).


— Yao Fei, Minister Counsellor of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China to Spain: “China’s View”

— Michele Geraci, former Italian Undersecretary of State for Economic Development.

— Marcelo Muñoz, Founder and President Emeritus, Cátedra China, Spain: “China and the West: Two Worlds”

— Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and President, Schiller Institute, Germany: “Confucius and Schiller: the Aesthetic Education of Man”

— Dr. Ángel Álvarez, Dr. Engineer, Cátedra China, Spain: “China’s Weaknesses in ICT in View of the Current Conflict with the U.S.”

— Jacques Cheminade, President of Solidarité & Progrès, France: “Economic Coexistence to Overcome Geopolitics”


Russiagate begraves? Tid til handling

Den 23. juli (EIRNS) — William Binney, tidligere teknisk direktør ved ‘National Security Agency’, NSA, slog i dag, hvad der burde være, det sidste søm i kisten for ‘Russiagate’ – kupforsøget mod den demokratisk valgte regering i USA, udført af britiske og amerikanske efterretningstjenester i samarbejde med de kontrollerede og korrupte medier og den lige så korrupte kongres. Ved en international udsendt begivenhed – sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet og EIR – påviste Binney sammen med sin tidligere medarbejder ved NSA, Kirk Wiebe, og LaRouche PAC-analytiker Barbara Boyd, ikke alene at hele den tre et halvt år lange ‘Russiagate’-heksejagt var en opdigtet skrøne, men at den fra begyndelsen af var kendt som sådan af dets ophavsmænd. Oplysningerne, der blev præsenteret under begivenheden, kan og må være afskydningsrampen for det amerikanske folk og internationale tilhængere af det amerikanske eksperiment, for at gøre dette skæbnesvangre øjeblik i historien til vendepunktet for at afslutte den oligarkiske ødelæggelse af dette eksperiment i republikansk regeringsledelse, “of the people, by the people and for the people” (af folket, ved folket og for folket).

Binney demonstrerede, som han har gjort mange gange før, at de systemer han udviklede for NSA til bekæmpelse af terrorister og narkobaroner er blevet vendt mod det amerikanske folk, hvilket har skabte det mest massive statslige overvågningssystem imod dets egne borgere (og i dette tilfælde borgere rundt om i verden) i menneskets historie. Boyd pegede på ironien i, at demokraterne og mange af de krigshøge, der omgiver præsident Donald Trump, anført af udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo, spankulerer rundt omkring i verden og fordømmer Kina som en totalitær stat, mens USA selv fungerer som en totalitær stat. Ikke kun er alles privatliv tilgængeligt for dusinvis af amerikanske regeringsagenturer, men nationen gennemgår nu også en “kulturkrig”, hvor enhver med selv den mindste bekymring for den jakobinske pøbel, der hærger vores gader, erklæres som “fjende af folket”. Mange kinesere udtrykker åbent deres forbløffelse over, at USA nu gentager det mareridt, der udspillede sig i Kina i løbet af det sidste årti af Mao Zedongs liv, den ‘Store proletariske Kulturrevolution’.

Alle tre talere fremsatte det kritiske synspunkt, at den nuværende eksistentielle civilisationskrise – pandemien, det økonomiske sammenbrud, det kulturelle forfald og den ekstreme fare for krig – også er en utrolig mulighed, hvis nationens patrioter kan skære igennem den fremkaldte pessimisme om at der ikke er noget at stille op, og forpligte sig til at gribe ind. Enhver leder, enhver kandidat til offentligt embede, må lidenskabeligt informeres om, at de skal stoppe kuppet og deltage i kampen for at genoprette nationen, for at bringe verden sammen for samarbejde om udvikling inden for videnskabelig og medicinsk forskning, inden for rumforskning – at skabe en fremtidig menneskelig eksistens – eller blive sendt hjem.

Der er en stor ironi i det faktum, at Mike Pompeo netop besøgte London, og overdådigt lovpriste det britisk-amerikanske ‘særlige forhold’ og tog æren for at presse Boris Johnson-regeringen til at ”tilslutte sig den frie verden” ved at afskære Huawei, for derefter at præsentere sine modbydelige løgne om Kina i ‘Henry Jackson-Selskabet’. Hvorfor ironisk? Henry Jackson-Selskabet har som hovedsponsor Sir Richard Dearlove, den tidligere MI6-chef, der personligt ledede “Russiagate”-kupforsøget mod præsident Donald Trump sammen med sin MI6-underordnede, Christopher Steele. Føj dertil Bill Binneys beskrivelse i dag af hans orientering af Pompeo på præsident Trumps anmodning, mens Pompeo stadig var chef for CIA, om det faktum, at Obamas efterretningshold løj om den russiske hacking af demokraternes e-mails. Ikke kun undertrykte Pompeo disse oplysninger, men han godkendte derefter løgnene fra Clapper, Brennan og Comey om det påståede russiske hack.

Udbred denne sandhed om kupforsøget overalt. Frigør præsident Trump til at gøre hvad han agtede at gøre, og hvad han blev valgt til: At afslutte de uendelige krige, gendanne den amerikanske industrielle infrastruktur, etablere venskabelige forbindelser med Rusland og Kina. Der er ingen løsninger på de mange kriser, som menneskeheden står overfor, hver for sig. Det britiske imperium og dets amerikanske aktiver gør alt for at forhindre det presserende møde mellem Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping og Donald Trump, selvom det er ensbetydende med krig, i denne tidsalder med termonukleare våben. Vær ikke pessimistisk – dette er en sjælden og flygtig gunstig lejlighed for sejr, for dem der er villige til at kæmpe.


Det er tid til ”Russiagates” endegyldige tilintetgørelse.
Schiller Instituttets ugenlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 22. juli 2020

I sammenfatningen af den strategiske krise, begyndte Helga Zepp-LaRouche med at citere en russisk, strategisk ekspert, Lukin, som advarede om, at verden nærmer sig et katastrofalt øjeblik, hvor den eneste ”stabile ø” vil være Kina. At briterne optrapper deres angreb mod Kina, gennem personer som [udenrigsminister] Mike Pompeo og forsvarsminister Esper, gør det påtrængende nødvendigt, at William Binneys stemme høres i morgen på hans pressekonference.

Mens Pompeo boltrer sig med nogle af Russiagates britiske sponsorer i London og forkynder sin kærlighed til det ”særlige forhold”, lukkede hans agenter i USA Kinas konsulat i Houston. Men Binney kan vise, at Pompeos kærlighedsaffære med London fører tilbage til hans bestræbelser på at beskytte løgnene, skabt i London, om russisk hacking, eftersom han reagerede på en underretning fra Binney, om hvordan der ingen russisk hacking var, ved at skjule det for offentligheden – hersker der nu, efter hans afskyelige optræden i London, nogen tvivl om, at han arbejder i imperiets tjeneste mod Præsident Trump? Og at hans aktiviteter er udtænkt for at sabotere muligheden for et P5-topmøde, organiseret af Præsident Putin, ved at gøre det umuligt for Præsident Trump at deltage?

Dette er sandhedens øjeblik, når sandheden bliver det mest magtfulde våben. Zepp-LaRouche var glad for de nylige udtalelser fra Trump om nødvendigheden af at bære maske for at beskytte sig mod coronavirusset, og sagde at det viste de lederskabskvaliteter, der er nødvendige for at bringe USA ind i det Nye Paradigme. Med bekendtgørelsen fra hans stabschef, Meadows, om at Durham-undersøgelsen snart er færdig, og at der vil blive rejst anklager, vil Binneys pressekonference levere de beviser, som én gang for alle kan gøre en ende på den geopolitiske fremstilling af Rusland – og Kina – som fjender af USA.

Link til konferencen afholdt 23. juli 2020

For at kunne bekæmpe pandemien, må det Britiske Imperiums anti-kinesiske heksejagt bekæmpes 

Den 20. maj (EIRNS) – De episke problemer, som vi er konfronteret med, i bekæmpelsen af pandemien, påbegyndelsen af en ny verdensøkonomi, og sideløbende minimering af kaos og nød, kræver en yderligere opgave: At kalde den nuværende, intense anti-Kina-kampagne hvad den er – en sort propaganda-operation. Den er antændt af de samme britiske netværk, som anstiftede ”Russiagate”, afsættelsesforsøget af Præsident Donald Trump, og alle sådanne operationer for at forhindre det potentielle samarbejde, mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og andre nationer, hen imod en ny struktur til verdens fordel. Dette ville markere enden på Londons kontrol baseret på geopolitik og monetarisme; og Trumps tidlige tilbøjelighed i retningen af venskabsdiplomati har været bandlyst af disse kredse.

I sit ugentlige Schiller Institut-webcast i dag, diskuterede Helga Zepp-LaRouche disse britiske netværk, inklusiv deres forsøg på at splitte Kina og USA, samt opbygningen af politiske blokke, ligesom under den kolde krig. Hun advarede at dette vil føre til et sammenbrud af økonomiske funktioner og hyperinflation. Hun anførte, at blandt de mest skingre stemmer, er dem fra Trumps økonomi- og handelsrådgiver, Peter Navarro, Forsvarsminister Mark Esper og Udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo.

Hun sagde: ”Det er tydeligt at Præsident Trump sættes under enormt pres, fordi han er oppe imod pandemien; der er enorme økonomiske konsekvenser – USA’s centralbank har lige offentliggjort, at sammenbruddet af USA’s økonomi i 2. kvartal vil være 30%; arbejdsløsheden stiger; og åbenlyst har det faktum, at flere personer er blevet testet positive, og faktisk blev syge med coronavirusset i og omkring det Hvide Hus, skabt en atomsfære for Præsident Trump, hvor han virkelig sættes under et enormt pres.

Jeg mener at enhver, som er interesseret i at løse menneskehedens problemer, bør tale om, at denne heksejagt mod kinesere, den McCarthyisme stil med at anholde kinesiske videnskabsfolk, eller sågar amerikanske videnskabsfolk med kinesisk baggrund, det er virkelig ekstremt farligt og er et meget skidt varsel! Det skal stoppes og folk burde ikke falde for denne propaganda, fordi den er komplet ubegrundet.”

Hun opfordrede folk til at se på, hvad der præsenteres som fakta mod Kina, eller andre mål, og se, at de i virkeligheden er geopolitiske angreb. De indeholder gentagelsen af ”store løgne.”.

Ved dagens ugentlige briefing fra Udenrigsministeriet, overgik Pompeo sig selv. Han hævdede at Kina skylder verden ”så meget som omkring 9 billioner dollars, ifølge vores skøn,” for arbejdspladser og tabte liv i USA og globalt. Pompeo sagde, at han havde foreslået Trump forskellige måder, hvorpå Kina kunne tvinges til ”at betale” for COVID-19-pandemien. Præsidenten er ”begyndt at overveje at svare tilbage… Jeg ønsker ikke at komme ham i forkøbet med hensyn til at diskutere hvordan…”.

Pompeo indledte disse bemærkninger med en svada. ”Først, grundlæggende fakta. Kina har været regeret af et brutalt, autoritært regime, et kommunistregime siden 1949… Vi undervurderede gevaldigt i hvilken grad Beijing er ideologisk og politisk fjendtligsindet overfor frie nationer. Hele verden vågner op til dette faktum.”

Som komplet modpol til disse spydigheder understregede Zepp-LaRouche, at idéen om USA’s og Kinas samarbejde er ”sandsynligvis det mest vigtige strategiske spørgsmål, fordi, hvis disse to store økonomier, den tidligere stærkeste økonomi og den opkommende økonomi, som trods alt har 1,4 milliarder mennesker, hvis de samarbejder kan man næsten løse et hvilket som helst problem i hele verden; hvis de tørner sammen, kunne det føre til ødelæggelsen af hele menneskeheden.”

Hun gav eksemplet om nødvendigheden for at udvikle fusionskraft – grundlaget for et fuldstændigt nyt produktivitetsdomæne for fremtiden. Kinas arbejder med dette, og Kinas Eksperimentale Avancerede Superledende Tokamak (EAST) skrider fremad, som et afgørende projekt. Beskrivende CGTN’s TV-udsendelse ”Den kunstige Sols Kraft: Fusion,” sagde hun, at ”det de siger er, at fusion er revolutionært, af den simple årsag at når man kan skabe et gennembrud og har kommercielt brug af fusionskraft, vil det levere energi, ikke kun til 1,4 milliarder kinesere, men til hele verden i årtusinder fremover. Og det er grunden til at Kina lige nu forener de bedste hjerner i verden, lige netop for at få sådan et crashprogram.  

De siger at fusionskraft er ligeså vigtigt, og ligeså stort som menneskets landing på månen. Folk, som kender dette program, vil indse, at det er præcis dette, som LaRouches ”Fire Love” handler om, nemlig, at vi bliver nødt til at have internationalt samarbejde for et crashprogram for fusionskraft; at vi har brug en ny fusionsøkonomisk platform, og at vi har brug for et internationalt samarbejde i rumforskning. Og det er vejen frem!” 

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, May 20, 2020

With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

America’s Historic Enemies — and the Russiagate Enemies of Donald Trump — Are Behind the Escalation Against China

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is May 20, 2020.

Helga, each week as we do these webcasts, it seems as though the danger in the world keeps escalating: We have a series of crises, and there’s a definite push coming from especially the City of London and their allies in the United States to add to the destabilization. In the last couple of days there’s been another escalation in the anti-China campaign around the World Health Assembly annual meeting. What was going on there, and what’s the background to this?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, most people in the United States and in Europe and elsewhere cannot have helped but notice that the anti-China tone has become absolutely shrill. If you listen to what people like Navarro and Esper, and Tucker Carlson, and Pompeo are saying, it’s a kind of accusation which is really, if it all would be true, it would be casus belli, but if it’s a lie, it’s even more casus belli. One has to remember that a lot of the anti-China forces, it originated with British intelligence, MI5, MI6 — these were the same forces which were focussing for the first three years of the Trump Administration on Russiagate, all the accusations that Russia manipulated the 2016 election; and if one looks back now, what was coming out of this, what was the matter of it? Nothing! It was all a big lie. What was the ground for the impeachment? The same thing! And it is exactly that same apparatus which is now focussing on the effort to divide China and the United States, because these forces need the kind of geopolitical manipulation in order to keep control, because if the large powers of the world would work together then the role of the British diminishes into insignificance.

Now, obviously, the pandemic has created a total crisis, it’s a health crisis which is very big. The “opening up” of the economy, so-called, which is a terrible word to even use, is creating all kinds of dangers, and obviously, there is an effort to get President Trump to go with this whole anti-China campaign. And unfortunately, he signed a letter — it’s not clear if he really wrote all of it, which may not be the case, because there’s a lot of detail in there which I doubt the President would fill out himself — but he basically wrote a letter to the head of the World Health Organization, Dr. Tedros on the occasion of the World Health Assembly annual meeting in Geneva, or virtual, in which he basically repeats all of these accusations, that China covered up, that they didn’t transmit the information in time, that they delayed, that they caused all these economic hardships; and he accuses the WHO of having been completely in the pocket of China. And he is demanding that the WHO should prove within 30 days that they are independent of China, or else the U.S. will even leave the WHO altogether let alone cutting off funding.

Now this is very unfortunate, because he has a lot of remarks in there which are simply factually not true. One of them is that he quotes the British medical journal The Lancet, that they would have already reported in the beginning of December about the virus, and so forth. That is too bad, because immediately the editor of The Lancet refuted it, and said that they never had published anything like that, but their first reporting was on Jan. 24th. This is really an Achilles’ heel of Trump’s, and one can only say that we need to point to the geopolitical nature of these lies. We should remember what Pompeo said that when he headed the CIA, they made it sort of a sport to lie, to cheat, and that is obviously what is going on right now.

I think this very dangerous, because if you accuse another country of such enormous accusations, this is normally the kind of black propaganda which is being put out before wars. And it’s being noted in China as a very, very serious thing. And I think we should all try to do our best to undo this.


…and Trump. Is this coming from the same British networks? We see it from Pompeo and others in the U.S., but we’ve identified groups like the Henry Jackson Society, they’re continuing their escalation against China, aren’t they?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. And the aim is to really, potentially even decouple. Now, if you decouple the countries which are allied with the United States from those which are allied with China, in in other words, you go at the minimum into a bloc building as what existed in the Cold War. I think under the present conditions, this would lead for sure to a collapse of the world financial system and a hyperinflationary blowout of the system, so I think this is absolutely playing with fire.

SCHLANGER: The letter from Trump was addressed to WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; he spoke at the World Health Assembly annual meeting of the World Health Organization, as did Xi Jinping; the U.S. was there only represented by HHS Secretary Alex Azar, but what did they have to say in addressing the concerns of the entire world about the coronavirus pandemic?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: What Dr. Tedros said was that the World Health Organization must work so that this pandemic is never being repeated, in other words, that it caught the whole world relatively unprepared, because all the warnings were there. And he said the tools were all there, but they were not used, due to a “temporary amnesia.” He called for a remedy of that, and really establish a world health system. And Xi Jinping made a really remarkable speech, and all those people who are being bombarded by the anti-China propaganda, I would really challenge you to just go to your laptop or whatever, print out or look at the speech which was given by Xi Jinping, because it’s an extraordinary speech. [] He says, for example, that world is hit with a pandemic; 210 countries and regions are affected, already many lives have been lost and that the most precious thing is human life.

Now I would wish that the former finance minister of Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble would have such a noble conception of the human being, because he said, recently, that it’s not the function of the state to protect life as the highest priority. So in that case, I would say that the leader of a Communist Party has a better standard on the question of human life — and I’m saying this deliberately as a polemic.

Now, Xi Jinping, then proceeds to say that there must be a focus on Africa, that the world community has to help Africa with this pandemic, and in general, has to work together as a community for a shared future of civilization.

So I think the effort to take over this World Health Organization annual meeting, there was a resolution which was anti-China, which did not succeed; and there was a resolution accepted, that, indeed, after the pandemic has been successfully defeated, there should be an investigation, into what was the origin of the virus to better understand how it functioned, in order to avoid and protect against future such problems, but it should be done under the auspices of the World Health Organization.

Those people who are right now falling into the propaganda that it’s all Bill Gates, who’s trying to become rich — even richer than he is already — by being behind the WHO, well, there are many private firms which help finance the WHO, but does it help if the U.S. is pulling out, if the governments are underpaying the WHO? I think the remedy is that the governments take responsibility and supply the World Health Organization with the necessary means, because from everything I have seen, and we have studied this from the very beginning, because we were extremely attentive to when the first information from Wuhan came, we compared the notes, what was put out when by the Chinese government; who did not respond, like the Health Minister Jens Spahn. He said in January, “oh, the virus will never come to Germany”; in February, he said “oh the German health system is perfectly prepared….” So we have studied this as it happened. So a lot of the facts which are in the letter of President Trump to Dr. Tedros are simply factually not true.

But, once the pandemic is overcome, there must be an investigation because the world needs to better understand the nature of this virus, and viruses in general and also whether the present world health system can be improved. But it should be done in a cooperative spirit, in the spirit of a shared humanity and not as a part of a confrontation and geopolitical attacks.

SCHLANGER: It seems as though some of the discussion and the proposals that were adopted were along the lines of what you’ve called for in terms of what you’ve called for in terms of a global effort to improve health service everywhere. We’ve also seen other forms of cooperation — President Trump is sending ventilators to Russia that the U.S. is going to pay for. But where do we stand on the other question, of vaccine. There’s a discussion of this of “Warp Speed” program: what do you make of that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We have to see. On the one side, it is naturally good to call on all labs to work high speed on vaccines, and it’s also obviously important that the President of the United States takes a leading role in that, that all the resources must be mobilized. But I would really warn against rushing it, because there are many new labs which have promised vaccines soon — I think a vaccine, especially one which will be used by the entire world population is something which has to be really tested on the highest standards. And that has to be seen. China already has said they will provide the whole with that vaccine, and I think there must be a cooperative approach. This is such a big threat to all of humanity that the best would be if the United States, the Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and others would all work together, because the more time is lost to find an adequate vaccine, the more people will die, and that should really be taken as a change a paradigm shift to cooperate.

It is obvious that President Trump is being put under enormous pressure, because he is up against the pandemic; there is an incredible economic consequences — the Federal Reserve just said that the collapse of the U.S. economy in the second quarter will be 30%; unemployment is going up; and obviously the fact that there were several people who tested positive and actually became sick with coronavirus in and around the White House, has created an atmosphere for President Trump where he is really put under enormous pressure. I think anybody who is interested in solving humanity’s problems should make their voice heard, that this witch-hunt against Chinese, the McCarthyite style of arresting Chinese scientists, or even American scientists with Chinese backgrounds, that is really extremely dangerous and forebodes very bad! It has to be stopped and people should not fall for this propaganda, because it is completely unjustified.

SCHLANGER: It should be noted that this started before the coronavirus: You had people like Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida, whom Trump had called “little Marco,” who’s now taken over the Senate Intelligence Committee, he’s directly collaborating with the Henry Jackson Society in the anti-China campaign. You’ve had a lot of this ongoing in the background. Where do you think U.S.-China relations will go, and what’s the view in China?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That’s probably the most important strategic question, because if the two largest economies, the previously strongest economy and the rising economy, which after all, has 1.4 billion people, if they work together, you can almost solve any problem of the entire world; if they clash, it could lead to the destruction of all of humanity. And in China, people are extremely aware of what’s going on, naturally. There are many articles warning of a new McCarthyism in the United States, and the so-called Two Sessions meeting, which is about to start in China [May 21 and 22], that’s the legislative body, called the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference; these two bodies have put the U.S.-China relationship on their agenda. And we have to see — maybe we’ll get some clarity on what China is intending to do in response to this McCarthyism coming from the United States.

But people don’t understand China. They have these absolute prejudices, but they don’t make the effort to find out what makes this country tick, and I want to give you a little window, which gives you a good insight: And that is the fact that CGTN, which is the official Chinese TV network, have started a series called “Decoding the Future,” which will start exactly on the occasion of these two sessions. And the first such broadcast is “The Power of Artificial Sun: Fusion” []. They’re discussing the EAST program; EAST stands for Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak, and it is the fusion research center in Hefei, where they already succeeded about a year ago, to confine a plasma at a high temperature of over 100 million degrees Celsius; that is six times the heat which exists in the core of the Sun, and they were able to confine that plasma for more than 10 seconds, which represents a world record. So, China, in terms of fusion research is right now a world leader, and they’re also participating in the ITER [International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor] program in Cadarache, France, where 35 countries participate.

In any case, what they say is that fusion is revolutionary, for the very reason that once you can make a breakthrough and have commercia use of fusion power, it will provide energy security not only for 1.4 billion Chinese, but for the whole world for millennia to come. And that is why China right now uniting the best minds of the world to get exactly such a crash program. They say that fusion is as important, and as great as man’s landing on the Moon. People who know this program will recognize that is exactly what the fourth point of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws is all about, namely that we have to have international cooperation for a crash program for fusion power, that we need a new platform of the fusion economy, and that we need international cooperation space exploration. And that is the way to go!

I’m absolutely sure that the offers from China for all nations to cooperate in these programs are still on the table, and if we are avoiding a clash which could lead to World War III, it has to be the kind of visionary cooperation for these future decoding the secrets of the future of the universe and our human civilization, how we will get out of this terrible crisis. I think this is a very inspiring.

And people think this is a Communist China doing that — well, maybe, there is something to this approach which is right! People should not just say “Communist China…” If they’re going to get a breakthrough in fusion and they put an absolute priority on that, maybe there is something in their policy which is right. I just want to put this out as a question mark.

SCHLANGER: And then you contrast that with the insanity of the Green financial bubble, which seems to be the approach that came out of this Merkel-Macron session to discuss the financial crisis in Europe. This is the BlackRock, the equity firm, the speculation firm, which was handed by the Federal Reserve the right to determine who gets the funds to engage in speculation, and they’re behind the Green financial bubble. What happened with Macron and Merkel? And is Europe fully committed to this Green policy?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this Macron-Merkel — which is this deal whereby they want to buy EU500 billion worth of bonds; this is supposed to be financed by taking this money from the financial markets. But then it’s supposed to be paid back through the EU budget — so it’s not really a grant, because if the EU budget is supposed to finance it after three years, it will be paid by the taxpayers. So the southern Europeans, who are all very happy, saying, “this is a grant” — it’s not that. It’s basically another effort to keep the banking system afloat.

It is opposed by Austria, Holland, Denmark, Sweden; also important layers within the CDU [the German Christian Democratic Union] are calling on all CDU Members of Parliament and the European Parliament to prevent it from happening… so I don’t think it’s necessarily agreed that it will go anywhere. But one should always keep in mind, this is happening in the context of the EU Commission having hired who? But BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, to write a new legislation to integrate the Green Deal with the general EU program. Now you can hire the Devil to do your job, because you have now the EU Commission being run by BlackRock and the Federal Reserve having hired BlackRock to manage their $4 trillion program to keep the banking system afloat. So BlackRock is de facto running the financial policies of the United States and Europe. And it just happens to be that that is exactly what was discussed at the Jackson Hole meeting last August, the big meeting of bankers and central bank governors, which takes place every year in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. And that is where the central bankers, especially then Bank of England governor Mark Carney, and Michael Bloomberg, and BlackRock and others had put out this line that there needs to be a “regime change,” that practically the power has to go entirely to the central banks, and they have to run the international financial system.

So what you see here in action, is exactly that. And given the fact that Mark Carney and Bloomberg are identical with this Green Deal agenda, this is not foreboding good at all. So, if they will impose the Green Deal ideas on top of the already extremely weakened economy as a result of the pandemic, you will have a collapse of Europe and the United States as industrial powers. You cannot do that.

I think you have contrast that with the opposite approach taken by China with the fusion crash program, and I think that we have to do everything to change that, and that is why the Schiller Institute and our associates in the United States are working on crash program for a completely different approach: Namely, to answer the pandemic and the problems which are now really jumping into the eyes of everybody, with the issue of a 1.5 billion new jobs program, a program to create 1.5 billion new, productive jobs, which will be announced shortly on our channels.

SCHLANGER: Let me just remind people who don’t remember, that Carney and BlackRock worked out a compact among leading banks by which they said they will not make any credit available to any bank or any corporation which is still engaging in creating a (quote) “carbon-footprint” (unquote). In other words, they’re forcing the credit to go into the Green financial bubble.

Now, Helga, this is in contrast, you talked about the program that we’re about to put out, the 1.5 billion jobs, the emphasis on science and research and development investment — that’s completely contrasted through the Hamiltonian credit system. And this, I think is what we have to emphasize, and our supporters have to take the LaRouche Four Laws and especially this idea of the Hamiltonian credit: that would be the complete opposite of this Green New Deal, and is the only way to get out of this crisis, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. People should just step back and look at the situation as it is now becoming obvious, as a result of this pandemic. You had the pandemic spreading, there was the lockdown of the economy, the lockdown already affected Europe, some European countries more than others, but also the United States very severely, and it’s ongoing. But much, much worse was the effect on the so-called developing countries, which unfortunately are not so developing at all, because it hit what is generally called, in a nefarious way, the “informal economy.” But that is just a PR word for the fact that it’s a shadow economy: It’s people working from hand to mouth, who have no resources, who have no benefits, no social security, no health system, and when they are locked down, they are in danger of dying of starvation within days! And that is exactly the warning which was put out by the head of the World Food Program David Beasley, who said that the ongoing crisis of agriculture, the collapse of the farm sector in the United States and in Europe, these meat-packing plants, where people living and working in slave-labor conditions, immigrants became infected because the working conditions were so bad; these were shut down. Then the farmers had to “euthanize” — this is a terrible word to even use for animals — they had to kill tens of millions of hogs, chickens, bury them instead of processing them for food. This is leading to a collapse and interruption of the supply chain, while, at the same time as Beasley is warning, we are looking at famine of “biblical dimensions” where the danger is that up to 300,000 people per day could die in the short term of hunger!

Now, that is completely insane, and that in part is the result of the neo-liberal policies which denied development of the developing countries for the last 50 years at least; which is the result of an absolutely profit-oriented system of agriculture under the control of only five cartels — this is why these labor conditions are so absolutely horrendous. And that has to be changed: We need to go back to family farms. We have to have a parity price for agricultural goods, the farmers have to be able to live off their work. We have to double world production — this is a call I already made in 2008, that the 2.5-2.7 billion tons of food production has to be doubled! If you consider that the world population is increasing and you already have almost a billion people — not food secure, now being threatened with starvation — 2 billion people not having clean water, you need to build up agriculture. If you look at the condition of the world, it is now the time to completely reverse that and really industrialize the developing sector. Now, for the United States, that means we will have to create 50 million productive jobs in the short term, but for the developing countries, we need more than a billion jobs, because you will have a lot of young people, who either will die, or try to migrate to the north, or, we will use this incredible crisis to really turn it around, and do what Franklin D. Roosevelt intended with the Bretton Woods system in the beginning — namely, that the development of Global South, or the developing countries, has to occur. Roosevelt, at the time of the preparation of the Bretton Woods system said, the increase of the living standard of the whole world population will be the basis for stability and peace in the world, and that is exactly the task we have in front of us, and that is the life work of Lyndon LaRouche, who after all, for 50 years worked on development programs for every single part of the world:

*He worked on an Africa development program, which we published in 1976 the first time;

*He worked on an “Oasis Plan,” for the development of the Middle East;

*He worked on a 50-year development program for the Pacific Basin;

*We worked with Indira Gandhi on a 40-year development program for India;

*We worked with José López Portillo on a Latin American-wide economic and infrastructure integration;

*Naturally a reindustrialization of the United States;

*And the Eurasian Land-Bridge, in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So for the last 50 years, LaRouche, my late husband, and the LaRouche movement, we have worked on concrete development programs. We published that in an updated form in 2014 called the “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” and now is the time, under conditions of this crisis to upgrade this and create 1.5 billion new productive job, and really start a new chapter in the history of humanity. And that is what I’m calling on you to support and help us to put on the agenda instead of geopolitical confrontation.

SCHLANGER: And you can find the key to that on our website: Lyndon LaRouche’s four economic laws []. Helga, I don’t have anything else to ask. Is there anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We will put under this program the petition for a world health system, a link to the video about this world health system. [] And I would really ask you to help us to distribute this petition as widely as you can, all your social media, your email lists, your colleagues, your friends, and make it a snowballing demand, because we need a chorus of forces in the world to demand such a change in the strategic policies.

SCHLANGER: Helga, with that, thank you a lot, and I’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Anti-kinesisk McCarthyisme når førkrigs-niveau

Den 19. maj (EIRNS) – Da Verdenssundhedsorganisationen tirsdag lukkede sin todages online forsamling om Verdenssundhed (World Health Assembly, WHA) med mange af verdens førende medicinske og politiske ledere, blev denne indsats for at tackle den største krise, som menneskeheden står overfor i moderne tid, delvis kapret af den britiske og amerikanske mobilisering for førkrigs-konfrontation med Kina. Præsident Donald Trump tillod sit navn at blive anbragt på en firesiders tirade fuld af halve sandheder og direkte løgne om Kinas og WHO’s reaktion på coronavirusset og WHO’s påståede dækken over adskillige af Kinas forseelser. Brevet med Trumps underskrift instruerer WHO til at følge (uspecificerede) “reformer” dikteret af USA og “rent faktisk at demonstrere uafhængighed af Kina”; ellers vil USA permanent afskære alle midler til WHO og “genoverveje vores medlemskab.” ”The Five Eyes” (‘De fem Øjne’, Storbritannien, USA, Canada, New Zealand og Australien –red.) arbejdede også sammen om en fidus for at vedtage en resolution ved WHA om oprettelse af en “uafhængig undersøgelse” af Kinas påståede løgne og udsættelser, og om kilden til virusset, men flertallet af de deltagende nationer ved begivenheden afviste det, for i stedet at vedtage en ”evaluerende” undersøgelse af den globale reaktion – der skal finde sted, efter at pandemien er under kontrol.

 Det allerførste af 14 punkter, der hævdede at dokumentere Kinas og WHO’s forbrydelser, blev åbent udfordret af The Lancet. Trump-brevet udtalte: “WHO ignorerede konsekvent troværdige rapporter om virusspredningen i Wuhan i begyndelsen af december 2019 eller endnu tidligere, inklusive rapporter fra det medicinske tidsskrift The Lancet.” Richard Horton, chefredaktør for The Lancet, udsendte straks et brev til Trump: ”De citerer Lancet i Deres angreb på WHO. Lad mig korrigere: The Lancet offentliggjorde ikke nogen rapport i begyndelsen af december 2019 om en virusspredning i Wuhan. De første rapporter, vi offentliggjorde, var fra kinesiske forskere den 24. januar 2020”.

 “Trump-brevet” blev tydeligvis ikke skrevet af præsidenten, og dets skammelige karakter og potentielt dødbringende indflydelse på historiens forløb ligger i tråd med hele den McCarthyagtige anti-kinesiske kampagne fra folk som Mike Pompeo i udenrigsministeriet og Christopher Wray i FBI. Dens intention er den samme som det nu totalt miskrediterede anti-Rusland-hysteri, der har vist sig at være en kriminel sammensværgelse mellem britisk efterretningstjeneste og Obamas korrupte efterretningsvæsen for at bringe præsidenten til fald, med fuld støtte fra den falske nyhedspresse og den lige så korrupte Kongres – det vil sige at drive en kile mellem Trump og hans intention om at opbygge venlige forbindelser mellem USA og Rusland. I London og Wall Streets optik er dette nødvendigt for at bevare “det særlige anglo-amerikanske forhold” for at håndhæve en unipolær britisk imperialistisk autoritet over hele verden. Dette er særligt presserende for imperiet, da den skrøbelige økonomiske boble, der er kendt som det vestlige banksystem – tidligere benævnt af Lyndon LaRouche som ‘casino mondial’ (globale kasino) – nu pumpes op med så mange billioner dollars, der er trykt ud af tynd luft, at endog finanspressens guruer begynder at advare om en hyperinflation som i Tyskland i 1923.

 En af lederne af den moderne McCarthy-heksejagt er senator Marco Rubio, der netop har taget over som fungerende leder af Senatets efterretningskomité. Meget sigende for hvor hans loyaliteter ligger, gav Rubio et bidrag til en rapport, der blev udgivet i denne måned af Londons rabiate Henry Jackson Society, med titlen ‘Brud med den kinesiske forsyningskæde – hvordan de ‘Fem Øjne’ kan frakoble sig strategisk afhængighed’ (“Breaking the Chinese Supply Chain — How the ‘Five Eyes’ Can Decouple from Strategic Dependency.”) Rubio bringer sin “store løgn” til torvs: “Det kinesiske Kommunistparti … arbejder aggressivt med at erstatte demokratisk lov og orden og regeringsførelse, samt alliancer og systemer der opretholder det – herunder vores ’Five Eyes’-partnerskab. Strategisk konkurrence med Kina handler om kampen for demokrati mod autoritarisme. Kommunistpartiets mål er ikke kun at berige sit land materielt, men at centrere den globale orden omkring Beijing ved at gøre alle lande afhængige af Kina for en række strategiske varer – fra rå mineraler til telekommunikationsudstyr til medicinske forsyninger – og ved at fremme dets autoritære model for regeringsførelse i udlandet.” Det er ironisk, at hans beskrivelse nøjagtigt matcher den britiske imperialistiske model, der blev påtvunget af de europæiske magter, først ved direkte kontrol over deres kolonier, derefter med indirekte økonomisk diktatur under IMF efter afkolonisering. I modsætning til den form for imperialistisk kontrol bygger kineserne faktisk storstilet infrastruktur, hvilket altid var forbudt under den koloniale model.

 Der er ingen løsning på den aktuelle globale sammenbrudskrise, undtagen et møde med lederne af de fire magter – Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA – for at imødekomme det presserende behov for globalt samarbejde om masseproduktion af de sundhedsfaciliteter, der umiddelbart er nødvendige for at forhindre et holocaust i Afrika og Sydamerika (se “Coronavirus-underskriftsindsamling for en Global Sundhedsinfrastruktur”), og at sætte det smuldrende økonomiske system under konkursbehandling, baseret på Glass/Steagall-reform og nye nationale kreditmekanismer til investeringer i udvikling og videnskab. Delvise foranstaltninger vil mislykkes, med den store fare for at verden igen vil synke ned i global krigsførelse.

Voldsomt angreb på internationalt samarbejde sker samtidig med et muligt skifte i den globale dagsorden 

Den 22. april (EIRNS) – Bortset fra reel krig, ser vi en optrapning af ekstreme diplomatiske beskyldninger, juridiske kneb, og militære provokationer, der udgør et angreb på internationalt samarbejde, netop når der er allermest brug for et sådant mod pandemien, og mod den underliggende monetaristiske og malthusianske virus. Tag ikke fejl, dette er ikke blot en eller anden vedblivende britisk geopolitik, gennemført af en flok tosser. De farlige fjendtligheder, fokuseret på det afgørende forhold mellem præsidenterne Donald Trump og Xi Jinping, er tilrettelagt for at forpurre det dybgående potentiale ved Schiller Instituttets internationale politiske arrangement denne weekend – og mobiliseringen omkring dette, hvilket er et uundværligt element for at forandre den samlede verdens dagsorden i en positiv retning. 
Vores væsentlige rolle er at øge vores egen rækkevidde og rekrutteringsproces. 
Kort sagt er der, hvad angår Kinas og USA’s forhold, som blev fejret i New York City i går ved en (virtuel) ankomstceremoni for flere fly med medicinsk udstyr fra Kina, en række parallelle tiltag i gang for at forsøge at smadre den venskabelige dynamik mellem Trump og Xi. Udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo afholdt i dag en pressekonference, hvor han langede ud efter Kinas kommunistiske Parti og Verdenssundhedsorganisationen for at dække over kilden og spredningen af SARS-CoV-2-virusset. I går aftes medvirkede Trumps rådgiver, Peter Navarro, chef for Kontoret for Handels- og Produktionspolitik og koordinator for den Nationale Forsvarslov, på Fox News for heftigt at angribe og anklage Kina for ”fire drab”: for at ”masseproducere” Wuhan-virusset i et laboratorium; for at gemme det i ugevis, bag Verdenssundhedsorganisationens ryg; for at ”støvsuge” antivirus-medikamenter op; og for at sende ”forfalskede” versioner til USA. Han påstod også, at den amerikanske befolkning troede på hans nedrige nonsens. 
I går blev Missouri den først stat til at anlægge erstatningssag mod Kina for angivelig dårlig håndtering af virusset. I dag meddelte Mississippi, at de vil gøre det samme. Listen fortsætter, og inkluderer militær konfrontation. USA’s flåde har tre skibe i det Sydkinesiske Hav, i nærheden af et kinesisk overvågningsfartøj. 
Alt imens, verdens pandemi og økonomiske sammenbrud kræver overvejelser og handling – ikke løgne og aggression. For eksempel modtog FN’s sikkerhedsråd en briefing fra David Beasley, den administrerende direktør af Verdens Fødevareprogram, angående det øjeblikkelige behov for komplette og pålidelige mængder af basisfødevarer, opdelt til 36 lande, der er fuldstændig afhængige af dette for at overleve. Han advarede om en ”hungersnødspandemi” blandt 265 millioner mennesker. 

Gennemfør dette: Der er eksperter, i de internationale kulisser, til at rådslå om at realisere denne fødevarelivline – fra at sikre landbrugsproduktionen på begge hemisfærer, til transportlogistikken. Det samme må ske for alle grundlæggende områder – industri, energi, vand, transport, brændstof. Dette er den grundlæggende understøtning af de pandemiske nødforanstaltninger, og for det globale sundhedsmæssige sikkerhedssystem, som må oprettes. 

Stop den McCarthy-agtige heksejagt imod Kina og præsident Trump

Den 14. maj (EIRNS) – For et halvt år siden, i november 2019, offentliggjorde Executive Intelligence Review en polemisk 24-siders pjece med ovenstående overskrift. Den begyndte som følger:

 ”I en webcast den 10. maj 1997 drøftede Lyndon LaRouche det presserende behov for en firemagts-alliance mellem suveræne nationer for at gendanne økonomisk fornuft – ’imod den største magt på planeten, som er det britiske imperium, kaldet det britiske statssamfund (Commonwealth)’. Det er fjenden”.

 ”I den tale, leveret for 22 år siden, skitserede LaRouche en strategi for dagens krise.

 ”Og hvis, en skønne dag, eksempelvis en søndag formiddag, efter et weekendmøde, præsidenten for De Forenede Stater, Kinas præsident og et par andre mennesker skulle udtale:” Vi har i denne weekend konstateret, baseret på vores rådgivere og kendsgerningerne, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot. Og at vi, i kraft af vores ansvar som statsoverhoveder, vil sætte disse bankerotte institutioner under konkursbehandling i almenhedens interesse. Og det er i vores interesse at samarbejde som nationer om at gøre dette og undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet”. Resultatet er så, at en sådan meddelelse… betyder, at hele systemet, fra det øjeblik af, er blevet anbragt i guillotinen, og at hovedet ruller ned ad gaden (Alan Greenspans hoved måske). Det betyder, at vi på det tidspunkt har drivkraften til straks at opbygge et nyt finansielt og monetært system.”

 Indledningen til pjecen fortsatte: ”Dette nye finanssystem er nu mere presserende end nogensinde. Denne pjece er beregnet som modgift imod kampagnen for at forgifte forholdet mellem USA og Kina og sabotere et nyt system fra at blive til. Som LaRouche bemærkede, var det kun kombinationen af De Forenede Stater, Kina, Rusland og Indien, der ved at arbejde sammen, ville have gennemslagskraften til at få et nyt system på plads.”

 Hvad der var sandt for et halvt år siden, da EIR først offentliggjorde disse linjer, er dobbelt så sandt i dag. En endnu mere ondskabsfuld bølge af anti-kinesisk Mccarthyisme er blevet sluppet løs i de seneste dage og uger:


  • FBI har advaret alle amerikanske forskere, der samarbejder med kinesiske kolleger om at udvikle en vaccine mod coronavirus, om, at de kunne være en del af en kinesisk spionring, og blive anklaget i overensstemmelse hermed.


  • Udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo holdt en tølperagtig tale til de amerikanske guvernører for et par uger siden, hvor han truede dem til at stoppe med at indgå handels- og økonomiske aftaler med Kina.


  • FBI’s websted advarede mod enhver amerikansk deltagelse i Kinas ‘Tusind Talenter’-program for akademisk udveksling og sagde truende, at selvom medlemskab af Tusind Talenter-programmet ikke er teknisk ulovligt, har FBI-undersøgelser “afsløret, at deltagerne ofte tilskyndes til at overføre forskning de udfører i USA til Kina”.


  • Og den største McCarthy-agtige operation af dem alle, det igangværende kupforsøg imod præsident Donald Trump, eskalerede senest med en korrupt dommers afslag på at henlægge de falske anklager mod general Michael Flynn, selvom justitsministeriet meddelte, at det ville gøre det.


En fremtrædende ledende artikel i Kinas Global Times i går behandlede spørgsmålet lige på og hårdt: ”Såfremt denne neo-McCarthyisme skulle genopstå i USA, vil den signalere en start på en ny kold krig mellem Kina og USA … [Sådan ] opførsel vil til syvende og sidst give bagslag. Dette vil underminere Trumps perspektiv for genvalg …. Det udgør farlige trusler mod verdensfred og stabilitet.”

 Det strategiske formål med denne nye McCarthyisme er, som EIR advarede om i sin pjece november 2019, at “sabotere et nyt system fra at blive til.” Et sådant nyt system er tættere på i dag end nogensinde, da et planetarisk systemisk sammenbrud er undervejs; et sammenbrud der kombinerer en dødbringende global pandemi, et kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem, hungersnød “af bibelske proportioner”, og mere. Og i denne krise erkendes og høres LaRouche-bevægelsens stemme rundt om i verden, med dens unikke autoritative løsning på sammenbruddet, krisen, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går, herunder i en række af de store nationer, der ville være del af Lyndon LaRouches firemagts-alliance.

Denne stemme vil nu blive styrket med den kommende udgivelse af en programmatisk løsning på sammenbrudskrisen i sin helhed, “LaRouche-planen for at genåbne den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har brug for 1.5 milliarder nye, produktive jobs”.


Pressemeddelelse: Anti-Kina-hysteri er meget farligt, og meget dumt

15. april (EIRNS) – Dette er en pressemeddelelse fra Schiller Instituttet:

I dag offentliggjorde Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, følgende erklæring angående den modbydelige anti-Kina-kampagne, som udbredes i Vesten, specielt i USA. Det er et uddrag fra hendes internationale webcast den 15. april 2020.:

Jeg mener, at denne anti-Kina-kampagne kommer fra en dybtliggende geopolitisk opfattelse af, at Kinas opstigning nødvendigvis betyder en tilbagegang for USA, og Vesten generelt. Kina har på intet tidspunkt truet med at erstatte USA som den førende magt. De har tilbudt et samarbejde på grundlag af et ”win-win”-samarbejde. De har tilbudt USA et særligt stormagtsforhold. Og det er en fuldstændig absurd idé, at man skulle kunne forhindre et land med 1,4 milliarder mennesker, som har besluttet, at det ønsker at gå frem ad fremskridtets videnskabelige og teknologiske vej – og har bevist at denne metode fungerer ved at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og dernæst er begyndt at tilbyde fordelene ved en sådan tilgang til andre gennem Bælte-ogVejinitiativet – at man kan stoppe dette på nogen anden måde end med atomkrig! Og det er åbenbart, desværre, hvad nogle personer er villige til at sysle med.

Kina er ikke en aggressiv magt. Men de truer idéen om en enpolet verdensorden, som nogle neokonservative og britiske grupperinger har forsøgt at gennemtvinge i perioden efter Sovjetunionens fald, gennem interventionskrige. Bush-administrationen, og dernæst Obama, førte alle disse interventionskrige, ved brug af idéerne om regimeskifte og farvede revolutioner, og det har skabt den krise vi nu har i Sydvestasien, samt flygtningekrisen.

Men idéen om at man bliver nødt til at stoppe Kinas opstigning er meget farlig. Og vi ser lige nu, at denne kampagne bliver anført af den britiske efterretningstjeneste. Efter at Præsident Trump, desværre, annullerede USA’s støtte til Verdenssundhedsorganisationen (WHO), ved at bebrejde dem for at være ansvarlige for mange dødsfald, fordi de misinformerede USA – jeg ønsker ikke engang at kommentere dette, fordi det faktuelt simpelthen ikke er korrekt – da trådte den tidligere chef for MI6 i går faktisk frem og sagde, at Trump ikke skulle have fokuseret på WHO, men på Kina. Og Henry Jackson-Selskabet, som er 100 % neokonservativ og en af de værste reaktionære institutioner man kan forestille sig, fremlagde et forslag om, at Vesten burde sagsøge Kina, således at Kina ville være nødsaget til at betale for alle omkostninger, som hidrører fra pandemien!

Det faktum at den tyske frokostavis, Bildzeitung, i dag bringer denne ide på side 2, med hele historien, hvor de citerer Henry Jackson-Selskabet, med en lang liste af foreslåede regninger – hvad var omkostningerne for taxachauffører, hotelejere – i alt 20 kategorier – som Kina burde betale? Og efter i går, hvor de på side 3 havde Pompeo opføre en liste over alle argumenterne mod Kina – det er det endelige bevis for, at denne frokostavis, Bild, er en del af Integrity Initiative, den britiske efterretningsoperation, som kontrollerer den vestlige presse. Officielt eller ej, det er jeg ligeglad med – men de spreder i realiteten propaganda for det britiske imperium. De har lige bevist dette i de sidste par dage, hvis et sådant bevis stadig var nødvendigt.

Men de forsøger at opildne befolkningen mod Kina, og det er faktuelt, absolut forkert! Jeg vil bare lige citere et par tal, fordi når de siger, at Kina ”skjulte” information om virusset, er det faktuelt forkert:

• De første tilfælde af en ny, ukendt sygdom blev registreret i Wuhan den 23. december, 2019.

• Dernæst, 30. december, rapporterede de om et mistænksomt antal af mennesker, som havde fået lungebetændelse.

• Dernæst, 3. januar, fremlagde den Kinesiske Nationale Sundhedskommission retningslinjer for, hvordan disse tilfælde burde håndteres.

• Og allerede den 4. januar kontaktede det medicinske personale i Wuhan deres amerikanske kolleger samt WHO og informerede dem om dette.

• Dernæst, kun tre dage senere, 7. januar, var videnskabsfolk i medicinalbranchen i stand til, for første gang, at isolere coronavirussets genetiske kode. Den ekstraordinære hastighed hvormed de succesfuldt isolerede den nye genetiske kode blev lovprist af hele det internationale medicinske samfund.

Så, jeg tror, at det er en rekord. Jeg husker dette, fordi vi fulgte det nøje, da det skete.

Allerede på dette tidspunkt, i betragtning af det faktum at man kendte til SARS og MERS fra tidligere, kunne vestlige regeringer absolut have påbegyndt fremstillingen af masker, respiratorer, hospitalssenge, og så videre; men det gjorde de ikke! I stedet, blev de uge efter uge ved med at gentage: ”Nej, masker er til ingen verdens nytte.” Den tyske sundhedsminister Jens Spahn sagde: ”Åh, virusset vil aldrig komme til Tyskland”. Han fortsatte med at gentage dette helt ind i februar, og sagde at det tyske sundhedsvæsen var perfekt forberedt til alle eventualiteter. De tog det virkelig ikke seriøst, helt indtil marts, da hele situationen brød ud med en hastighed, som efterlod alle målløse. Og selv på dette tidspunkt blev de ved med at sige, at man ikke havde brug for masker. De sagde ikke: Vi har brug for masker, vi har brug for massetestninger, lad os producere alt, som er nødvendigt. I stedet blev de ved med at justere kravene for hvad der var nødvendigt, til hvad deres magre ressourcer var. Og det er et faktum. Det kan siges om alle europæiske lande, og det fortsætter stadig, til en vis grad, nu.

Så jeg mener, at angrebet på Kina er den mest tåbelige, mest amoralske løgnagtige operation, for hvis der er et land, som havde succes, i det mindste indtil videre – fordi det er en pandemi, ved man aldrig hvad der sker fremover – men de var i stand til at kontrollere og uskadeliggøre virusset i kriseområderne i Hubei-provinsen og i byen Wuhan. Og i stedet for at tænke: måske var det centraliserede system, som Kina har, grunden til, at de kunne agere så hurtigt, og øge produktionen i hele landet; og måske var det vestens ekstreme liberalisme, som var grunden til, at dette ikke var muligt; måske kunne det tænkes, at det liberale/neoliberale system har nogle iboende mangler. I stedet for at diskutere dette, foretager man denne afvigelse og angriber Kina.

Jeg mener det er meget farligt, og at det er meget dumt. Og jeg synes, at det skal stoppe, og folk skulle virkelig ikke lade sig tages ved næsen af disse løgnagtige massemedier, som intet har at gøre med journalistik. De er virkelig kun efterretningstjenesternes fortrop, der forsøger at sprede propaganda for at fremme sine mål. Men det har intet med ærlig journalistik at gøre, overhovedet.

Udbredte forsøg på at splitte amerikaneres kamp mod coronavirus-plagen

Den 6. april (EIRNS) – Den amerikanske befolkning lider under en åbenlys kampagne, der forsøger at splitte dem og få dem til at tro på falske konspirationsteorier om corona- pandemien, frem for at samarbejde om at mobilisere videnskab, produktion og tiltag til at afbøde denne. De ser et spektakulært skue i deres Kongres og i de nationale medier, der bevidst søger at sabotere Præsident Donald Trumps bestræbelser på at mobilisere den fysiske økonomi imod virusset.

De forstyrrende ”diskussionsemner”, bevæbnet fantasipolitik, er på plads. For demokraterne: Trump er ansvarlig for sygdom og død blandt amerikanere. For republikanerne: Præsident Xi Jinping fra Kina er ansvarlig for sygdom og død blandt amerikanere. Begge søger at stoppe den amerikanske befolkning fra at følge præsidentens anvisninger og fra at mobilisere sig selv til at tage ansvar. Medierne, fra CNN til Fox og mange utraditionelle, alternative talerør forsøger at forsyne begge lejre med fabrikerede ”beviser”.

Målet fra begge sider er at forhindre det som er absolut nødvendigt for at stoppe pandemien fra at dræbe utallige millioner, specielt i udviklingslandene: amerikansk- kinesisk samarbejde sammen med Rusland, Indien og andre stormagter. Disse propagandistiske kampagner får et stærkt input fra britiske imperiale organer, der også er involveret i anti-russiske korstog og i at anstifte ”Russiagate” i USA.

MSNBC og New Republic er gået så langt som at forsøge at kombinere de to ”diskussionsemner”: Xi og Trump er i fællesskab ”manden med leen”, dødsengelen, bag hele den globale pandemi – New Republics påhit. Begge medier fordrejede fuldstændig interviews med en førende forsker og forfatter, Laurie Garrett, om fremkomsten af nye sygdomme og pandemier over de sidste 30 år.

“Hvordan Trump, Xi satte scenen for corona-pandemien” er måden, hvorpå MSNBC reklamerede for deres interview med Garrett på deres hjemmeside. Intervieweren, Mika Brzezinski, en rasende Trump-hader, datter af Zbigniew Brzezinski, stillede det ene provokerende, partiske spørgsmål efter det andet til Garrett, som ikke besvarede nogen af spørgsmålene direkte, selv om hun er kritisk over for begge ledere. Garrett understregede i stedet, at “det eneste håb” for at stoppe pandemien fra at hærge hele udviklingssektoren er et samarbejde mellem Trumps Amerika og Xis Kina. Hun forudså op til 36 måneder, hvor COVID-19 kan dukke op igen. ”Som det forsvinder, langsomt, fra den nordlige halvkugle… vil det bevæge sig til den sydlige halvkugle; vi vil se en eksplosion syd for Sahara, Sydamerika, Australien, Stillehavsøerne. Og så vil det komme tilbage til os,” sagde hun. Årsagen, i hendes øjne, er ikke Kina eller Trump, men globaliseringen og Wall Streets privatisering af sundhedssystemet.

Garrett-afstnittet i New Republic – reklamen for “manden med leen” – er ligeså “Hvordan Trump, Xi satte scenen for corona-pandemien”. Ligesom til MSNBC siger Garrett, selvom hun gør det klart, at hun hverken kan lide Xi eller Trump og ser dem som ”autokrater”, at hvis de samarbejder om at forsyne verden med en ny sundhedsinfrastruktur i tide til at redde millioner, da burde de dele Nobels fredspris.

Amerikanere burde arbejde hen imod dette, frem for at lade sig manipulere til at ødelægge denne mulighed.

Ingen sejr over COVID-19 uden at opnå et nyt økonomisk system og samarbejde, der viser vejen.  

Den 30. marts (EIRNS) – Et udtryk for status for spredningen af COVID-19, samt modsvaret herpå, er, at det anslås, at minimum en fjerdedel af verdens befolkning nu er underlagt restriktioner af bevægelsesfriheden siden Indiens ordre den 24. marts. Samtidig er graden af logistisk mobilisering fra sted til sted på en krigstids-skala. Denne pointe blev dramatiseret i USA i weekenden, ved eksempelvis at præsident Donald Trump personligt stod ved afgangskajen i Norfolk – det amerikanske NATO-center – da hospitalsskibet USNS Comfort afgik med ankomst til New York City i morgen. På samme måde holdt i New York guvernør, Andrew Cuomo, fredag den 27. marts sin daglige presse-briefing i Javits Centret i hjertet af Manhattan; centret er på fire dage omdannet til et hospital med 2.900 senge og åbner i morgen. Cuomo takkede hjemmeværnet (the National Guard) og Hærens Ingeniørkorps mange gange for deres arbejde.

Men tag ikke fejl. Årtierne med afvikling af medicinsk infrastruktur og folkesundhedssystemer i det transatlantiske område, og forhindring af en opbygning i Afrika, i store dele af den vestlige halvkugle, Sydasien og andre steder, betyder, at der stadig er store huller i kapaciteten til beskyttelse af liv.

Imens vi kæmper som ind i helvede for at redde liv må vi fremme kampen for at opnå etableringen af et nyt økonomisk system i menneskehedens tjeneste. Dette blev drøftet under gårsdagens LaRouchePAC-webcast,;En Apollo-mission for at redde menneskeheden: Opbygning af;Sundheds-silkevejen hvor Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav hovedtalen. Hun gentog sin opfordring til at suspendere aktiemarkederne, der er ude af kontrol, og træffe nødforanstaltninger for økonomisk reorganisering. Gør dette i forbindelse med drøftelser mellem stormagtledere, præsidenterne Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping og premierminister Narendra Modi ved et topmøde hurtigst muligt.

I opposition til ethvert sådant træk for et nyt system understregede finansminister Steven Mnuchin i dag gentagne gange, at finansministeriet og den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve Bank (Fed), vil pumpe likviditet ind i Wall Streets/City of Londons døde system, ligesom at hælde benzin på et bål. Mnuchin sagde: ”Jeg taler med Jerome Powell, Fed-direktøren, hver dag. Han fortæller hvad han har brug for. Jeg har aldrig afvist ham.” Mnuchin fortsatte, ;Vi har $ 4 billioner i likviditet … der rulles ud i disse Fed-programmer;. Med andre ord, mens Mnuchin;holder sit foredrag om at hjælpe “mainstreet America” – og den føderale bistand er virkelig på sin plads i forhold til arbejdstagere, landmænd, hjælp til hospitaler, lokale og statslige regeringer og så videre i den nye CARES-lov, som Trump underskrev fredag — er Mnuchin i virkeligheden ved at gå ad helvede til.

Drivkraften til et nyt verdensøkonomisk system kommer fra opfordringer til gældssanering og omorganisering i Afrika og Sydamerika. I denne weekend sagde for eksempel Alicia Bárcena, direktør for FN’s Økonomiske Kommission for Latinamerika og Caribien (ECLAC): Vi er nødt til at gentænke hvilken type udviklingsmodel, der skal komme ud af denne krise. Det er nødvendigt at gentænke globaliseringen. Det latinamerikanske strategiske center for geopolitik (CELAG) opfordrede til eftergivelse af latinamerikanske nationers suveræne gæld til multilaterale långivere, såsom IMF, Verdensbanken osv., samt også til private kreditorer.

Fra Afrika udsendte Præsidiet for Den Afrikanske Unions stats- og regeringschefer en meddelelse den 26. marts, inden G20-topmødet, med opfordring til at træffe de nødvendige økonomiske foranstaltninger til at tackle COVID-19 og alle sygdomme. Det er kun siden januar 2017, at Afrika overhovedet har haft et center for sygdomskontrol og -forebyggelse og fem regionale underenheder.

Disse opråb kan besvares. Det eksisterende neo-britiske imperiale, monetaristiske system, der skabte sårbarheden over for sygdomme og lidelser, kan lukkes ned for altid. Og ved sejren over virusset kom et symbol på håb i dag, i form af det personlige besøg som Xi Jinping foretog til to store havne i Zhejiang-provinsen syd for Shanghai og andre lokaliteter, hvor den økonomiske aktivitet efter COVID-19 nu genoptages. Der er stadig behov for varsomhed imod en genopblussen af sygdommen, men det kan gøres.

Internationalt spiller Kina en ledende rolle ved at yde bistand til snesevis af lande i deres kamp mod COVID-19, og der er andre afgørende eksempler, f.eks. russisk bistand til Italien.

Denne samarbejdsånd er til stede mellem Xi og Trump, som det fremgik ved deres telefonkonference sidste torsdag. I dag påpegede Trump på et møde i Det hvide Hus med erhvervsledere om forsyningsmæssige spørgsmål, at medicinske forsyninger nu flyves ind til USA fra Kina og bidrager til Project Airbridge, der leverer forsyninger overalt i USA. En flylast fra Shanghai landede her til morgen i New York City, den første af 20 sådanne leverancer i april.

Overalt i USA er der en voksende ånd af samarbejde, hvilket guvernørerne og præsident Trump og Det hvide Hus på mange måder viste i løbet af weekenden i viruszonernes forskellige brændpunkter. Guvernør for Maryland, Larry Hogan, formand for den Nationale Sammenslutning af Guvernører, sagde på Fox News, at der kan være store flaskehalse i mangel på testudstyr, masker og ventilatorer, og der er frustration derude, men, vi er sammen om alt dette.”

Vil de igangværende chok fremprovokere en ny slags tænkning,
der er nødvendig for at overvinde en ny mørk tidsalder?
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche d. 11. marts 2020

Helga gentager de seriøse advarsler fra ledende tyske eksperter indenfor smitsomme sygdomme og ser på Wuhan-modellen for at bryde smittevejene i begyndelsen. Helga beder lande om at koordinere deres indsats for at besejre denne pandemi, inklusiv at dæmme op for de økonomiske indvirkninger på den globale økonomi, men det betyder ikke at redde Wall Street! (Se hendes opdaterede underskriftsbegæring)

Helga og Harley diskuterer svindelen med her-og- nu-økonomien, og påminder folk om Lyndon LaRouches advarsel, at hvis vi fortsatte ned ad vejen mod nulvækst, ville Vesten ikke længere være i stand til at opretholde sig selv og ville sprænges indad. Hun kræver en ende på geopolitik, og at alle kræfter må være fokuserede på at løse den fælles virus- og finanskrise. Pas på dig selv, og tak for at du følger vores arbejde.

Afskrift på engelsk:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute, welcome to our webcast with our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s March 11, 2020. And now we’re very deep into a process which has been unfolding rapidly with the coronavirus, the emergence of a pandemic worldwide. And Helga, this is something that people in the West have been trying to wish away, but it’s something that’s going to be wished away: It requires a total change in thinking. Why don’t you start with your thoughts on that, because you have been very out front in the need for an emergency call to reject this old paradigm, and move to the new.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think the situation is very serious. It probably will not be possible without a lot of casualties, but nevertheless, if there are decisive measures now, and a complete change in the attitude, the damage can be minimized. Otherwise, it will be catastrophic.

Now, I think it is useful to listen to the experts from Germany who are making regular podcasts, Christian Drosten, the virologist from Berlin Charité hospital, and Professor Lothar Wieler from the Robert Koch Institute, and they put out very drastic warnings. What Drosten said is that there will be no lessening of the increasing in the spring and summer period, which some people temporarily assumed, because we will face a virus wave, and naturally, in the summer period, the virus will continue to spread to the summer hemisphere, where it will be winter, and then in all likelihood return even more, and with possible mutations in the fall, and a vaccine, as of now, cannot be expected before a year or so.

So, Merkel announced what is now commonplace among many leaders of countries, that the infection rate probably will infect 70% of the population, and unfortunately, it is absolutely not true what our Health Minister Jens Spahn still thought in January, which is really incredible, where he said that the coronavirus does not represent a danger for Germany, and that the mortality rate of the coronavirus would be lower than of the common flu — that’s what he said in January.

Now, obviously, that that was not the case was clear, already if people looked to China, which in the month of January was waging an incredible battle, and by closing down the entire city of Wuhan and Hubei province, effecting a lockdown for 60 million people, implementing it and also enforcing it and having a population which was very cooperative in doing so, according to the World Health Organization, China has set a new standard in dealing with such pandemics. And the West could have taken that as an example, but people in the West are just too arrogant, too Euro-centric, or too Western-centric, so they thought they could ignore, or even think “this is affecting China and not coming to Europe or the United States”; so they lost three valuable months, maybe not entirely, but obviously, a completely different attitude would have been necessary.

And now, it is spreading and changing by the hour, so people are completely aware of the fact that this is out of control. And I do not want to add to any panic, but it is very clear that the numbers which are announced right now are not accurate. I talked to my colleagues in France, today, and there are only a little bit more than 1,000 tests which have been made in France so far! That is not a representative figure which comes out, then. And we have some cases where people clearly have symptoms, and they try to get tests, and they were told, there are no tests in France right now, France doesn’t have the production capability and all the tests have been bought up and there simply are no tests. So, obviously, the fact that in Germany, there are only two deaths so far, as of this webcast [midday in Germany March 11 — ed], they attribute that to the very well testing — now, we have to see.

I think the lesson from Wuhan, and now that all of Italy is basically a red zone, after some very irrational behavior on the side of some citizens, after the north was locked down, you have quite an advanced situation; but I think the lesson to be learned from all of that is that is that we have to learn from China. We have to get rid of our Western arrogance, and simply look at the way how China effectively dealt with it, and then the only conclusion is, that you have to enforce these measures before you have a mass of cases. That means that if you have anywhere, a region, like some cities or areas in North Rhine-Westphalia, one should apply the Wuhan model immediately. It should be closed down, there should be a quarantine for a certain number of weeks, and these measures must be taken early on, because everything which counts in this is the speed, to take preemptive measures before the virus spreads completely out of control.

So I think we are in a very serious situation, but it’s not some moment where you can completely panic, but there are clear ways, and I think the Chinese efficiency with which they dealt with this, should be a lesson for everybody.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of the arrogance, I think you’re referring, in particular, to the continued adherence to geopolitics, to the neo-liberal model, the whole idea that the West is superior, the West has solved all the problems. Isn’t this what hampers the thinking of people at the European Union and many of the people in the U.S. Congress, and think tanks in the United States?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reaction so far by the leading politicians, for example, the European finance ministers — the so-called Eurogroup — they have a meeting on March 16, and on their agenda is first, the European Stability Mechanism, and then something else, and then only third, the coronavirus attack, and it is very clear that the reason why the reaction was so late, and why they didn’t use the word “pandemic,” because they were more concerned about the stock market, the efficiency and the profits coming from the so-called “pandemic bond” — which is an absurdity all by itself, that you would try to finance the cost of pandemics with bonds from which people can make a profit, but only if you have the maturity of the bond. So, I think the thinking is still very much dominated by the geopolitical idea: For example, yesterday, I was listening — and one should actually stop doing that! — I was listening to the ZDF news and this moderator reported about the coronavirus crisis, but then, instead of praising what the Chinese accomplished in Wuhan, he took the occasion to blast China and attack it, or to continue to attack Russia, China, that has to stop! Because if you look at it, the only way how humanity will get out of the crisis, is international cooperation. Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, has just telephoned the Italian Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio, and the Chinese offered share their experience, to send their experts; they’re donating masks, protective suits, and tests to Italy. This is a completely different approach. And I think the West has much to learn how to respond to challenges which all of humanity is facing. And this whole geopolitical thinking is really one of troglodytes and should be eliminated completely.

SCHLANGER: We see people like U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continuing to attack China; he calls coronavirus the “Wuhan virus” — you have this kind of attitude, when in fact, what we’re seeing is a significant drop of cases in China. And you mentioned earlier the importance of President Xi Jinping going to Wuhan to talk to the people who are on the front lines. I think it’s important to report this, Helga, because it’s not going out in the Western press.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I have proposed something, which may look impossible to some people, but I dare the prediction that the situation will — because of this ineffectiveness of Western response — that the situation will soon come to the point where more and more people are recognizing that what I’m saying is the only way to address this problem. What I have reiterated is my call to have an emergency summit by Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, Modi, as a minimum combination, to address all these problems. Because it’s very clear that we need an international cooperation concerning the coronavirus pandemic. This is already threatening the international financial system: We saw, in the last several weeks, several plunges, absolutely of the same dimension as after the 2008 systemic collapse, or after the September 11, 2001 attack; and only because the central banks have now decided to flood the markets, to lower the interest rates — like the Bank of England lowered the interest rate by a half-percent, 50 basis points, today — as if the simple pushing of liquidity would remedy any of the real, physical causes for why the system is collapsing. So, I want to have a mobilization of the population to demand that the leaders of the most important governments — of the United States, Russia, China, and India — need to discuss the Four Points which were proposed by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, in June 2014, because you need to have an immediate end of the global casino economy, by implementing a Glass-Steagall system; we have discussed this many times on this program, but it is the only combination of measures which would address the problem. Then, you need a national bank in every country; in Germany, we could extend the functions of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau; have a national bank in every other country; have an international cooperation among these national banks, reinstate fixed exchange rates, and then have agreements about industrial development projects, like the industrial development of Southwest Asia, of Africa, and this will become then, a New Bretton Woods system. There must be cooperation with the Chinese New Silk Road to have these kinds of development plans. And we need a crash program to go into a new platform of higher productivity of the economy, joint cooperation in advanced technologies, like fusion, like biophysics, like space research cooperation. And then, such a summit could implement these measures, and then could have a series of such summits, and that way change the geopolitics, and move towards an international cooperation, a shared future of humanity.

And that shift has to occur. And I’m predicting, and I think I’m on the safe side in doing so, that the crisis will accelerate, there will be many more unfortunate consequences, and people will recognize that to establish a completely different level of thinking will be the only way out for all of mankind.

If you agree with that, you should help this mobilization. There is a resolution, which is attachéd to this webcast [], please sign it, please spread it among your friends and colleagues, get more people to sign it: Because we need a public discussion about this, and public demand that the whole world should move into a completely new way of cooperating and solving these kinds of problems.

SCHLANGER: I’ve received a few emails from people who have asked, why do we focus on “neo-liberalism” as the problem? What does that have to do with the virus? And I think it’s important to look at what Dr. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to say about the need to rebuild the system: That the so-called “just-in-time” system, which has been accepted as an economic model doesn’t work. We need redundancy. And Helga, I think it would be very useful for you to just review again, why this neo-liberal system is the cause, or sets humanity up for these kinds of crises. Because this is what your husband was warning, going back to 1971, with the Biological Holocaust Task Force he set up, and so on.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The prognosis of Lyndon LaRouche, which he made on Aug. 15, 1971, when Nixon dissolved the Bretton Woods system by going to floating exchange rates, by decoupling the dollar from the gold-reserve standard and that way, opening the deregulation of the markets which has escalated ever since. My husband at that point had made the prognosis that if the West would continue on this road, of liberalizing the markets, of going with neo-liberal, monetarist policies, that it would end up in a new depression and the danger of a new fascism; or, one would go to a completely new economic system.

Now, that prognosis has proven to be absolutely on the mark. And the Biological-Ecological Holocaust Task Force which you just mentioned, he set up in 1974, and it was to study the effects of the policies of the IMF and World Bank on the economic system, especially in the developing sector. And in meantime, we have produced many studies, which you can all see in our archives, that if you impose such austerity or zero growth policies, especially on the developing countries, that you would inevitably cause the emergence of old diseases and new diseases, because you cannot consistently lower the living standard of entire continents, as the IMF and World Bank have done in the last 50 years, without creating conditions of breakdown. And that is exactly what you see right now: Because you don’t have only the coronavirus crisis, you have the locust situation getting completely out of control in many African states, in the Horn of Africa, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Pakistan-India, even threatening to go into China.

Then, as part of this geopolitical, liberal scheme of the West, the refugee crisis: It’s not a natural phenomenon, it is the result of the interventionist wars conducted by the Bush Administrations and Obama, with the idea that you have to spread “democracy” and “human rights” and that it’s legitimate to made interventionist wars against Iraq — doesn’t matter if it’s based on lies that there are so-called weapons of mass destruction which Nancy Pelosi, in the meantime has admitted that they all knew it was lie and they did it anyway; Iraq, Afghanistan — these are all the reasons why you have a refugee crisis. The underdevelopment of Africa is a result of these policies.

So that is why I am saying, if we don’t get rid of this paradigm, which has many elements — it has geopolitics, it has neo-liberal economic policies; but it also a Malthusian dimension to it. The Green axiom which says that nature, or some spiders or some ants somewhere are more important than human beings; and I even go so far as to say that I think the reason why there is such an absolutely bestial attitude — I mean, on the coronavirus, do you think that most African countries or Asian and Latin American countries that do not have the health systems we have, do you think they are testing their people? I don’t think so. So the figures are in all likelihood completely off, and the ability of these countries to remedy it is much, much less. And I’m absolutely convinced that there are some people who say, “Oh, there are too many people anyway,” like Bertrand Russell, who said, you need a pandemic every generation — these are quotes we have published many times! And the absolutely disgusting way how the EU is dealing with the refugee crisis, now again erupting at the Turkish-Greek border, that is a mindset which is disgusting! And it is the reflection of geopolitics, of the Malthusian idea that there are too many people anyway.

Now, Erdoğan, obviously, is playing his own, terrible games. But I think in this moment, where innocent people who have nothing, — the whole thing is that these refugees, even if they’re sitting in camps for years on end, and have begun speaking Turkish, and now Erdoğan is instrumentalizing them, that may all be true — that’s what the Greeks are saying — but what is the solution to that? You have to stop insisting that you have regime change in Syria, that has to stop. There has to be recognition that the only legitimate government in Syria is the one which the Syrian people themselves elect. There was a constitutional process under way, which is now stopped again; that has to be resumed. There has to be an end to the war. Turkey should not be backed by NATO — this is an insane idea. The U.S. special envoy for Syria James Jeffrey just demanded that NATO should fully back up Turkey against Syria, that is complete insanity: What needs to be done is you have to have peace with Syria, and then you have to have an orderly negotiation between the Assad government and the opposition, to arrange for the return of the Syrians to their own country, which is what most people want to do, anyway.

So I think all of these assumptions, that you just keep going with the policies which have proven to be a failure, that that has to absolutely stop. I don’t see a sign that the European establishment is capable of doing it. That just means we need a mobilization of the population, because this is becoming a serious existential crisis for all of us, and we have to take responsibility to put in a new paradigm — a paradigm of cooperation, and then we can solve most problems; at least over time, we can find solutions to such problems as coronavirus. But we need to change the view of the West towards China and Russia, and this whole idea that regime change is allowed under the pretext of spreading democracy and human rights, is one of these imperial, colonialist ideas which have to go.

SCHLANGER: Another perfect example of that is the expansion of sanctions against Iran and Venezuela for regime change, in the face of this growing pandemic.

I’d like to come back to one other point, which I think you alluded to earlier, which is the financial crisis: We now see, if something is going to be quarantined, we ought to quarantine Wall Street and the Bank of England. The idea that lower interest rates will solve something, but what’s going on with the repo lending, the incredible demand for liquidity without any concern for solvency, this is the other aspect of Mr. LaRouche’s warnings over many years.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I don’t know how long this will continue. And I think what the central banks are proposing is completely irresponsible, because the continuous flooding of the markets with money, and the idea to go even to negative interests rates, all of this is already eating up the savings and life’s earnings of the population, and is threatening at some point to go into a hyperinflation. So these derivatives must be absolutely written off — this is why Glass-Steagall is so crucial — and I think the whole EU program as it was announced by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in this presence of this deplorable Greta Thunberg, that has to go, too! Because you cannot have an industrial state and implement these policies. I think if you want to have hospitals, if you want to have enough intensive care units to deal with such a situation, you have to have a productive society. And that Green policy of von der Leyen it has to go. We need the full package that I talked about before: Glass-Steagall, and the return to Hamiltonian banking, which every time there was a successful economic system in history, whether it was the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, whether it was the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, these were the principles which were applied, and that is what is urgently required.

SCHLANGER: And while this is all going on, we have this incredible soap opera in U.S. politics around the Democratic nomination. I think it would be very useful, as we come toward the end of this webcast, for you to emphasize again, what do you think people should do, to make sure we can change the paradigm? There’s a hunger for change, people are still extremely unhappy, and now, very nervous, both because of the financial crisis and the coronavirus, what should people do? How should they respond?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Since you mentioned the U.S. situation, I think it’s a big problem, because, unfortunately Trump said he had a hunch that the mortality rates of the coronavirus is much less than what the World Health Organization was saying. Now, I think that he’s probably saying that because of the election campaign and he thinks that this will intervene. But I think the reality will assert itself very quickly: This will come as fast as it came in Europe, maybe faster even, and the U.S. right now is really unprepared! The health delivery system was taking even more than in Europe. The Democrats have this Biden now as a major candidate — I can only advise people, there is a very interesting collection of videos which was published by Consortium News, the author is Caitlin Johnstone [], and she collected about 20 or so videos of speeches of Biden where you clearly can see that he doesn’t have it any more — he’s lost it. So the idea to somebody who has clear signs of aging (to put it mildly), to think that you can run him through the Democratic Convention, the election campaign, and then win the election in November against Trump, is also a sign of extreme mental deterioration of the people who think they can do that and get away with it.

So if you look at all of these things, we need a completely new thinking: We are in a Dark Age, the Dark Age is absolutely comparable to the 14th century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, and people just went crazy! You see signs of this insanity, already now, and we need therefore, a completely different approach, like it came with the 15th century and the Golden Renaissance in Italy. We can talk about that some other time, but, I think people have to really recognize, we are in a Dark Age, and we have to reject all the assumptions which have led to this present situation.

And I actually would like to make one other point: I think the coronavirus will force lockdowns, it will force measures, schools and universities are already closed for several weeks in several countries; you don’t know yet what will be the effect of all of this on the financial system, on the real economy, and I think on these circumstances, where Merkel is talking about 70% of the population will become infected, and if you assume worldwide it may be 100 million people, and then, if you take present mortality rates, it will be 2-4 million people — under these circumstances, we should not have war games. And therefore, I think we need to stop the present NATO maneuver in Eastern Europe, the Defender-Europe 2020: Because obviously, the virus does not stop in front of the military. And to have these kinds of things going on, when you have an immediate health threat to the population, is really something which doesn’t make any sense. So this NATO maneuver should stop. Presently I think the highest commander of the U.S. forces in Germany is a victim of the coronavirus and is in quarantine in Wiesbaden: So, that should just give people to think that the virus does not stop in the face of the military.

And I think we should go in the direction of mobilizing for the summit: I know people think that this is too big, but sometimes, when you are in a real crisis, only if you reach a completely new level of thinking, namely the idea that all the major countries of the world — the United States, Russia, China, and India, as a minimum; and then other countries can come together with these countries — only if you change the level of thinking, and the level of approach, can you find a solution. So if you agree with that, then help us in this mobilization, because, you know, we will do other things: We will call for the rebuilding of the health delivery system, there are other things we can do. But I think because of the complexity of the world situation, the interaction of all of the elements of the breakdown, that we will not solve the problem unless we go to a completely new paradigm, a new system of international relations, and you should help us in this mobilization, and that’s the very best thing you can do for your own life and your own future.

SCHLANGER: And I would recommend, toward that end, that people circulate this webcast, get this webcast around, so people can hear the extent of the crisis and the solutions; and secondly, go to our website, and download the call for emergency summit from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, take that to your city council, to your trade union group — well, maybe you shouldn’t go too far, but you can certainly use the internet to get it around and get people signing it and support it.

So, Helga, anything else you want to add?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think this is a moment where people will be freaked out and it’s understandable: But sometimes a shock is also healthy if it helps you to get out of a wrong idea, and to think things through and then move ahead and find a solution. So, I would urge people to overcome your present fears and be confident that if we work together as one humanity, we can solve this.

SCHLANGER: OK, well, with that, we’ll see you again, next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.


POLITISK ORIENTERING den 5. marts 2020:
Fra coronavirus til finanskrak – løsningen er LaRouches 4 love



Coronavirus COVID-19: Det afgørende er ikke antallet af tidligere smittede men antallet af nye smittede hver dag.

Det viser, at smittespredningen er under kontrol i Kina. Den er helt stoppet uden for Hubeiprovinsen og reduceret til 100-150 nye tilfælde per dag der.  Men COVID-19 spreder sig ukontrolleret i Sydkorea, Iran, Italien, m.fl. Nu er kinesere bange for at rejse til Europa, for ikke at blive smittet der.

Finanskrak: USA’s centralbank sænkede renten med ½ procentpoint i et forsøg at pumpe flere penge ind i systemet for at undgå et krak. Men krakket er i gang og et ”Lehmann Brothers-øjeblik” kan komme når som helst.

Topmøde: Trump siger også ja til et topmøde mellem de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd: USA, Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, Storbritannien. Helga Zepp-LaRouches foreslog den 3. januar et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping, og Putin foreslog derefter et møde mellem de fem permanente  medlemmer.

Valget i USA: Efter Super Tuesday: Nu er det Bernie Sanders imod etablissementets kandidat Biden efter at de andre moderate kandidater trak sig og Bloomberg faldt igennem, trak sig og nu også vil støtte Biden.

Trumps svage punkt: økonomien, fordi han påstår, at økonomien har det strålende. Hvad sker der, hvis der kommer et finanskrak og stor nedtur inden valget? Trumps redning er, hvis han lytter til LaRouche-bevægelsen og vores løsning:

LaRouches fire økonomisk love:

  1. Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling
  2. Nationalbank og statlig kreditskabelse
  3. Investeringer som øger produktiviteten såsom store infrastrukturprojekter
  4. Videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt: fusionskraft, rumforskning.

Disse løsninger gælder ikke kun USA men også Danmark og alle andre lande.

NYHEDSORIENTERING FEBRUAR-MARTS 2020: Coronavirus kan udløse finanskrak — LaRouches fire økonomiske love nu!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 20. februar 2020:
Kina er i gang med at få nedkæmpet coronavirus COVID-19.
Kan resten af verden følge Kinas eksempel?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg


Udtalelse af præsidenten for det Internationale Schiller Institut
Kina fortjener ros og samarbejde for dets kamp imod coronavirusset

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Den 7. februar 2020 – Navnet på det tyske ugeblad ‘Der Spiegel’ betyder på engelsk: “The Mirror” (“Spejlet”). Og hvad man i denne uge rent faktisk ser på forsiden af den trykte version af Der Spiegel – en person med en gasmaske, beskyttelsesbriller, øretelefoner og en rød hættetrøje – er et spejlbillede af de racistiske redaktørers grimme ansigter. Overskriften “Coronavirus Made in China” skulle faktisk have været “Det racistiske monsters [der Spiegels] grimme fjæs”.

Dette stykke ‘gule snavs’-journalistik var så slemt, at den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland udsendte en formel klage på deres hjemmeside. Den berygtede ‘Jyllands-Posten’ fra Danmark havde en lige så modbydelig såkaldt satiretegning, der anbragte coronavirus på det kinesiske flag. Forskellige amerikanske såkaldt ‘mainstream-medier’ bruger det afskyelige, racistiske udtryk “Den gule Fare”. Hvad alle disse skildringer viser, er den grimme virkelighed af en åbenlys indgroet racisme under et meget tynd lag fernis af “vestlige værdier”.

Sagen er, at generaldirektøren for WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, gentagne gange har rost Kina for en fremragende håndtering af epidemien, og har bemærket at Kina har sat en ny standard for behandling af sådanne problemer. Andre embedsmænd i sundhedssektoren oplyser, at responsen fra den regionale regering i Wuhan og udbredelsen af information er ”moderne”, og at der er blevet offentliggjort en ekstremt imponerende mængde nye oplysninger i deres daglige opdateringer siden 31. december/1. januar.

At betegne en virus som “kinesisk” er lige så dumt som at sige, at det er en persons egen skyld, hvis han smittes af influenza eller bliver syg i almindelighed. Det kan ske overalt i verden, og det kan ske for enhver person på planeten. Læren fra dette nylige tilfælde af reaktionen på udbruddet af coronavirus er, at det viser hvem i det internationale samfund, der er i stand til at reagere [hensigtsmæssigt] på farer, der truer hele menneskeheden; hvem der er en ‘hulemænd’, og hvem der ikke er.

Hvis Europa og USA ønsker at være troværdige, når talen falder på “menneskerettigheder” og “vestlige værdier”, burde de gå sammen med Kina og samarbejde om at besejre coronavirus. Coronavirusset og det faktum, at 100.000 mennesker hvert år bliver dræbt af komplikationer fra influenza, viser hvor presserende det er at gøre nye gennembrud i den grundlæggende forståelse af livsprocesser for at overvinde hidtil livstruende sygdomme. Europa og USA bør også samarbejde med den mest fremtidsorienterede vision på den internationale dagsorden, nemlig udvidelsen af Bælte- og Vejinitiativet (BVI) til Sydvestasien og Afrika og det internationale samarbejde om ‘Rum-Silkevejen’.

Man bør helt sikkert reflektere over aktualiteten i bedømmelsen fra Gottfried Leibniz, der sagde: ”I hvert fald forekommer det mig, at forholdene hos os, hvor det moralske forfald griber vældigt om sig, næsten gør det nødvendigt, at kineserne sender os missionærer, som kan lære os den naturlige religions anvendelse og praksis… Derfor tror jeg, at hvis en vismand blev valgt til dommer – ikke angående gudinders skønhed, men de enkelte folks fortrin – ville han give ‘guldæblet’ til kineserne…”

Jeg synes Leibniz var langt klogere end eksempelvis Der Spiegel, Jyllands-Posten og the New York Times.


POLITISK ORIENTERING den 7. februar 2020:
Efter rigsretssagfiasko: Samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina
imod coronavirus og finanssammenbrud

Med formand Tom Gillesberg