Følgende 5 min. video om Oaseplanen er fra 2010:



2. Følgende uddrag med Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet, som begynder 12 min. inde i den øverste video:

Lad mig give jer en kort beretning om omfanget af dette. Lige efter dette skete, bragte vi en overskrift i vores avis, hvor der stod: “Irak tilbyder Israel en fredsplan til 30 milliarder dollars.” Jeg var sammen med en gruppe mennesker, der delte den ud ved en tale, som Moshe Dayan holdt på Wake Forest University i Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Der var hundredvis af mennesker, og vi var meget bange for, at hvis vi gik derhen og sagde, at Irak ønsker at afslutte konfrontationen og tilbyder penge, ville folk blive vrede. Men det vi fandt ud af var, at de var meget interesserede i det. Vi solgte hver eneste avis, vi havde, og efter Dayans tale rejste jeg mig op blandt publikum – José Vega-style – og sagde til Moshe Dayan: “Vi har et forslag, som Lyndon LaRouche har lagt på bordet fra Irak om en udviklingsplan til 30 milliarder dollars for Israel og Palæstina. Vil du støtte det?” Jeg forventede en tirade fra ham, for han havde ry for at være lidt af en hidsigprop, en hård militærleder. Det han sagde var fascinerende. Han sagde: “Det her er meget interessant. Det kan ændre alt. Jeg er meget åben for at høre mere om det.” Det viste på det tidspunkt potentialet for LaRouches intervention – det var lige efter krigen i 1973, efter den arabiske olieembargo, efter det, der så ud til at være enden på enhver mulighed for at realisere ideen om en to-statsløsning for Israel og Palæstina.

Da LaRouche introducerede sin politik for Den internationale Udviklingsbank, sagde han følgende: “Med en IDB-politik i udsigt skulle den fredselskende fraktion i Mapai [som var et israelsk parti] snart blive herskende. Israelerne og de vigtigste arabiske stater kunne let blive enige om betingelserne for fortsatte forhandlinger om det palæstinensiske spørgsmål inden for rammerne af en øjeblikkelig fast aftale om samarbejde om udviklingspolitik.” Med den tilgang holdt LaRouche møder i løbet af de næste par år, begyndende i 1975, hvor han havde et møde med den israelske leder Abba Eban for at fremme diskussionen om denne tilgang. I 1977 skrev LaRouche en artikel, som blev offentliggjort i et Paris-baseret israelsk nyhedsbrev med titlen: “Israel and Palestine; A Future for the Middle East”. Her er, hvad han sagde i den:

“Generelt, uden direkte forhandlinger mellem Israel og Den Palæstinensiske Befrielsesorganisation(PLO), kan der ikke blive nogen løsning i Mellemøsten inden for en overskuelig, umiddelbar fremtid. Vi kender alle alt for godt de underliggende forhindringer for sådanne forhandlinger. Vi burde vide, at vi hurtigt må fjerne forhindringerne for sådanne direkte forhandlinger.” Han henviser udtrykkeligt til idéen om, at man først skal have en politisk aftale og derefter gå videre. Det han siger er, at “det objektive grundlag for en løsning i Mellemøsten er den økonomiske udviklingspakke, vi har peget på. Enhver anden tilgang vil mislykkes; vil hurtigt blive nedbrudt til en farce. Men det er ikke blot materielle fordele i sig selv, der skaber grundlaget for fred. Det er det faktum, at regeringernes forpligtelse til at realisere betydelige videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt fremmer humanistiske holdninger i befolkningerne.”

Det var den idé, LaRouche havde om sit westfalske princip; om vigtigheden af økonomiske politikker, der viser, at hver side anerkender fordelene ved den anden, som grundlag for fred. Det var hans tema i mange andre artikler i den periode. Han gik imod strømmen, da folk sagde, at man ikke kan forhandle med Arafat, han er ikke villig til at forhandle. Hvad LaRouche skrev i december 1983: “Arafat er den etablerede leder af det, der faktisk er en eksilregering for de palæstinensiske arabere. Hvis vi skal have succes med at forhandle med det palæstinensiske arabiske folk, er det Arafats lederskab, vi skal forhandle med.” Derefter skrev han et politisk dokument, “Forslag om at begynde udviklingen af en langsigtet økonomisk udviklingspolitik for staten Israel.”

Kort tid efter, i april 1986, opfordrede Shimon Peres, som på det tidspunkt var Israels premierminister, til at afsætte en pulje på 25-30 milliarder dollars til at skabe en udviklingsfond for Mellemøsten for de næste ti år. Peres kaldte det en Marshallplan for Mellemøstens udvikling. Lyndon LaRouche bakkede op om den og skrev flere artikler, hvor han forsvarede den. Men han påpegede det utilstrækkelige i tilgangen. Hvad han sagde på det tidspunkt var, at det, der er nødvendigt, er at tage fat på det mest alvorlige problem, der findes med hensyn til økonomien. Og hvad er det? Det er manglen på vand, og forholdet mellem det og manglen på strøm eller energi. Så mens LaRouche støttede Peres’ Marshallplan, og i 1986 havde Peres øget det samlede beløb til 50 milliarder dollars, begyndte han at beskrive, hvordan man kan skabe mere vand til Mellemøsten. Dette er grundlaget for det, der senere, i 1990, blev kendt som hans Oase-Plan. Han sagde, at man var nødt til at have en menneskeskabt Jordan-flod, som kunne flyde og give mere vand til alle de områder, der grænser op til den; herunder Jordan, Israel, Egypten og Den Arabiske Halvø. For at gøre det, sagde han, har man brug for afsaltning. Man har brug for en række atomkraftværker på 300 MW, som giver strøm til afsaltningen. Det vil også give den elektricitet, der er nødvendig for industrialisering og avanceret landbrug. I 1990 skrev han et stykke med titlen: “En fredsplan i arabernes og israelernes sande interesse”. Her skrev LaRouche, at vi har brug for “geografisk ingeniørkunst” til at føre kanalerne mellem Middelhavet og Det Røde Hav, og derefter Det Røde Hav til Det Døde Hav, for at skabe vandløb, som med atomdrevet afsaltning til at levere vandkraft og transport, ville give mulighed for industriel og landbrugsmæssig udvikling.

Her er det, han sagde, som virkelig er interessant:

“Man kunne definere den rette tilgang til udviklingen af Mellemøsten, hvis der ikke boede nogen mennesker der i øjeblikket, som hvis vi for eksempel planlagde bosættelsen af Mars: en ubeboet planet, ved hjælp af kunstigt miljø, og så videre.” Han fortsatte med at skrive, at opdelingen og fordelingen af vand og strøm skal organiseres, så den gennemsnitlige kvadratkilometer jord kan udvikles til at være produktiv på de nødvendige niveauer for forskellige typer af jordbrug – græsning, afgrøder, beboelse, industri og handel.

Ideen med de to kanaler og den overordnede tilgang til industriel udvikling blev betragtet som revolutionerende. Hvordan kunne man opnå en aftale på dette grundlag? Hvad der skete på det tidspunkt var, at Bush-regeringen forsøgte at gøre præcis det, som LaRouche havde advaret dem imod at gøre. For at forsøge at få en politisk løsning holdt de en konference i Madrid med repræsentanter for palæstinenserne og israelerne, men den førte ingen steder hen. De samme gamle argumenter, de samme gamle kampe, de samme gamle modsætninger; det faktum, at der havde været en række krige siden 1948, i ’48 og ’56 og ’67 og ’73, og fortsatte træfninger og terrorisme. Hvordan kunne man få de to sider til at mødes? Mens Madrid-konferencen stod på – og på det tidspunkt var det Yitzhak Shamir, der var premierminister – var der noget andet, der blev sat i gang, da Yitzhak Rabin blev premierminister året efter i 1992. Det var en diskussion bag kulisserne i Oslo, Norge, mellem repræsentanter, der var tæt på Shimon Peres, som var kommet med ideen om en Marshallplan for Mellemøsten, og repræsentanter for Arafat.

Det førte til en aftale i september 1993, kaldet Oslo-aftalen. Det vigtigste ved Oslo-aftalen, og de fleste fokuserer på det faktum, at Arafat og Rabin gav hinanden hånden, er, at de talte om at gøre en ende på fjendskabet. Det var her, Rabin kom med sin berømte udtalelse om, at for at gøre dette, må man have modet til at ændre aksiomer. Og det afspejlede de blot ved at mødes og give hinanden hånden. Det var et meget anspændt øjeblik, indtil de to greb hinandens hænder, kiggede hinanden i øjnene og derefter gik væk og udbragte en skål for hinanden. En skål for dem, der har modet til at ændre aksiomer. Men det, der lå til grund for dette potentiale, var netop LaRouches idé om økonomisk samarbejde og udvikling i de to økonomiske bilag, der var knyttet til Oslo-aftalen.

Jeg vil lige læse et par aspekter af dette. Det økonomiske bilag nr. 3: “Protokol om israelsk-palæstinensisk samarbejde om økonomiske og udviklingsmæssige programmer.”

“De to parter er enige om at etablere en israelsk-palæstinensisk komité for økonomisk samarbejde, der blandt andet skal fokusere på følgende.

“1. Samarbejde om vandområdet, herunder et vandudviklingsprogram …

“2. Samarbejde inden for elektricitet …

“3. Samarbejde om energiområdet …

“4. Samarbejde om det finansielle område, herunder et finansielt udviklings- og handlingsprogram til fremme af internationale investeringer på Vestbredden og i Gazastriben …

“5. Samarbejde inden for transport og kommunikation …

“6. Samarbejde inden for handel …” og endelig,

“7. Samarbejde inden for industri, herunder industrielle udviklingsprogrammer, som vil sikre oprettelsen af fælles israelsk-palæstinensiske industrielle forsknings- og udviklingscentre….”

Så det var bilag 3. Bilag 4 befæster dette med ideen om: “Protokol om israelsk-palæstinensisk samarbejde vedrørende regionale Udviklingsprogrammer.” Den taler om et økonomisk udviklingsprogram for Vestbredden og Gaza, en mellemøstlig udviklingsfond og endelig en mellemøstlig udviklingsbank. Alt dette var muligt på det tidspunkt, og det ville have gjort præcis det, som LaRouche foreslog, nemlig at skabe et grundlag hvor folk i de palæstinensiske områder ville se en fordel i at samarbejde med Israel, og israelerne ville se en fordel i at samarbejde med palæstinenserne. Ikke bare for at stoppe drabene, men for at skabe et miljø med gensidigt fordelagtige produktive aktiviteter, som ville hæve levestandarden for folk på begge sider af konflikten. Og på det grundlag ville en to-statsløsning være mulig. Det er kernen i LaRouches ideer.

Hvad skete der med den plan? Tja, den blev først dræbt af Verdensbanken, for i november 1993 sagde Verdensbanken, at de ikke ville kanalisere penge eller give midler, der kom fra donorer. Præsident Clinton forsøgte blandt andet at rejse midler til dette. Der var donorer, som var parate til at give penge, men Verdensbanken sagde, at de ikke ville give pengene til palæstinenserne, fordi de ikke stolede på dem på grund af “korruption”. Især var der modstand mod, at Arafat skulle have nogen mulighed for at modtage midlerne. Som et resultat var pengene der bare ikke. Det var et stort problem for opfølgningen. To år senere, den 4. november 1995, blev Yitzhak Rabin myrdet af en mand ved navn Yigal Amir, som var en del af bosætterbevægelsen og især havde været meget aktiv i Hebron, som var et af de største konfrontationsområder mellem de palæstinensere, der boede der, og de jødiske bosættere, som brugte den israelske stats magt til at rykke ind. Mordet på Rabin, oven i lukningen af potentialet for midler, afsluttede muligheden for succes for Oslo. LaRouche har specifikt udtalt i september 1993, efter håndtrykket i Washington, at det er presserende, at de første skridt til disse nye projekter bliver taget med det samme. Ellers var der fare for, at dette forslag ville drukne i begge parters blod. Han identificerede specifikt Sharon-netværkene i bosætterbevægelsen som truslen mod det. Og det var hvad der skete; en mulighed gik tabt.

Som vi ser, er det tilstrækkeligt at se på udviklingen fra 1995 til i dag. Palæstinenserne har stadig ingen stat; faktisk er de nu delt mellem to grupper, hvoraf den ene – Hamas, som Netanyahu nu sværger at udrydde – siden 2009 har Netanyahu og Israel givet midler til Hamas for at opbygge dem som en modvægt til Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre. Hvorfor det? Fordi Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre er en nationalistisk bevægelse, der repræsenterer palæstinensernes interesser som nation, i modsætning til Hamas, som er en religiøs bevægelse. Så længe man har Hamas, der kæmper mod Det Palæstinensiske Selvstyre, har man ingen samlet regering at forhandle med. Det er, hvad Netanyahu sagde; han pralede af at gøre det. Det anslås, at mere end 1 milliard dollars blev kanaliseret fra Israel gennem Qatar til Hamas, som Netanyahu nu siger, at han vil udrydde og udslette.

Så løsningen her er, at man bliver nødt til at identificere, hvad problemet er. Problemet er ikke israelere og palæstinensere, selvom det måske er dem, der udfører de desperate handlinger. Men de handler ikke i egen interesse; de handler i de højere magters interesse, som ønsker at forhindre enhver form for brud med de gamle aksiomer.

Aug. 7, 2023 (EIRNS)- På sin hjemmeside, “Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey”, tager Brian McGlinchey fat på den fortsatte retfærdiggørelse af anvendelsen af atomvåben i Japan ved at citere amerikanske militære embedsmænd på det tidspunkt, som var uenige i den forfærdelige beslutning om at bruge bomben. McGlinchey giver ellers et nyttigt historisk studie af forhandlingsprocessen på det tidspunkt og argumenterer yderligere for, at betingelserne for en japansk overgivelse allerede var aftalt, før bomberne blev kastet – noget, som kun få forfattere uden for Executive Intelligence Review har vist. Det skal bemærkes, at McGlinchey tidligere drev 28pages.org, som spillede en vigtig rolle i kampagnen for at afklassificere de “28 sider” i den fælles undersøgelse af efterretningstjenesternes aktiviteter før og efter terrorangrebene den 11. september 2001, udført af Senatets særlige udvalg om efterretning og Repræsentanternes Hus’ permanente særlige udvalg om efterretning, som viste, at FBI kendte til inddragelsen af embedsmænd fra Saudi-Arabien i organiseringen af denne terroraktivitet.

McGlincheys artikel i Stark Realities begynder:

“Årsdagene for atombomberne over Hiroshima og Nagasaki giver mulighed for at nedbryde en hjørnestensmyte i amerikansk historie – at disse to masseslagtninger af civile var nødvendige for at få Japan til at overgive sig og skåne en halv million amerikanske soldater, som ellers ville være døde i en militær erobring af imperiets hjemlige øer.

“De, der angriber denne mytologi, bliver ofte pr. refleks afvist som upatriotiske, dårligt informerede eller begge dele. Men de mest overbevisende vidner mod den konventionelle visdom var patrioter med en unik forståelse af tingenes tilstand i august 1945 – USA’s øverste militære ledere under Anden Verdenskrig.

“Lad os først høre, hvad de havde at sige, og derefter undersøge de nøglefakta, der førte dem til deres lidet offentliggjorte overbevisninger,” skriver han; de følgende citater er uddrag af McGlincheys artikel.

General Dwight Eisenhower, da han hørte om de planlagte bombninger: “Jeg havde været bevidst om en følelse af depression og havde udtrykt mine alvorlige betænkeligheder over for [krigsminister Stimson], for det første fordi jeg mente, at Japan allerede var besejret, og at nedkastningen af bomben var helt unødvendig, og for det andet fordi jeg mente, at vores land burde undgå at chokere verdensopinionen ved at bruge et våben, hvis anvendelse, mente jeg, ikke længere var bydende nødvendig som en foranstaltning til at redde amerikanske liv. Det var min overbevisning, at Japan netop på det tidspunkt ledte efter en måde at overgive sig på med et minimum af “ansigtstab”.

Admiral William Leahy, Trumans stabschef: “Brugen af dette barbariske våben … var ikke til nogen væsentlig hjælp i vores krig mod Japan. Japanerne var allerede besejret og klar til at overgive sig på grund af den effektive flådeblokade og de vellykkede konventionelle bombardementer.

Generalmajor Curtis LeMay, 21. Bomber Command: “Krigen ville have været overstået på to uger uden russerne og uden atombomben…. Atombomben havde intet at gøre med at afslutte krigen.”

General Hap Arnold, U.S. Army Air Forces, fortalte en interviewer: “Den japanske position var håbløs, selv før den første atombombe faldt, fordi japanerne havde mistet kontrollen over deres egen luft.” Han skrev i sine erindringer: “Det forekom os altid, at japanerne, atombombe eller ej, allerede var på randen af kollaps.”

Ralph Bird, undersekretær i flåden: “Japanerne var klar til fred, og de havde allerede henvendt sig til russerne og schweizerne. …. Efter min mening var den japanske krig i virkeligheden vundet, før vi nogensinde brugte atombomben.

Brigadegeneral Carter Clarke, militær efterretningsofficer, som udarbejdede resuméer af opfangede telegrammer til Truman: “Da vi ikke behøvede at gøre det, og vi vidste, at vi ikke behøvede at gøre det … brugte vi [Hiroshima og Nagasaki] som et eksperiment for to atombomber. Mange andre højtstående militærofficerer var enige.”

Admiral Chester Nimitz, øverstbefalende for Stillehavsflåden: “Brugen af atombomber i Hiroshima og Nagasaki var ikke til nogen væsentlig hjælp i vores krig mod Japan. Japanerne var allerede besejret og klar til at overgive sig.” (https://starkrealities.substack.com/p/hiroshima-nagasaki-bombings-were )

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 22. jan. 2023 (EIRNS) – Har det amerikansk-britiske NATO-system fejlet? Mon dets kontrollører ville opdage det?

Det engang så stolte USA, der blev dannet i en revolution mod det, som på daværende tidspunkt var verdens ondeste imperium, ser sin økonomiske magt smuldre, sin valuta miste den fremtrædende plads, den forventede levealder falde, og dets bestræbelser på at samarbejde med Storbritannien og NATO for at knuse Rusland og inddæmme Kina vakle. Den finansielle slimskimmel, der er mest udbredt i City of London og Wall Street, nægter at slippe sit snyltende greb om den fysiske økonomi og kræver uophørlig pengetrykning og eksploderende gældsniveauer for at tilfredsstille sine krav.

Alliancen mellem USA og Storbritannien er nu som en galning, der truer Rusland: “Jeg er skør nok til at indlede direkte krigsførelse mod jeres territorium, og jeg tror I vil bøje jer. I kommer ikke “rigtig” til at bruge atomvåben!”

Har galningen ret? Bluffer Rusland?

Hvad vigtigere er: Skal hele verden holdes som gidsel i en strid om, hvem der administrerer den lille del af kloden, som det drejer sig om her? Hvem skal bestemme udfaldet? Er befolkningerne i NATO-landene parate til at tage udfordringen op?

Nogle giver udtryk for et dybfølt engagement i at overvinde sexisme, hvidt overherredømme, transfobi osv., men hvor er opstanden mod en atomkrig, der vil kunne udrydde alt menneskeliv på planeten og det meste andet liv i øvrigt?

I nogle områder er sugerør og plastikposer og gaskomfurer ulovlige, mens marihuana er OK. Man må måske ikke have lov til at bruge sine penge på mentolcigaretter, men 45 milliarder dollars sendes uden videre til Ukraine.

Der kan ikke gøres noget for at afhjælpe de katastrofale transportproblemer, og forskningen i kernefusion er sørgeligt underfinansieret, men vi har alle pengene i verden (eller som vi kan trykke) til at modarbejde Kina, som er den førende motor for økonomisk vækst på verdensplan, samtidig med at vi er på vej mod en atomudveksling med Rusland.

Der er masser af simple sammenligninger fra Anden Verdenskrig – skal vi igen høre om ” eftergivenhed” og “München” – men den mest dramatiske parallel, nemlig at tyske kampvogne bevæger sig ind på russisk territorium (som i et vanvittigt forsøg på at indtage Krim), er tilsyneladende blevet forbigået af kommentatorerne.

I visse situationer må man fastholde sine principper og droppe alle praktiske hensyn! Men spørgsmålet om, hvem der skal varetage forvaltningen af Krim-halvøen, er ikke et sådant tilfælde.

Dette vanvid – hvis det forbliver upåagtet, uanfægtet og uændret – vil betyde den frygtelige død for alle mennesker på jorden samt at intet nyt menneske nogensinde vil blive født igen.

Men sådan er vores fælles fremtid, såfremt magthaverne – som nægter at overveje en verden, som de ikke regerer, som nægter at acceptere, at verdensøkonomiens tyngdepunkt er flyttet til Asien og det Globale Syd, som lukker af for den sandhed, der indhyller dem, at deres system, deres herredømme er ophørt – hvis disse mennesker ikke bliver stoppet. Det vil udelukkende være muligt gennem en massiv og lidenskabelig indsats for en verden, der er engageret i fred gennem udvikling, i erkendelse af at alle mennesker er skabt lige og er udstyret med de kreative åndsevner, der adskiller vores art fra alt andet kendt liv, i vores evne til at ændre vores forhold til naturen, til hinanden og til fremtiden.

Se LaRouche-Organisationens interview med Steven Starr om dybden af det ragnarok, vi står over for, og det kommende interview med Paul Gallagher om den epokegørende transformation af økonomien, som vil udspringe af fusionskraft. (https://laroucheorganization.com/article/2023/01/21/interview-nuclear-expert-steven-starr-could-we-win-nuclear-war )

Den 4. februar bør du sørge for sammen med dine venner at deltage i Schiller Instituttets konference “The Age of Reason or the Annihilation of Humanity?” (Fornuftens tidsalder eller menneskehedens udslettelse). (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20230204 )

Den 11. november 2022 (EIRNS) – Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, udsendte i dag en klar opfordring til de førende nationer i Den alliancefrie Bevægelse om at træde frem for at afværge faren for atomkrig, som i øjeblikket truer med at udslette menneskeheden. Den alliancefri Bevægelse er sandsynligvis den vigtigste kraft på planeten til at overvinde geopolitik på nuværende tidspunkt, og det er ved at gøre op med geopolitik, at vi kan undgå Tredje Verdenskrig, erklærede hun på en international konference i Indonesien om Den alliancefri Bevægelses rolle i den fortidige og fremtidige historie.

Følgende artikel af Helga Zepp-LaRouche blev offentliggjort i bogen, der blev udgivet på Bandung Spirit-konferencen med titlen “Bandung-Belgrade-Havana in Global History and Perspective: Drømmene, udfordringerne og projekterne for en global fremtid?”, der fandt sted den 7.-14. november i Indonesien. (Konferencen afsluttes kun en dag før G20-topmødet på Bali i Indonesien den 15.-16. november, hvor præsident Biden og Xi også vil mødes).

Hendes artikel havde titlen “Den alliancefrie Bevægelses betydning for et nyt paradigme i de internationale relationer”.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte også på konferencen online den 11. november, hvor hun gav et resumé af sin artikel under plenarmøde 6: Asiens fremmarch og omstruktureringen af den globale politiske økonomi.

Resumé:  

Menneskeheden står over for den alvorligste krise i sin historie, nemlig risikoen for en global atomkrig. Den afgørende drivkraft bag krigsfaren er den forestående opløsning af det neoliberale finanssystem, som nu er gået ind i en hyperinflationær fase. Det er denne historiske fare, som gør det så meget desto mere presserende at genoplive “Bandung-ånden”. På Bandung-konferencen og de efterfølgende konferencer blev der fastlagt de principper, som skal danne grundlag for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for verden i dag.

Er det en overdrivelse at påstå, at menneskeheden står over for den alvorligste krise i historien, når potentialet for en global atomkrig og dermed den sandsynlige udslettelse af menneskearten accelererer fra dag til dag, og når førende eksperter advarer om, at situationen er farligere end på højdepunktet af Cuba-krisen, og dette alligevel ikke får lederne i visse vestlige lande til at opgive deres politik for konfrontation mellem de såkaldte “demokratier og autokratier”?

Drivkraften bag denne krigsfare er den forestående opløsning af det neoliberale finanssystem, som nu er gået ind i en hyperinflationær fase som følge af flere års likviditetsindsprøjtninger i det monetære system og af “Great Reset”-politikken, som den tidligere tjekkiske præsident Vaclav Klaus kalder “det grønne delirium”. Fødevarer og energi bliver i stigende grad utilgængelige, hvilket ifølge Verdensfødevareprogrammet truer 1,7 milliarder mennesker med hungersnød i den nærmeste fremtid. Desuden har pandemien yderligere udvidet kløften mellem de få, som tæller deres formuer i milliarder af dollars, og de milliarder, som konfronteres med sygdom og sult uden et sundhedssystem, uden energi, rent vand eller tilstrækkeligt med mad.

Så, 67 lange år efter Bandung-konferencen, må vi igen, som præsident Sukarno gjorde i sin åbningstale den 18. april 1955, konkludere, at kolonialismen ikke er død, selv om den formelt set og angiveligt ikke længere eksisterer. Formelt set blev der tildelt uafhængighed, men mange nationers suverænitet er forhindret af pengepolitiske strukturer, handelsbetingelser og manglende adgang til ressourcer, som ville muliggøre selvbestemmelse i forbindelse med den økonomiske udvikling. Sanktioner, der af geopolitiske årsager indføres over for tredjelande, fremmer “humanitære kriser”, som er udformet med henblik på at øge den smerte, der pålægges befolkningerne, i en sådan grad, at de vil gøre oprør mod deres regering og skabe betingelserne for et regimeskifte.

Den virkelige konfrontation er derfor ikke mellem “demokratier” og “autokratier”, men mellem de kræfter, der ønsker at opretholde det koloniale system i nutidig forklædning, og de lande, der stadig kæmper for deres ret til økonomisk udvikling.

I lyset af de konsekvenser, som en yderligere optrapning mellem atomvåbenmagterne ville medføre, og som ville føre til historiens egentlige “afslutning”, nemlig en tredje, denne gang en atomar verdenskrig, efterfulgt af en atomvinter, udgør Den alliancefrie Bevægelses nuværende renæssance den væsentligste og afgørende faktor, som kan anvise vejen til et nyt paradigme. For at overvinde den geopolitiske blokdannelse og den fejlagtige tænkning i form af et nulsumsspil, er det nødvendigt at begrebsliggøre det højere Ene, som må være af en helt anden kvalitet og højere magt end de Mange.

Det er et gennemprøvet princip i historien, at fredstraktater udelukkende fungerer, hvis de tager hensyn til hver enkelt parts interesser, som det var tilfældet med den Westfalske Fred. Hvis man ikke gør det, som med Versailles-traktaten, medfører det nye krige. I betragtning af de mange sammenvævede regionale konflikter og den globale dimension af den nuværende konfrontation mellem atommagter, er den lære, der kan drages af dette historiske princip, at der er et presserende behov for en ny global sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til alle landenes interesser på planeten.

Muligheden for et velfungerende europæisk sikkerhedssystem eller et “fælles europæisk hus”, som Gorbatjov fremmanede ved Sovjetunionens afslutning, eksisterer tydeligvis ikke længere i betragtning af NATO’s sjette udvidelse mod øst. Hensigten om at skabe et “globalt NATO”, som proklameret på alliancens seneste topmøde i Madrid, herunder oprettelsen af et hovedkvarter i Indo-Stillehavsområdet et sted i Asien, truer med at forstærke konfrontationen mellem de lande, der tilhører en sådan militær alliance, og de lande, som ønsker at opretholde politiske, økonomiske eller militære forbindelser med Rusland og Kina.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har allerede fremsat et forslag til at overvinde den geopolitiske konfrontation med sit Globale Sikkerhedsinitiativ, som sammen med det Globale Udviklingsinitiativ udgør konceptet for den fornødne tilgang. Men da nogle lande i Vesten fremstiller Kina som den største trussel mod deres interesser, forekommer det usandsynligt, at de vil reagere positivt på denne idé.

Det er denne geopolitiske og historiske katastrofe, der gør det så meget desto mere presserende at genoplive “Bandung-ånden”. Mange af de lande, der kommer fra Den alliancefrie Bevægelses tradition, har for nylig givet udtryk for deres afvisning af at lade sig trække ind i en geometri af blok-tænkning. Det faktum, at det næste G20-topmøde finder sted i Indonesien, kan være en historisk mulighed for at tilføje en indholdsmæssig ingrediens til den politiske dagsorden, som kan være afgørende for forskellen mellem faren for civilisationens udslettelse og en lys og smuk fremtid for menneskeheden.

Det er traditionen fra Bandung-konferencen og de efterfølgende konferencer i Den alliancefri Bevægelse (DAB), hvor de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og DAB’s ti principper fastlagde rammerne for at etablere en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for verden i dag. De 120 medlemslande i DAB plus 17 observatørlande repræsenterer langt størstedelen af menneskeheden, nemlig 4,511 milliarder mennesker i NAM og 2,061 milliarder som observatører, dvs. 6,571 ud af 8 milliarder mennesker. Som præsident Sukarno påpegede i sin åbningstale på Bandung-konferencen i 1955, vil havene og oceanerne, som adskiller udviklingslandene fra dem, der kan føre en ny verdenskrig, ikke beskytte de lande, der ikke er part på en af siderne, og som ikke har nogen interesse i konflikten. Han blev bekræftet af premierminister Nehru, som var bekymret for, at nogle af de store nationers militære styrke kunne få dem til at tænke i militær magt og få dem til at afvige fra det rette spor: “Hvis hele verden blev delt mellem disse to store blokke, hvad ville resultatet så blive? Det uundgåelige resultat ville blive krig.”

Det er derfor helt legitimt og hensigtsmæssigt, at DAB-landene taler med én stemme ved næste lejlighed, på G20-konferencen i Indonesien i november (eller på en ekstraordinær samling i FN’s Generalforsamling, hvis den sammenkaldes i en hastesituation), og at de kræver en ny sikkerhedsmæssig og økonomisk arkitektur, som tager hensyn til alle landes interesser.

DAB’s bemyndigelse til at påtage sig en mere aktiv rolle i udformningen af verdensordenen stammer fra erfaringerne fra dets historie. På Bandung-konferencen blev Pancheel-principperne, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, fastlagt, og på de efterfølgende konferencer blev der gjort forsøg på at opretholde denne ophøjede ånd. Men det var på konferencen i Colombo, Sri Lanka, i 1976, at DAB kom tættest på at formulere, hvordan denne nye orden økonomisk set skulle udformes. Fru Indira Gandhi fremlagde de krav, som derefter blev indarbejdet i den endelige resolution, nemlig:

1. Ophør af gældsbetalinger for de fattigste lande,
2. et nyt universelt valutasystem, der skal erstatte Verdensbanken og Den Internationale Valutafond,
3. oprettelse af et nyt kreditsystem, som skulle være knyttet til den globale udvikling,
4. Trepartsaftaler mellem udviklingslandene, de socialistiske stater og OECD-landene.

Denne resolution var næsten identisk med det forslag om en international udviklingsbank, IDB, som den amerikanske statsmand og økonom Lyndon LaRouche havde fremsat et år tidligere, dvs. at erstatte IMF med et nyt kreditsystem for at fremme den globale udvikling.

Mange i udviklingssektoren vil huske den voldsomhed, hvormed dette krav, der repræsenterede ønsket fra dengang 75 lande og størstedelen af verdens befolkning, blev mødt med. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto blev dræbt kort efter, fru Gandhi blev fjernet fra magten, fru Bandaranaike fra Sri Lanka blev destabiliseret, Den alliancefrie Bevægelses (NAM’s) sammenhængskraft blev svækket, og naturligvis blev kravet om en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden aldrig indfriet. Man kunne tilføje en lang liste over andre tab blandt ledere i det, der kaldes det Globale Syd. Og nu er vi nået frem til den ovennævnte krise, hidtil uden fortilfælde i verdenshistorien.

Det er meget klart, at hvis man ærligt og objektivt præsenterede verdens befolkninger for de farer, der ville være resultatet af en atomkrig, nemlig en udslettelse i en sådan grad, at der ikke ville være noget minde tilbage om alle menneskehedens enorme kampe for fremskridt og frihed, om alle de smukke skabelser inden for videnskab og kunst overalt på jorden, så ville mere end 99 % af dem være imod denne krig.

Jeg er ligeledes overbevist om, at hvis almindelige mennesker havde mulighed for virkelig at forstå årsagerne til uretfærdighederne i verden, og betragte situationen i hvert enkelt land både ud fra den pågældende nations bedste tradition og ud fra det potentiale, som den og menneskeheden som helhed repræsenterer, ville mere end 99 % af dem være helhjertet enige i perspektivet om en retfærdig ny økonomisk verdensorden. Begge disse indsigter er i øjeblikket nægtet “almindelige mennesker”, fordi de fleste af dem mangler historisk viden om andre kulturer eller en personlig erfaring fra rejser, og fordi massemedierne i mange lande har en tendens til at nære fordomme om andre kulturer, der passer til de respektive etablissementers geopolitiske intentioner.

Det er derfor presserende og nødvendigt, at NAM’s ledelse snarest muligt finder en anledning til at træde ind på verdenshistoriens scene ved på det skarpeste at påpege de farer, der følger af geopolitisk blokdannelse, som premierminister Nehru gjorde det i sin tale i Bandung, idet han viste, at “det uundgåelige resultat ville medføre krig”. Disse ledere bør også vække verdensbefolkningens bevidsthed ved at gøre den bevidst om den svære situation, som befolkningerne i udviklingslandene befinder sig i, og ved at illustrere de lidelser, der følger af sultedøden, som Jean Ziegler, FN’s tidligere særlige rapportør for Retten til Fødevarer, beskriver som den mest grusomme og smertefulde form for død. I sin bog fra 2012 “We Let Them Starve: The Mass Destruction in the Third World”, taler Ziegler om en kannibalistisk verdensorden, hvor 10 globale karteller, der kontrollerer 85 % af fødevareproduktionen på verdensplan, bestemmer hvem der spiser, lever, sulter og dør.

Som følge af fødevarespekulation, beslaglæggelse af jord, overdreven gældsætning og biobrændstoffer, dør et barn under 10 år hvert femte sekund, 57 000 mennesker dør hver dag af sult, og det i en verden hvor det globale landbrug ifølge FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram (WFP) sagtens kunne producere mad til 12 milliarder mennesker. I dag, 10 år senere, er 1,7 milliarder mennesker i fare for at sulte, men EU og andre vestlige regeringer insisterer stadig på at braklægge op til 30 % af landbrugsjorden og begrænse brugen af gødning og pesticider, hvilket vil føre til en 50 % nedgang i høstudbyttet. Bag dette ligger politikernes malthusianske synspunkt, som gør Malthus til en selvopfyldende profeti ved at indføre en sådan menneskefjendsk politik – endnu en gang på grund af “grønt delirium” og profitmaksimering.

I lyset af disse uhyrlige uretfærdigheder har lederne af NAM al legitimitet og endda pligt til at vække verdensbefolkningens bevidsthed om, at denne tilstand af sult, fattigdom og underudvikling i verden ikke er et resultat af uundgåelige naturbetingelser, men af gennemførelsen af et finansielt og økonomisk system, der begunstiger de rige og øger kløften til de fattige, indtil det punkt hvor der begås folkedrab.

Dette system er imidlertid ved at have nået sin afslutning, hvilket blev gjort klart af formanden for den amerikanske centralbank, Jerome Powell, på det årlige Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium den 26. august i år. Her bekendtgjorde han en politik med brutale stramninger, der forårsager “en vis smerte” for at bekæmpe inflationen. “At reducere inflationen vil sandsynligvis kræve en vedvarende periode med vækst under gennemsnittet”, fastholdt han, og proklamerede en politik med høje renter i en længere periode fremover ved at henvise til “den vellykkede Volcker-disinflation i begyndelsen af 1980’erne”, år hvor renterne steg til over 20 %. Disse bemærkninger udløste straks en livsfarlig kapitalflugt fra markederne i udviklingssektoren og retur til dollaren. Generaldirektøren for Bank for International Settlements (BIS), Agustín Carstens, advarede om, at for meget “smerte” for hurtigt kan få hele systemet til at bryde sammen i processen, og sammenlignede det med det sted, der kaldes ” the coffin corner”, hvor et fly bremser ned til under sin stilstandshastighed og ikke er i stand til at generere tilstrækkelig opdrift til at holde sin højde.

I samme retning henviste den franske præsident Macron, som beklagede, at “tiderne med overflod” er forbi, og den belgiske premierminister Alexander De Croo, som sagde, at “de næste 5-10 vintre vil blive vanskelige”. Mens en tilbagevenden til schachtiansk økonomi – den politik som Hitlers finansminister, Hjalmar Schacht, førte – kan være “vanskelig” for det, man næsten må kalde de “tidligere industrialiserede lande”, ville den være altødelæggende for udviklingslandene, hvilket ville udmønte sig i en befolkningsreduktion i milliardvis.

Det er derfor tvingende nødvendigt at finde en passende platform til at reorganisere det nuværende fejlslagne finansielle system. Det kan være inden for G20-formatet, eller, hvis det ikke kan lade sig gøre, inden for en anden passende ramme, f.eks. BRICS-landene, SCO eller en anden institution i det Globale Syd. Der bør etableres et nyt Bretton Woods-system med de retningslinjer, som præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt oprindeligt havde til hensigt at indføre, men som aldrig blev gennemført på grund af hans alt for tidlige død. Det primære og uangribelige mål for dette nye system skal være en kvalitativ og kvantitativ forøgelse af levestandarden for befolkningerne i udviklingssektoren og for de fattige i verden generelt.

Det nye kreditsystem må yde langsigtede, lavt forrentede lån, som skal anvendes til investeringer i grundlæggende infrastruktur, landbrug og industri med det formål at øge produktiviteten i den fysiske økonomi i hvert enkelt land. Hvad der udgør en sådan produktiv investering, og hvad der ikke gør det, bør bestemmes ud fra de videnskabelige principper for fysisk økonomi, som de blev udviklet af den amerikanske økonom Lyndon LaRouche, dvs. at de skal sigte mod en forøgelse af energi-gennemstrømningstætheden  i produktionsprocessen, hvilket fører til en forøgelse af den potentielle relative befolkningstæthed i hvert land.

Overalt hvor dette økonomiske system blev anvendt, førte det til en vellykket industrialisering af landet. Det var tilfældet med Alexander Hamiltons Amerikanske økonomiske System, den tyske kansler Otto von Bismarcks anvendelse af Hamiltons og Friedrich Lists teorier, Meiji-restaurationen i Japan, grev Wittes industrialisering af Rusland, Roosevelts New Deal, det tyske økonomiske mirakel i forbindelse med genopbygningen efter Anden Verdenskrig, de sydøstasiatiske landes økonomiske mirakel og sidst, men ikke mindst, Kinas økonomiske mirakel, som løftede 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom.

Det vigtigste træk ved dette system er, at staten har den suveræne beføjelse til at skabe kredit, og så længe denne kredit er strengt rettet mod produktive investeringer, er den ikke inflationær, men derimod vil skabelsen af reel fysisk rigdom altid være større end det oprindeligt udlånte beløb på grund af arbejdskraftens evne til at skabe værditilvækst. Da den eneste kilde til samfundsmæssig værdi hverken er besiddelsen af naturressourcer eller evnen til at købe billigt og sælge dyrt, men udelukkende individets kreativitet, er det statens pligt at fremme alle borgeres kreative potentiale i videst muligt omfang. Investeringer i et moderne sundhedssystem og et fremragende universelt uddannelsessystem har derfor høj prioritet. Naturligvis skal alle tilgængelige ressourcer, f.eks. naturressourcerne, og en international arbejdsdeling, der tager hensyn til geografiske og klimatiske forhold, mobiliseres for at sikre en optimal udvidet reproduktion af økonomien. Målet med økonomien er ikke at berige nogle få, men at sikre velfærd og lykke for alle.

Der foregår på nuværende tidspunkt allerede mange udviklinger i retning af skabelsen af en multipolær verden, hvor landene vælger økonomiske modeller i overensstemmelse med deres egne kulturer og traditioner. Men det er NAM’s enestående kald at forsøge at overvinde den farlige blokdannelse, der fremmer krig, ved at tilbyde et nyt Bretton Woods-system, der omfatter alle. I traditionen fra præsident Sukarnos tale på Bandung-konferencen i 1955 kunne de tage udgangspunkt i hans henvisning til den “første vellykkede antikoloniale krig i historien”, dvs. Den amerikanske Uafhængighedskrig, og hans citater af digteren Longfellow og hans digt om Paul Reveres berømte ridetur.

Hvis man kan finde en måde at minde USA og de europæiske nationer om deres bedre traditioner, om Benjamin Franklins eller John Quincy Adams’ politik, om Enrico Mattei, Charles de Gaulle eller det tysk-indiske samarbejde om opførelsen af stålværket i Rourkela, kan der skabes et nyt paradigme for et verdensomspændende samarbejde baseret på Pancheel, de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens.

Hvorfra skulle man hente den optimisme, at Bandung-ånden vil bidrage til at overvinde denne alvorligste krise i menneskehedens historie? Måske hvis vi husker på det, som den tyske raketforsker Krafft Ehricke, “faderen til Centaur-raketten” i Apollo-programmet, opfandt som den første lov i rumfartens videnskab: “Ingen og intet under universets naturlove sætter nogen begrænsninger for mennesket, undtagen mennesket selv.” I denne ånd kan vi skabe et nyt kapitel i menneskehedens historie.

København den 5 august, 2022

Her er omtale af Ukraines sortliste i udsendelse som blev bragt i Radio 24/7 den 3.august, 2022

Beskrivelse af episode:

“Dansk historiker bliver sortlistet af Ukraine for at sprede russisk propaganda. Det er en naturlig udvikling i den informationskrig, der udkæmpes mellem de to lande, lyder det fra ekspert.

(00:01) Historiker og tidligere Ruslandkorrespondent Jens Jørgen Nielsen bliver beskyldt for at sprede russisk propaganda, derfor er han nu havnet på en sort liste.

(13:03) Ukraines sortliste er en forventelig del af den informationskrig, der (også) udkæmpes mellem Ukraine og Rusland, siger Søren Liborius, chefkonsulent ved EU’s fælles udenrigstjeneste”

Den 14. juli 2022 (EIRNS) – Europas næstmest NATO-venlige statsoverhoved blev tvunget til at træde tilbage i torsdags, da hans regeringskoalition faldt fra hinanden på grund af befolkningens eksplosive vrede mod hans krigs- og sparepolitik. Italienerne gik i massevis på gaden og viftede med det nationale flag for at fejre Mario Draghis fald.

Draghi har aldrig været politiker, men blot en håndlanger, som gennem hele sin karriere har holdt sit løfte om at gøre “alt, hvad der skal til” for at forsvare den britiske krone og dens finansfolk. Denne generaldirektør for det italienske finansministerium, som solgte Italien i 1992 i forbindelse med Britannia-yacht-sammensværgelsen, denne spekulant fra Goldman Sachs, denne tidligere chef for Den Europæiske Centralbanks “kvantitative lempelser”, der blev premierminister og håndhævede NATO’s krig og sanktioner, er personificeringen af EU’s “spekulanterne først!”-politik, som har ødelagt familier, industrier, landbrug og samfund i hele Europa i årtier.

Det er den samme politik, som City of London og Wall Street også har påtvunget USA.

Den tidligere russiske præsident Dmitry Medvedev vurderede Draghis tilbagetræden på passende vis. Han postede på sin Telegram-kanal en stribe billeder: Boris Johnson, Mario Draghi og en ukendt skygge med et spørgsmålstegn. https://t.me/medvedev_telegram/142

Mario Draghis politik er den samme EU-politik, som de hollandske landmænd modsætter sig med beslutsomhed og kreativitet, idet de kører deres traktorer, prydet med bidende, humoristiske paroler, i lange kolonner ned ad motorvejene og ind i byerne, sprøjter gødning på politiets og politikernes hjem, når det er belejligt, blokerer fødevaredistributionscentre, og kræver at finansmændenes politik og enhver regering, der gennemfører den, smides ud. De tyske landmænd slutter sig nu til dem og ruller deres traktorer ud for at støtte dem. Det er nyt: fælles hollandsk-tyske protester mod EU’s politik for “finanskapital før alt andet”. Ligesom Draghis fald vil sådanne aktioner opmuntre andre i Europa – og snart nok også i USA.

På samme måde ses det forræderiske, imperialistisk USA, udformet af det “særlige forhold” mellem USA og Storbritannien, der er kendt som “britisk hjerne og amerikansk muskelkraft”, ikke længere som den almægtige overherre på verdensplan. Indiens centralbank meddelte mandag, at international handel finansieret i rupees nu er tilladt. London-dollaren er ikke længere den førende.

Præsident Biden er i øjeblikket i Sydvestasien med den hensigt at vise, som han og hans rådgivere gentagne gange uden forlegenhed har sagt, , at USA stadig er magtfuldt, for at imødegå den voksende russiske og kinesiske tilstedeværelse i regionen. Amerikanske, kinesiske og regionale observatører er alle skeptiske over for udsigterne for hans angivelige hensigt om at sætte gang i dannelsen af en antiiransk “Mellemøst-NATO”-militær alliance mellem USA, Golfstaterne og Israel (med Saudi-Arabien, der indvilliger i at pumpe mere olie ud i processen) på lørdag.

Denne skiftende, nye globale virkelighed er skildret på forsiden af det seneste nummer af Harper’s Magazine, det næstældste magasin i USA. Overskriften er: “The American Century Is Over”. Det “amerikanske århundrede” var mantraet for den anglofile Wall Street-fraktion, der var dedikeret til det forræderiske “særlige forhold” mellem USA og Storbritannien.

Kampen går nu ud på at afgøre, hvad der skal erstatte dette stinkende Wall Street-London-system.

Draghi er f.eks. ude; men vil han selv eller en ny “Draghi” komme tilbage som den næste italienske regering? Hvilken regering vil falde næste gang? Regeringen i Sri Lanka er faldet, og der er ingen synlig afløser. Hvilken regering kan fungere under de betingelser, hvor der er tale om et totalt økonomisk sammenbrud, hvor der ikke er noget brændstof, ingen medicin eller fødevarer til rådighed for befolkningen? Og hvor IMF kræver flere stramninger?

Spørgsmålet nu, mere end hvem der skal erstatte disse regeringer, er: Efter hvilke principper kan verdens suveræne nationer slutte sig sammen for at etablere et nyt system for internationale forbindelser, finansielle og økonomiske forhold, hvor samfund og mennesker kan trives?

Der tages skridt i retning af et nyt system, men indtil videre kun i små bidder. Rusland er ved at vise, at princippet om handel med varer mellem nationer på grundlag af langsigtede kontrakter til faste priser, hvorved det spekulative marked elimineres, fungerer til gensidig fordel for producent og forbruger. Kina tilskynder til, letter og koordinerer store regionale infrastrukturprojekter mellem nationer rundt om i verden omkring sit Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ.

Men disse skridt, hvor vigtige de end er, vil ikke sikre overlevelsen. Den kaskade af økonomisk sammenbrud i den transatlantiske region og store dele af udviklingssektoren skal stoppes. Freden vil udelukkende blive sikret med et helt nyt internationalt system, og den høje økonomiske vækst og de videnskabelige fremskridt, der er nødvendige for at udrydde det oligarkiske spekulationssystem og dets ødelæggelser, vil kun kunne opnås med et helt nyt internationalt system. Udformningen af de principper, der er nødvendige for, at et sådant system kan fungere, var specialet for den amerikanske statsmand og fysiske økonom Lyndon LaRouche, som udarbejdede en række bøger om dette emne. Et sted at starte er at læse hans bemærkelsesværdige dokument fra 1975, “IDB: How the International Development Bank Will Work”. De centrale principper i dette værk blev for nylig genudgivet i Executive Intelligence Review; vi anbefaler, at man studerer dem. https://larouchepub.com/lar/2022/4920-how_the_international_developm-lar.html

De principper, som LaRouche skitserede i dette dokument og i et væld af andre skrifter, er sammenfattet i de otte foranstaltninger, der er skitseret i den underskriftsindsamling, som Schiller Instituttet sender rundt internationalt: “Call for an Ad hoc Committee for a New Bretton Woods System”. Udgangspunktet er det grundlæggende princip: “Vi må gøre mennesket til økonomiens højeste prioritet… Den nye økonomiske orden skal garantere de umistelige rettigheder for alle mennesker på jorden.”

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

Diabilleder:

Download (PPTX, 2.67MB)

Følgende er et uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på instituttets internetkonference den 12. december 2020. Vi udgiver den nu i håbet om, at det kan hjælpe til at bringe parterne i den nuværende krise sammen.

Som jeg sagde, er det overordnede tema for denne konference begrebet Coincidentia Oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald. Dette begreb blev udviklet af Nikolaus af Kues (Cusanus), den vigtigste tænker i det 15. århundredes Europa, som var den første til at udvikle principperne for den moderne suveræne nationalstat, der regerer med de regeredes samtykke, og hvor der skal være et gensidigt forhold mellem regeringen, folkets repræsentanter og de regerede.

Den Cusanianske tankemetode

Han er også faderen til den moderne naturvidenskab. Han udviklede en ny tankegang med helt nye tanker, og han sagde meget selvsikkert, at han foreslog noget, som intet menneske nogensinde havde tænkt før. Og denne metode ligger også til grund for alle de filosofiske skrifter og den økonomiske metode, som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche og hans fysiske økonomi anvender.

Det er i bund og grund tanken om, at den menneskelige fornuft har evnen til at finde en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau end det, hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger er opstået. Det handler om evnen til at tænke en enhed, der er af større størrelse og magt end de mange. Hvis du træner dit sind til at tænke på denne måde, har du en ufejlbarlig nøgle til kreativitet, og du kan anvende denne tankegang på stort set alle områder af din tankevirksomhed.

For at nærme sig modsætningernes sammenfald må man begynde med at forkaste den aristoteliske metode. Aristoteles siger, at hvis noget er A, kan det ikke være B på samme tid. Men sammenfaldet er heller ikke A plus B divideret med to eller en anden algebraisk eller aritmetisk beregning. Nikolaus udviklede dette koncept i flere af sine skrifter, men mest omfattende i De Docta Ignorantia (Om den lærde uvidenhed), og dette blev straks angrebet af Heidelberg-professoren og skolastikeren Johannes Wenck i en afhandling De Ignota Litteratura (Den uvidende lærde). Nikolaj svarede på dette nogle få år senere, fordi han ikke straks modtog denne skrivelse, i et lille skrift, som jeg anbefaler til alle, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae (Forsvar for den lærde uvidenhed). Heri beklager han sig over, at den aristoteliske tradition i dag – dvs. dengang – er fremherskende, som betragter modsætningernes sammenfald som kætteri, fordi denne skole fuldstændig afviser denne tilgang som noget, der er helt i modstrid med dens intentioner. Disse hensigter var faktisk af oligarkisk karakter, hvilket han ikke siger der, men det var pointen. Derfor, sagde Cusa, ville det være et mirakel, og det ville vende op og ned på deres tankegang, hvis de forlod Aristoteles og nåede frem til et højere perspektiv.

I modsætning til den aristoteliske metode, som er fanget i kampen mellem modsætninger, ser synspunktet om modsætningernes sammenfald på processen fra et højere niveau. Dette blev behandlet i den korte video, som I så i begyndelsen [af konferencen], hvor jeg begrunder, hvorfor Lyndon LaRouches samlede værker skal udgives: Synet på tilfældigheder er som at se på det, der sker, fra et højt tårn. Herfra ser du jægeren, den jagede og jagtens proces. Det giver dig et helt andet synspunkt, end hvis du selv er jægeren eller den jagede eller konstant løber rundt med næsen mod jorden.

Men det kræver en enorm indsats at nå frem til dette niveau af tænkning. Man kan ikke bare tænde for den, det er en intellektuel kamp. Men hvis du kan mestre det, har du mulighed for at åbne områder, som ellers ville være helt lukkede. Nicholas peger på, hvordan tænkere som Avicenna tyede til negativ teologi for at få sindet ud af vanen med at klamre sig til illusoriske sandheder, der leveres af sansernes sikkerhed. Men den mest skarpsindige, siger Cusa, var Platons argumentation i Parmenides-dialogen, som måske er den mest sofistikerede af alle Platons dialoger.

Platons Parmenides-dialog

Parmenides var lederen af den eleatiske skole, som var reduktionistisk i sin metode og lærte, at tingenes essens kun kunne nås gennem tankens proces uden nogen henvisning til materielle ting. Men denne essens skulle være af den strengeste enkelhed, uden mangfoldighed og variation, og frem for alt uden forandring og bevægelse. Al den mangfoldighed, som sanserne giver os, og den forandring, som den indebærer, var kun et skuespil, sagde Parmenides, en ren illusion, og derfor kunne mangfoldighed og forandring aldrig tilhøre essensen eller deltage i den.

I dialogen lokker Platon nu Parmenides til at afsløre netop dette grelle paradoks i hans tankegang, nemlig at han har udeladt princippet om forandring.

I Platons tradition er denne “forandring” imidlertid ikke en lineær udvidelse af et euklidisk rum, men en kontinuerlig række af nye aksiomatisk-revolutionære opdagelser, der resulterer i en række af opdagelser af universelle fysiske principper, som uddyber kendskabet til det fysiske univers og fuldender de kreative evner hos alle mennesker, der gør dette fremskridt. Nikolaus siger på et tidspunkt, at gennem denne uddannelse kan ethvert menneske spore hele universets udvikling op til dette punkt i sit sind. Dette sindets mikrokosmos, som er i harmoni med makrokosmos – universet – gør potentielt hvert enkelt menneske i stand til på forhånd at vide, hvad den næste opdagelse skal være for at fortsætte den lovlige skabelsesproces.

Dette er meget vigtigt, fordi det er meget nært beslægtet med begrebet relativ potentiel befolkningstæthed, som Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet, da det også giver os et mål for den nødvendige næste opdagelse.

For Platon er hver eneste af disse opdagelser resultatet af en tilsvarende opdagelse, som det menneskelige sind kan frembringe på en “intuitiv” måde. Derfor understregede Einstein også: “Fantasi er vigtigere end viden. Viden er begrænset, men fantasien omfatter hele verden.” Den stimulerer fremskridt og skaber udvikling.

Platons svar på Parmenides er derfor hans ontologiske begreb om tilblivelse som det menneskelige sinds evne til konstant at generere sådanne hypoteser, eller hypotesen om den højere hypotese, hvor den altomfattende forandring er den Ene, som på et højere niveau omfatter de Mange.

Cirklens kvadratur

Nikolaus brugte den samme tankegang, da han løste et problem, der havde givet mange tænkere og matematikere søvnløse kvaler siden antikken, nemlig problemet med cirklens kvadratur. Archimedes, en tidligere matematiker, havde forsøgt at løse problemet ved hjælp af udtømmelsesmetoden, ved at indskrive og omskrive et stadigt stigende antal polygoner på cirklen. Den fejlagtige antagelse er, at omkredsen af de to polygoner i sidste ende vil falde sammen med cirklen. På denne måde fandt Archimedes en brugbar tilnærmelse til tallet Pi (π), men i virkeligheden blev problemet ikke løst. Cusa siger nemlig, at jo flere hjørner en polygon har, jo længere væk fra cirklen bevæger den sig.

Det krævede Cusas revolutionerende tænkning at løse problemet med cirklens kvadratur ved at gøre det klart, at en cirkel ikke kan konstrueres geometrisk baseret på den aksiomatiske antagelse af selvindlysende punkter og lige linjer, men at man må bruge en aksiomatisk anderledes geometri, hvor den cirkulære effekt erstatter den euklidiske selvindlysende antagelse af punktet og den lige linje. Dette såkaldte isoperimetriske princip om cirklens forrang gør det klart, at man kan gå fra cirklen til polygonen, men ikke omvendt. På denne måde leverede Nicholas et afgørende bevis for forskellen mellem matematikkens område, der er begrænset til kommensurable ting, og det område af inkommensurable ting, der er fuldstændig afgrænset fra dette område.

Denne udvikling fra Archimedes’ forståelse af cirklens kvadratur til Cusas overlegne forståelse illustrerer også den rolle, som menneskets opdagelse af et allerede eksisterende universelt princip spiller – overgangen fra dets eksistens som potentielt, men tidligere skjult for menneskelig viden, til “realiseringen” af dette princip gennem menneskelige opdagelser. Denne kontinuerlige opdagelsesproces er ontologisk primær, dvs. at den Ene er primær i forhold til indholdet af alle de mange.

Bernhard Riemann, hvis videnskabelige metode navnet på LaRouche-Riemanns økonomiske model delvis er baseret på, uddyber den samme tanke i et dokument, som Lyndon LaRouche citerer, On Psychology and Metaphysics, ved at beskrive den menneskelige sjæl som et lager af kompakte, tæt og forskelligt forbundne idéer, “åndsmasser”, eller som Lyn kaldte dem “tankeobjekter”. Hver ny tankemasse af denne art er i resonans med alle de tidligere ophobede tanker og er gensidigt relateret til dem, så meget desto mere som der er et indre slægtskab mellem dem. Riemann siger også, at disse kompakte åndelige masser fortsætter med at eksistere, selv efter at det menneske, der skabte dem, er død og bliver en del af det, han kalder jordens sjæl.

Menneskeheden som en geologisk kraft

Den væsentligt samme idé blev udtrykt af Vladimir Vernadsky i et foredrag i Paris i 1925, hvor han beskrev den menneskelige art og den kollektive menneskelige ånd som en “geologisk kraft” i universet. Ifølge Wernadskij beviser hele universets historie, at denne “noosfære” i stigende grad vil få overtaget over biosfæren. Og denne anti-entropiske karakter af den menneskelige ånds kreativitet som den mest avancerede del af og drivkraft i det fysiske univers er grunden til, at der er optimisme for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det betyder, at flere og flere mennesker i alle forskellige nationer og kulturer vil være i stand til at hæve sig over fornuftssikkerhedens infantile niveau og overvinde fejlslagne ideologiske traditioner – som f.eks. sofisternes retoriske skole, der ikke er optaget af sandhed, men af at vinde enhver påstand, som sofisten fremsætter for at fremme sin egeninteresse.

Begrebet om modsætningernes sammenfald kan nu anvendes på den nuværende strategiske situation og faktisk på alle områder af menneskelig viden. Menneskehedens interesser defineres således ikke som interesserne for de mennesker, der lever i dag, her og nu, men når man tænker på alle fremtidige generationers interesser. Dette er i bund og grund den samme idé, som er udtrykt i fortalen til den amerikanske forfatning: at det fælles gode skal tjene ikke kun nutiden, men alle fremtidige generationer. I dag skal man relatere det til hele verden, til hele menneskeheden.

For at få en forståelse af, hvad det betyder, kan man anvende det, jeg lige har sagt, teoretisk på den nuværende verdenssituation: Så er hver nation et mikrokosmos, og ifølge Nikolaj af Cusa er fred i makrokosmos kun mulig, hvis ethvert mikrokosmos har den bedst mulige udvikling og ser det som sin egen interesse, at alle andre mikrokosmos udvikler sig. Det vil sige, at man ikke tager udgangspunkt i en nations eller en gruppe af nationers “geopolitiske egeninteresse” og sætter den i modsætning til alle andres formodede interesser, men følger en anden opfattelse, der forkaster denne aristoteliske modsætningsmetode. Hvis man tager Platons begreb om forandring og tilblivelse som det ontologiske primærpunkt, kan man se udviklingen af ethvert mikrokosmos som i en kontrapunktisk, fugal komposition, hvor udviklingen af hver tone og idé bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af alle de andre.

Der er allerede eksempler, hvor man kan se en tilnærmelse af, hvordan det kan fungere. Den ene er det internationale samarbejde om den termonukleare fusionsreaktor i Frankrig i Cadarache, ITER, et samarbejde mellem 34 nationer, som alle drager fordel af opdagelserne. Og i dag er der naturligvis også det mulige internationale samarbejde inden for rumforskning og rumfart: Der er i øjeblikket tre meget fascinerende missioner til Mars, som alle vil ankomme til Mars om få uger – og ville det ikke give mening at lave denne forskning sammen? Så er spørgsmålet ikke, hvem der bliver den første til at plante sit flag på Mars, eller hvem der bliver den første kvinde eller mand til at sætte sine fødder på Mars, men spørgsmålet er: Hvordan erobrer vi solsystemet med henblik på menneskelig bosættelse?

Vores solsystem er utroligt stort. Jeg ved ikke, om du måske har kigget op på stjernerne for nylig, på Mælkevejen, men den er meget større end det, vores galakse er kun en af to billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet har opdaget indtil nu!

Tænk et øjeblik over menneskehedens eksistens på lang sigt. Menneskeheden har eksisteret i et par millioner år, men faktisk ved vi kun en lille smule om de sidste 5000 år, og en lille smule mere gennem arkæologi, men det er virkelig kun en meget kort periode. Ønsker vi nu, at menneskeheden skal være en udødelige art? Eller ønsker vi, at menneskeheden skal være ligesom en af de mange andre arter, der kommer og går? Når der kommer store perioder med udryddelse af arter, forsvinder de, men det gør ikke noget, da evolutionen så producerer andre arter med et højere stofskifte. Og gør det så virkelig noget, hvis menneskeheden også forsvinder en dag i processen? Det tror jeg ikke. Fordi jeg mener, at menneskeheden er helt unik, uanset hvad vi ellers finder i universet, hvis der findes andet intelligent liv et eller andet sted. Vi er den eneste kendte kreative art indtil videre.

Om nogle få milliarder år vil solen ophøre med at fungere på en sådan måde, at vi kan leve på jorden, og senest da vil det være et spørgsmål om overlevelse for vores art at kolonisere rummet og gøre andre planeter beboelige for menneskearten. Jeg tror, at det er muligt, hvis vi bevæger os væk fra den nuværende tilstand, hvor vi opfører os som småbørn, som små drenge, der sparker hinanden over skinnebenene, og hvis vi udvikler vores fulde potentiale ved at samarbejde med andre mennesker og andre kulturer og opfylde menneskehedens langsigtede skæbne til at være den art, der bevidst skaber forandringer i universet, og på den måde opfylder vores sande skæbne som menneskeart.

Jeg tror, at det er op til os at foretage denne forandring og på den måde skabe evnen til at komme ud af denne krise i live og lykkelige. Og det var det, jeg ville sige.

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

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

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

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

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

Lydfil: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.

En tale af Renée Sigerson ved en videokonference den 12. februar 2022:

<a href="https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2022/02/videokonference-paa-treaarsdagen-for-lyndon-larouches-doed-hvorfor-verden-har-brug-for-larouches-opdagelsesmetode-loerdag-den-12-februar-kl-20/" title="Videokonference på treårsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches død:
Hvorfor verden har brug for LaRouches opdagelsesmetode, lørdag den 12. februar kl. 20″>Link: Videokonference på treårsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches død: Hvorfor verden har brug for LaRouches opdagelsesmetode.

Renée Sigersons tale begynder 52.33 ind i videoen.

På engelsk:
I’ve been asked to provide a kind of introductory overview of LaRouche’s lifetime work in the science of economic development. Doing this on the calendar day of his passing and of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, cannot help but evoke a very strong physical sensation of what St. Augustine and Lyndon LaRouche identified in the notion of temporal eternity. It’s a sensation that the past, the present, and the future suddenly become a single thought-object. While what we discuss today at this moment, shapes the world even as we speak.

I was somewhat surprised, because as Dennis indicated, this was not my particular field of collaboration with Lyndon LaRouche, although I did help on some of the economics projects back in the 1980s. I was sort of curious, but I decided that rather than bothering him about why he asked me to do this, to simply agree to walk with him on what is really this sacred ground. I think for all of us who knew Lyn throughout these years, what he instilled within us as the knowledge of what real economic policy is, was the most profound transformative experience that a human being can possibly imagine going through. Having done that, it really becomes under these circumstances to speak about this, a sacred subject.

It’s also the case that everything we do on behalf of disseminating LaRouche’s work on economics impacts the battle we are at this moment waging for solutions to the existential world crisis. LaRouche’s work on economic forecasting was not about betting on the outcome of events, as has become epidemic in today’s culture; but rather, towards pointing mankind in the direction of what he named “successful survival” from one generation to the next.

In 2005, LaRouche stated in an EIR feature entitled “From Kant to Riemann: The Shape of Empty Space”:

“The ability to predict, or, better said, forecast the physical outcome of man’s behavior, is a subject of a higher, more rigorous form of psychology, and of the social psychology of the sovereign individual mind. This idea of”predicting,” as is the presently customary intention expressed by the use of the word, implies a profoundly incompetent view of man’s role and capabilities within organization of the universe. At best, we can foresee certain important consequences of our decisions, or lack of decision. At best, we can foresee the nature of our obligation to warn our fellows, and to act ourselves in ways which correspond to the problem which we can foresee as probable, even almost certain….

“All attempted prediction, or forecast, of social phenomena, such as economic developments, is essentially … a subject of what might be termed the science of physical psychology: mankind’s relative power of mind within, and over, what is regarded as the physical universe. Therefore, we must think of physical psychology as the kernel of the social psychology of the truly sane individual mind.”

So here we already have presentation of the idea of the individual mind. That individual’s relationship to all of humanity, and of humanity’s relationship to the totality of the universe. This is the domain of real economics, as underlined by Helga’s organizing of the Thursday debate, which involved high-level Russian and U.S. officials grappling with how to end the genocide in Afghanistan and launch an economic development strategy that can help to turn the world at large away from general war. This is exactly the battleground on which Lyn’s discoveries in economics are breaking new ground. In fighting for his approach to economics, we are addressing the development of humanity by addressing the mindset of the individuals who lead society and who are thereby defending the sacred of every individual to develop their God-given creative potential.

When LaRouche began to found a movement around his ideas, roughly in the period from 1968-71, he rapidly came to identified as the most fierce critic and opponent of the academic schools of economics, all of which—both left-wing and right-wing—were advocates of what they called monetarism. That is, all the university economics in the United States and most of the trans-Atlantic world, typified by names such as Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, or John Maynard Keynes of the London School of Economics, had become under British imperial influence, a cult which fixated on the circulation of money and the fluctuation of money prices as the source of economic activity and the root of some kind of mysterious growth.

LaRouche was fierce in his denunciation of this ideology, which he rigorously demonstrated was a justification for imperial policies of genocide, both globally and within the United States itself. In countering this British game with his work on scientific physical economy in the 1970s, LaRouche triggered a rediscovery of the American System of economics, a name originally adopted in the 19th Century to contrast the American method of Hamilton, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, etc. to the British imperial system. The American System, having been developed from the threads of progress created by the European Renaissance through Kepler, through Leibniz, to the discoveries in economic policy design led by Alexander Hamilton. After the World Wars I and II, nearly all knowledge of the American System of economics, which combined concepts of physical economy to the idea of sovereign credit—which is not the same thing as money—had been buried in propaganda about the U.S. special relationship to Britain and habits of consumerism that horribly corrupted the U.S. political leadership.

Through the influence of the military-industrial complex, and the effects of Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, not just the memory, but the impulse to think in terms of the principles of physical economy had virtually disappeared. LaRouche did not simply revive past knowledge; he developed the cutting edge of a new fundamental discovery in economic forecasting, which is the preparation for economic development and design. Which cut at the very core of the imperial design which uses fetishes about money and popular opinion to lower the level of mental functioning of thinking within populations. The power of LaRouche’s criticism of monetarism rose from this groundbreaking work on economic forecasting.

As he often highlighted, Lyn’s fundamental breakthrough in developing a method of economic forecasting occurred in the period of 1948-52. His relentless work to that end included intensive study of areas of knowledge ignored by so-called economists. That is, LaRouche connected his work on physical economy and how it is planned in such a way as to succeed in practice, he connected this work to studies of Classical art—that is, music, poetry, and painting, which all address the functional level of the human mind. And as Helga always emphasizes, of human emotions. As well as investigating a form of mathematics developed by the 19th Century scientist Bernhard Riemann, which had served as a companion to Riemann’s work in physics. If there are two people who Lyndon frequently spoke of as critical to his fundamental discovery in economics, most mentioned were the composer Ludwig von Beethoven, who we will discuss in detail in the future, and the other was the physicist Bernhard Riemann.

Riemann’s breakthroughs in economics had emerged as one of the stunning effects of a rebirth of a cultural renaissance that centered around the German-speaking area of Europe during the same time as the American Revolution. Riemann’s outlook on mathematics as the companion to scientific advances in man’s knowledge of the physical universe, was a break with the imperial outlook of the imperial system’s chief ideologues—characters such as Sir Isaac Newton or John Locke and David Hume. For LaRouche, work on physical economy and the ability of mankind to consciously create expanding economies that can support and improve the living standards of growing populations, Riemann’s approach to complex physical processes was invaluable. In fact, an economy is a complex physical process, bringing together a vast array of different components that if they interact, are also continuously changing. How, in fact, can this process be measured to see if it is going in the right direction? This is an old question in astrophysics and even in engineering, which is a serious question. How do you measure something which is moving and changing as you are working with it?

The financial centers have always insisted that this problem, as it relates to what is called economy, should be left to the magic of the marketplace. The imperial monetarists have always argued that to know through science and technology how to increase the output or the productivity of the economy is merely a question of wishful thinking. And the greatest problem economies face is that there are too many people. This is a very old idea that there are too many people. The root of this very sick idea is also very old. It goes back to ancient times, but still grips the corridors of universities and media with all kinds of exotic and mystical explanations tossed in. Most recently, the carbon hoax in order to sell this cultural insanity.

In forming his political movement, LaRouche countered that it was time to discard this genocidal ideology, and to get serious about mastering the principles of scientific and technological progress which pave the way for physical growth of the economy and increases in prosperity for all. Riemann was an invaluable companion in the fight LaRouche launched, and we will look in a moment to an example of how their work came together.

LaRouche became famous in the period from 1968 to 1971 because he was the only economist in the United States who forecast that real estate speculation, the lack of investment in capital goods, the neglect of so-called Third World economies, and interference from the Bank of England were leading to a collapse of the U.S. dollar. When Nixon devalued the dollar in May of 1971, and then ended the fixed exchange rate system known as Bretton Woods on August 15th of that year, overnight LaRouche became the center of tremendous controversy and our organization exploded in recruitment. An earlier 1956-7 forecast of a serious U.S. recession triggered by the postwar consumer credit bubble, including in automobile purchases, had been proven accurate, had gotten LaRouche into political trouble, but was less well known. The two forecasts—1956 and 1968-71—convinced LaRouche that his method of economic analysis worked, and was a vital approach that had to be disseminated for the survival of mankind.

Around 1975, LaRouche’s work became renowned internationally as he launched an international campaign to replace the monetarist and genocidal policies of the International Monetary Fund with the founding of an International Development Bank. Dozens of underdeveloped nations around the world backed LaRouche in this endeavor.

In the 1980s, while working with the Reagan administration in the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, a spin-off of his work on physical economy, LaRouche commissioned associates to produce a sequence of reports demonstrating the effectiveness of what he named the LaRouche-Riemann economic forecasting method. LaRouche’s ability to recognize the potential for war avoidance in the development of defensive high-energy laser devices was a spin-off of his recognition of the importance of Riemann’s work. During this time in 1982, LaRouche produced a two-part article entitled, “What Is an Economic Shockwave?” It was published in the Executive Intelligence Review and examined the implications for economic policymaking of Bernhard Riemann’s discoveries relative to what were called “hydro-dynamic shockwaves.” Physical shockwaves are complex processes which can be seen in something as ordinary as a crest at the top of an ocean wave; but which Riemann recognized were relevant to many more physical processes. Riemann hypothesized that such examinations of shockwaves would lead potentially to discoveries in the atomic domain, which was still completely invisible in his lifetime. Riemann’s ideas on this matter arose before the work on the atom by such people as Albert Einstein and Max Planck. And his hypotheses were proven later to be right. For example, in an 1859 paper, Riemann anticipated that mankind would come to recognize the importance of sonic booms as an example of such simple shockwaves, such as that we see in the ocean. He outlined that concept before air flight, before man could fly in airplanes, which much later proved that he had been right when the airplanes were developed. Because the phenomenon he suggested, he had been able to discern and think about because it was already audible in thunder, but had never been explained.

In 1982, LaRouche wrote:

“In explaining sonic booms to children, for example, we point out that as an object moves through the atmosphere near the speed of sound, the air becomes very much like water in one respect; it become a relatively incompressible medium, relative to the movement of the body. We say, that as a result, the air behaves, in some significant respects as a hydrodynamic medium, generating the shock-wave we identify as the sonic boom cause by a supersonic aircraft’s flight or a supersonic bullet’s trajectory.

“So far, the whole matter might seem quite straightforward. Therefore, why should there have been any controversy among physicists concerning the conclusions projected by Riemann’s 1859 paper, in which the generation of such ‘sonic booms’ was first analyzed and predicted?

“During the 1890s, Lord Rayleigh, Bertrand Russell, and others insisted that Riemann’s physics was absurd. Rayleigh, in particular, insisted that ‘sonic booms’ could not exist. The reason for that hullabaloo is, that if Riemann’s physics is correct, if sonic booms are generated in such a fashion, then there exists a fundamental absurdity in the kinds of mathematical physics associated with figures such as Descartes, Newton, etc…. In other words, the kind of physics Riemann brought to bear upon his 1859 ‘shock-wave’ paper implies a different kind of universe than the Newton-Cauchy-Maxwell school insists to exist. The organization of the universe if not Newtonian, but is, rather hydrodynamic.

“It is my own chief contribution to scientific work to have discovered and demonstrated, beginning 1952, that the ordering of economic processes corresponds uniquely to the implications of Riemannian physics.” [https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1982/eirv09n47-19821207/eirv09n47-19821207_018-what_is_an_economic_shock_wave-lar.pdf]

This is really such a beautiful idea; it’s just really stunning and moving. So, I just want to note a bond so to speak between LaRouche and Riemann was that both were advocates of the early 18th Century scientist Leibniz, who in many respects was the man who triggered the 18th Century German cultural renaissance, but was also a very positive influence over the circles around Benjamin Franklin. LaRouche and Riemann were impassioned defenders of Leibniz’s idea that mankind, through the use of creative discovery, can unlock the necessary and sufficient reason, as Leibniz put it, for all physical effects in the universe. The oligarchical assembly of scientific hatchet men descending from Sir Isaac Newton and others, hated Leibniz, and never stopped denigrating his work to try to prevent mankind from making these discoveries.

During the 1980s, LaRouche’s associates published four economic forecasts, using a preliminary computerized version of the LaRouche-Riemann Method. The reports, accurately forecasted the early 1980s Federal Reserve-induced recession, plus created quite a stir when exposing how the Federal Reserve (surprise, surprise!) had launched a systematic falsification of the industrial output figures on the U.S. economy.

This work with Riemann and the discussion of shock waves was an embedded feature of how Lyndon LaRouche developed his economic development intervention after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. Since at other times, we had discussed in this forum LaRouche’s role in designing what Ronald Reagan named the Strategic Defense Initiative, we will simply reference that aspect. That work on the SDI was critical in the tectonic, shock-wave-like political shift in the global strategic situation, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.

As many of our listeners know, when that happened, LaRouche who had called for the Fall of the Wall a year earlier on U.S. television, was ready to seize the opportunity to the benefit of mankind, but was forced to do so while unjustly imprisoned through the machinations of the very corrupt permanent bureaucracy of the Department of Justice. Please keep in mind the initiative I am describing was designed by him while he was being held in prison as a result of a judicial frameup which it took us five years to physically liberate him from. We still need to win the battle for his exoneration, which the winning of that battle will serve, itself, as a tectonic political shock for the good, when that occurs. It will draw tremendous interest into LaRouche’s ideas.

Despite this intolerable situation, LaRouche communicated to Helga and others, his view of the economic policy approach required to ensure that the reunification of Germany would be beneficial to all of Europe, and mankind, and serve to usher in a new era of economic development.

The very first intervention LaRouche made into the economic development of Europe after the Fall of the Wall, was called “The Productive Triangle.” Here is a picture of a map run in 1992, while LaRouche was still in jail, illustrating the area of the Productive Triangle at that time, the most concentrated area in Europe, in industrial production, wedged between the capital cities of Berlin, Paris and Vienna. And you can see that darkened area is a kind of triangular shape that connects Berlin, Vienna and Paris, and it was an area about the concentration in productive potential and population, let’s say, the nation of Japan, and what’s the highest concentration of industrial capacity. And LaRouche’s idea was, this had to be expanded eastward, into Poland, to show that Germany had the best of intentions toward Poland—maybe a little bit difficult for Americans to fully understand how important that was at the time, as a concept. But then to show to the Soviet Union, which still existed when this was first introduced, that such good intention would also be extended to Moscow. And that this would be generated by building very modern, high-speed rail systems in that entire area, including the Productive Triangle itself, which needed a remake in its transportation systems; but into Eastern Europe as a conveyor belt for bringing much more advanced technologies into Eastern Europe, where the population was generally highly skilled and literate, but extremely poor.

While Lyn was incarcerated, our friends in Europe distributed millions of piece of literature, beginning in eastern Germany, but then in many languages extending into neighboring countries, as the Soviet system was unravelling. As Helga has often noted, the Schiller Institute organized hundreds of events to build a human thread of dialogue and collaboration between the united Germany, the best circles in Western Europe, and those in the East who had been cut off from contact for over two generations. There was a tremendously positive response in Eastern Europe to the idea of importing modern rail transport and higher-grade machine tools, to turn Eastern Europe into a workshop, for example, for industrialization of the third world.

Unfortunately, the bankers had a very different agenda for Eastern Europe, so the progress was slow, but the idea was out.

Please put up the second chart: LaRouche indicated that these areas of modern rail transport would become “development corridors”: That wherever modern rail would be constructed, it would serve as the precursor and the foundation for a full-scale improvement in fuel distribution, electrification, construction of modern cities, educational-cultural center, etc. Here we see an early representation of the idea, confined to Western and Eastern Europe, where canal systems are being built in the same area that the rail systems are being modernized. The view of development corridor was a 20th-21st century realization of how the Lincoln Administration used the Transcontinental Railroad project, during the Civil War, not merely to win the Civil War, but to launch the United States as the largest industrial economy the world had ever seen, viewing the rail system as a corridor for upgrading the interior land surface of the United States. It was a huge blow against the imperial obsession that only coastal regions of nations should be developed, an insane concept which derives from very ancient, pagan-like obsessions within the circles of the financial so-called “elites.”

While the idea for the development corridors, beginning in Eastern Europe, with the intention of spreading the concept of a rail grid to Moscow and into Siberia, by perhaps around 1994, it became clear that leading political circles in China were also thoroughly intrigued by LaRouche’s approach and wanted to discuss it. This became the seed crystal for the policy eventually adopted by China as well, which has become the number-one thorn in the side of the financial oligarchy’s existence: Namely, China has assumed a leadership role in connecting by rail the Eurasian Land-Bridge to Asia’s old Silk Road, or newly modernized Silk Road. It is the idea of the development corridor, not just building rail for trade between partners that are far away from each other, but everywhere along the route, to use the rail system as the foundation for a positive, shock-wave development in power production, agriculture, water management, irrigation, modern city building and so forth; and of course, anybody who doesn’t have a copy of our magnificent 2014 report on this, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” You can find it on the Executive Intelligence Review website: https://store.larouchepub.com/New-Silk-Road-p/eipsp-2014-1.htm

We are applying the lessons of such economic development to the crisis in Afghanistan; also to outflank the games the British have been playing endlessly, really since the 1763 Treaty of Paris, which allowed the British East India Company, the predecessors of the Michael Bloombergs and Mark Carneys of today, when they moved at that time to take top-down control of the British government. This is what we have to stop bowing to.

The mobilization we are spearheading to prevent war through economic cooperation requires tough determination, because the pathology we are determined to cure has existed for a long time. LaRouche has addressed this in a number of articles I will not name, but encourage people to find out about, without blunting the force of hearing him speak on the subject, which he thought about for many decades. I will just make reference here to LaRouche’s insight that mankind has always operated under the influence of various cultural economic platforms. The paradox inherent in this situation, is that in order to survive such as the moment when the ice caps melted and very suddenly scattered civilizations which had largely lived by travelling long distances along low-level ocean beds—we’re talking 20,000 years ago—such civilizations were suddenly forced to inhabit permanent settlements on land. These maritime cultures, LaRouche stated, exhibited a “pattern of social caste division between a maritime population which has the characteristics of those often termed the relatively ancient ‘gods,’ as distinct from the mere mortals.” This division in society were a small, powerful elite that has greater control over some resources and technologies, convinces the mere mortals, that they, the guys with the access to the technology, are the gods who control your life. This is an ancient characteristic, sometimes called by Helga LaRouche a “childhood disease of civilization.”

The reality is that every human being that is born, is a potential genius, and capable of adding to the wealth of knowledge and practical benefit of the totality of humanity. Moreover, as the technologies we require increasingly become related to exploration and habitation of space, and the universe at large, it will become impossible for the bores and pleasure-seeking degenerates from the oligarchic grooms who are leading controlled popular opinion in order to keep their power. The type of knowledge the average person can, and will gain to live in such a civilization which is involved in massive exploration and study of the universe, will crush the authorities of those who say, “mankind is an animal incapable of mastering the principles of the physical universe.”

The current fight to develop Afghanistan to end the campaigns of genocide that have followed in the wake of all of these so-called “endless wars,” provides the needed opportunity to spread LaRouche’s economic method worldwide, thereby, we create the political and moral shock wave, that can restore morality based on love of our fellow man, and respect for the immortal rights of every mortal beings.

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

%%Russian ‘Red Lines’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%NATO Expansion Eastward

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

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

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

[[[begin quote indent]]]

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

[[[end quote indent]]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%A Coup in Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%Diplomacy to Avert Catastrophe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%The Basis for Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%‘A Way to Live Together’

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: A way of living together.

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

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

%%Ukraine, Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

%%Crimea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Regime change?

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, regime change.

%%The Importance of Cultural Exchanges

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes, yes.

%%The Role of Schiller Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: Yes. Definitely

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

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

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

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

Jens Jørgen Nielsen: I thank you.

Se videoen her.

Den 11. september 2021 (EIRNS) – I modsætning til langt de fleste begivenheder, artikler, dokumentarer og kommentatorer på 20-årsdagen for terrorangrebet 11. september 2001 mod USA, spildte Schiller Instituttet ikke tid på forsideartikler om dette angreb og de 20 år med kaos og blodsudgydelse påtvunget af amerikanske, britiske og NATO-styrker under falske forudsætninger. Snarere begyndte konferencen: "Vejen frem fra 11. september, Afghanistan og overvågningsstaten" med afspilning fra det direkte radiointerview kl. 9 (New York-tid) med Lyndon H. LaRouche, som allerede var planlagt til at gå i luften den 11. september 2001 med vært Jack Stockwell i hans radioprogram i Salt Lake City. LaRouches umiddelbare svar inden for få minutter på nyhederne om fly, der ramte tvillingetårnene, var at advare om, at Osama bin Laden ville få skylden for det, for derved at forhindre sandheden i at komme frem. Han sagde, at den globale finanskrise skulle tages i betragtning, samt det faktum, at al-Qaeda blev skabt af Zbigniew Brzezinski og hans britiske mentorer i 1980'erne for at bekæmpe Sovjetunionen i Afghanistan. LaRouche havde i en webcast den 3. januar 2001 forudsagt, at Bush/Cheney-administrationen ville skabe en "Rigsdagsbrand" som et påskud for at sætte forfatningen ud af kraft, og pålægge nationen politistatsagtige foranstaltninger og føre krig rundt om i verden.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche tog derefter fat på det vanvid, der blev skabt i USA efter 11. september, som vækkede blodtørst efter hævn mod de påståede gerningsmænd i hulerne i Afghanistan, og tog fokus fra saudierne og deres britiske herrer, der havde planlagt og gennemført angrebet. Det der fulgte i 20 år, sagde hun, var den totale fiasko for de kombinerede militære styrker i alle NATO-nationer med at undertvinge 65.000 Taliban-krigere, mens de reducerede denne nation og flere andre nationer i den islamiske verden til ruiner. William Binney, den tidligere tekniske direktør for 'World Geopolitical and Military Analysis and Reporting section' ved National Security Agency (NSA), påpegede senere på konferencen, at det militær-industrielle kompleks var løbet tør for påskud for deres eksistens med sammenbruddet af Sovjetunionen i 1991, men efter 11. september var de tilbage i 'business'.

Der er to muligheder for at reagere på tilbagetrækningen fra Afghanistan, sagde Zepp-LaRouche: Hævn, i traditionen med Madeleine Albright, der sagde, at 500.000 irakiske børns død i Irak-krigen var "prisen værd", eller Hillary Clinton, som glædede sig over mordet på Libyens Qaddafi. "Dette er barbari," sagde fru Zepp-LaRouche. Eller vi kan som en menneskelig race reflektere over systemets fiasko, der bragte os til denne katastrofale situation, og blive enige om at ændre det, afslutte verdens geopolitiske opdelinger i stridende stammer og gå sammen om at løse de problemer, menneskeheden står over for som helhed, som hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, argumenterede for igennem hele sit liv. Hun gennemgik den forfærdelige tilstand for det afghanske folk efter 40 års krig, som dokumenteret af FN: 72% af befolkningen i fattigdom, mens yderligere 25% falder hurtigt, 10 millioner afghanske børn, der kræver humanitær bistand for at overleve, 1 million står over for akut underernæring – og alligevel har de vestlige lande og banker nægtet at give den nye regering adgang til landets egne midler og har indført sanktioner, der forhindrer mad, medicin, elektricitet og mere i at komme ind i landet. Er vi barbarer? Verdens nationer og institutioner skal handle, sagde hun, "ellers har vi ikke det moralske habitus til at overleve". Krigene i Irak, Libyen og Syrien var baseret på løgne, løgne der er blevet anerkendt som løgne, selv af dem der lavede dem – blandt andre Tony Blair, Colin Powell og Nancy Pelosi.

Der er en menneskelig måde at løse dette på, konkluderede hun. Mohandas Gandhi besejrede det britiske imperium gennem ikke-voldelig modstand, og hjalp med at skabe de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, der nu er kodificeret i FN-chartret som international lov. Martin Luther King forstod dette og burde have været præsident. Da splittelserne og stridighederne finder sted i USA, sagde hun, skal vi se efter et højere princip, der adresserer menneskehedens fælles mål, nationalt og internationalt. Tænk først på menneskeheden, ikke først på nationen frem for andre. Freden i Westfalen i 1648, der sluttede Trediveårskrigen, og hver historisk konfliktløsning var baseret på dette princip.

Den umiddelbare udfordring, fastholdt hun, er nødvendigheden af at skabe et moderne sundhedsvæsen i alle nationer på Jorden. Hvilket nu bekræftes af de mutationer, der forårsager ødelæggelse i verden, hovedsagelig fordi store regioner i de mindre udviklede nationer er blevet nægtet både passende folkesundhedsfaciliteter og adgang til vacciner, som bliver hamstret i de avancerede nationer. Pandemien vil ikke blive besejret, medmindre den er besejret overalt, sagde hun.

William Binney, den tidligere tekniske direktør for NSA, der afslørede, at det system, som han og hans team havde designet til at udrydde kriminalitet og terrorisme fra verdens masse-overvågningsdata, blev overtaget og brugt til at skabe den største overvågningsstat i historien under Bush/Cheney-administrationen. Han sagde, at ethvert håb om, at dette ville blive vendt, når Barack Obama blev præsident, blev knust, idet Obama sagde, at han ikke ville se tilbage, kun fremad – og ingen blev holdt ansvarlig for forbrydelserne mod forfatningen, men de fortsatte simpelthen. Binney sagde, at han fuldt ud støttede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i opfordringen til international enhed for menneskehedens fælles mål.

Terry Strada, den heltemodige leder af "9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism", talte til konferencen, som hun tidligere har talt til koncerter og konferencer i Schiller Instituttet, og beskrev den vigtige sejr, som hun og hendes organisation har opnået ved endelig at rekruttere medlemmer af Kongressen til at fremlægge sit foreslåede lovforslag om frigivelse af alle 9/11-dokumenter – især den 10-årige FBI-undersøgelse af det saudiarabiske regimes rolle i at støtte angrebet den 11. september, hvilken hidtil har været holdt hemmelig for verden. Dette skridt fra Kongressen overbeviste sidenhen præsident Biden om at udstede bekendtgørelsen om at frigive alle dokumenter i løbet af de næste seks måneder. Vi vil se om det sker, sagde hun, men verden fortjener at kende sandheden.

Ray McGovern, der tjente i 27 år i CIA som ansvarlig for russisk efterretningsindsamling, holdt derefter en stærk tale om nødvendigheden af ​​at vende den falske dæmonisering af alt russisk. Han henviste først til sin ven Julian Assange, der stadig er tilbageholdt i Hendes Majestæts Fængsel, Belmarsh, og reciterede 'Fangen', som ​​den russiske digter Aleksandr Pushkin skrev, mens han var i fængsel og drømte om frihed, om en fange og en krage uden for cellen. Derefter, for at tage fat på de fanatiske misforståelser i Vesten om Rusland, beskrev han sit besøg i Moskva i 2016 med en amerikansk delegation for at fejre 75-årsdagen for Hitlers invasion af Sovjetunionen. Ved den lejlighed (og også til konferencen) reciterede han 'Vedrørende Krigens Grusomheder', som Nikolai Nekrasov skrev til gruppen, der omfattede russiske krigsveteraner og deres familier. Når en soldat dræbes i kamp, ​​skriver digteren, er den person, der fortjener den største sympati, ikke konen eller vennen, der kan komme sig efter deres sorg, men moderen, som aldrig kan glemme, ligesom en grædepil aldrig kan løfte sine grene. Han forklarede, at Rusland har måttet lide over to århundreders besættelse under mongolerne, invasioner af svenskerne, af Napoleon, af nazisterne og mistede mere end 26 millioner sjæle i Den store Fædrelandskrig (2. Verdenskrig, red.). Han afsluttede med at konstatere, at langt de fleste amerikanske ledere aldrig har kæmpet i krig eller endda haft uniform på, og at trælse sætninger, såsom at Rusland er en "tredjestatsmagt" eller en "tankstation, der giver sig ud for at være et land" ikke hjælper menneskeheden. Har Pushkin tanket benzin, eller Tjajkovskij eller Dostojevskij? Spurgte McGovern.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche tog fat i McGoverns bevægende præsentation og insisterede på, at hvis man vil forstå et land, skal man læse dets poesi og kende dets dybeste tankegang. Vi har faret vildt, især i løbet af de sidste 20 år, sagde hun, ikke kun ved at ignorere de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens, men ved at opgive civilisationernes dialog. Skaberen skabte mange forskellige kulturer, fordi de er smukke. Lyndon LaRouche blev internationalt beundret som en ægte patriot i USA, fordi han aldrig var arrogant, men ville kommunikere med deres kulturer.

Harley Schlanger, der gennem sin daglige blog på 'The LaRouche Organization'-webstedet er blevet en helt for tusinder af mennesker i alle dele af verden, beskrev, at langt de fleste aktiviteter, der foregår til minde om 11. september, ganske enkelt er banale. En kommentator, sagde han, havde den korrekte pointe i, at begivenheden vækkede hævntørst, hvilket passede godt til den politik, som eliten ønskede af andre årsager. Som et resultat sendte USA 7.000 af sine egne til deres død. Folk som Lindsey Graham og Nikki Haley, der argumenterer for at vi skal tilbage til Afghanistan for mere blod og hævn, er skøre, sagde han. Vi må se til poesi, musik og historie for at afstå fra hævn.

Fru Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede konferencen med at sige, at selv Kina-haderen Tucker Carlson har taget i betragtning, at Xi Jinping gør noget rigtigt, når børn begrænses til tre timer om ugen med de åndssvage internet-videospil, hvilket er en del af bestræbelserne på at orientere kinesiske unge imod kærligheden til viden. Den frygtelige middelmådighed i hele Vesten, sagde hun, ses i forvirringen mellem "liberal" og "frihed". Friedrich Schiller vidste, at frihed findes gennem nødvendighed, mens "alting går an"-mentaliteten, der gennemsyrer Vesten, er det modsatte af frihed. Vi må gå tilbage til de store skikkelser i vores kultur, vores forskere, vores digtere, vores musikere og derefter række ud til de store sind i andre kulturer – den klassiske musik i hver kultur, især da musik er et universelt sprog, der afspejler det menneskelige sinds universalitet. "Begynd at læse igen, tænk igen, om naturlov, reflektér over den kreative proces," sagde hun. "Kina og Rusland gør meget af den slags".

Dennis Speed, der ledede konferencen, afsluttede med at opfordre alle til at læse Dante Alighieris 'Commedia' (Den guddommelige Komedie) som en dedikation til 700-året for Dantes død i eksil den 14. september 1321. I Commedia beskriver Dante det "at fare vild" midt i livet, og rejser med digteren Virgil, først gennem Inferno, derefter skærsilden og videre til paradiset, hvor hver især opnåede en højere sindstilstand. Hvis vi skulle leve livet for de mennesker, der døde både på dagen den 11. september, og sidenhen på grund af disse begivenheder, så forestil jer et genrejst, udviklet og levende Afghanistan og andre omgivende nationer som et produkt af et genrejst og pulserende USA og andre nationer, der bliver bedre, fordi de ser denne nye vej. Det er arven vi bør forsøge at sikre, at historien kan notere vi efterlod denne gang.

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.

Den 7. oktober 2020 (EIRNS) – Den 27. juli 2017 udgav LaRouche en rapport med titlen “Hvert træ i skoven vil falde”. Bill Binney, fhv. teknisk chef for USA’s NSA (Det Nationale Sikkerhedsagentur), havde da netop frigivet det kriminaltekniske bevis for, at historien om ‘russisk hacking’ af e-mails tilhørende det demokratiske partis nationale komite (DNC) og leveringen af disse e-mails til Julian Assanges Wikileaks var et svindelnummer.

Binney beviste der slet ikke havde været et hack, men at det rent faktisk var en læk fra en insider, sandsynligvis en demokrat, der var rasende over, at DNC havde saboteret en af sine egne kandidaters (Bernie Sanders) præsidentkampagne, for at sikre nomineringen af en anden (Hillary Clinton).

Rapporten citerede Schiller-Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “Vi er nået et punkt, hvor vi kan tilintetgøre hele Trump-Russiagate svindelnummeret på begge sider af Atlanterhavet og skifte den strategiske dynamik fra defensiv til offensiv. Denne offensiv vil sige at begrave Wall Street og Londons morderiske spekulative system og bringe USA og Europa ind i et samarbejde med Kina og Rusland i Bælt og Vej-initiativet”.

Nu, mere end tre år senere, er disse træer endelig klar til at falde takket være indsatsen fra præsident Donald Trump og hans nye direktør for den nationale efterretningstjeneste John Ratcliffe, der er begyndt at frigive dokumenterne der beviser forbrydelsen. Det vigtigste i blandt de der blev frigivet tirsdag er den håndskrevne note skrevet af den korrupte John Brennan, Obamas CIA chef, blev skrevet efter at Brennan havde orienteret Obama om, at Hillary Clinton (i Brennans ord) havde godkendt “et forslag fra en af hendes udenrigspolitiske rådgivere, om at bagvaske Donald Trump ved at vække en skandale med den påstand, at Ruslands sikkerhedstjeneste var indblandet”.

Et andet frigivet memo, adresseret til tidl. FBI direktør James Comey og FBI agent Peter Strzok, to ledere af Russiagate kupforsøget, var fra en leder i en CIA indsatsrapport, som sagde, at Hillary Clinton havde godkendt en plan “vedrørende præsidentkandidat Donald Trump og russiske hackeres underminering af valget, som en måde at distrahere offentligheden fra hendes brug af en privat e-mail server”. Obama var medvidende lige fra starten.

Som Trump tweetede i går “Kan ikke forstå, at disse svindlere endnu ikke er blevet retsforfulgt. Ynkeligt!”. Men Trump skrev også i et tweet “Jeg har for længst frigivet al information om Russia-fup skandalen. Desværre for vores land har folk handlet meget langsomt, især fordi det måske er den største politiske forbrydelse i vores nations historie. Agér nu!!”
Det er bemærkelsesværdigt at LaRouchePAC udstedte en underskriftindsamling i juni 2018 med titlen “Præsident Trump: Offentliggør alle dokumenter og al information om britisk undergravning af din kampagne”.

Her har vi ikke blot med forbrydelser begået af Obama og hans efterretningstjenester at gøre, men med de vedblivende forbrydelser af folk i efterretningstjenesterne i dag.

På den ene side har vi tidl. CIA direktør og nuværende Udenrigsminister Michael Pompeo og hans kammerat forsvarsminister Mark Esper såvel som FBI direktør Christopher Wray, som sammen har gjort alt, hvad der stod i deres magt for at forpurre præsident Trumps forsøg på at afslutte de “uendelige krige” og oprette venskabelige forhold med Rusland og Kina.
Da Pompeo var CIA direktør blev han, på Trumps opfordring, informeret af Bill Binney om svindelnummeret bag DNCs “hacking historie”, men Pompeo sørgede for at Binneys bevismateriale hverken nåede præsidenten eller massemedierne (som Præsident Trump kalder “the lamestream media”).

Så er der den nuværende CIA direktør, Gina Haspel, som var chef for CIA-basen i London fra 2014 til 2017, hvor hun hjalp til med at fremstille løgnene om Trumps “hemmelige samarbejde” med Rusland. Chris Farrell fra Judicial Watch, og en tidligere militær efterretningsagent, udgav en rapport den 6. oktober ved navn “Analyse: CIA direktor Gina Haspel og den britiske rolle i anti-Trump plottet” (https://worldisraelnews.com/analysis-cia-director-gina-haspel-and-the-british-role-in-the-anti-trump-plot/). Haspel mistænkes nu for at være nøglepersonen, der blokerer for Trumps gentagne krav om at frigive alle Russiagate-dokumenterne “uden ændringer!” (som Trump understregede).

Trump er klar over sabotagen fra hans administration. Han har allerede åbent fordømt det “militærindustrielle kompleks” og identificeret lederskabet af Pentagon som værende ansvarlig for ikke at adlyde hans ordrer om at bringe en ende på de “uendelige krige”.

Han ser ud til at tøve med at smide dem og skurkene fra efterretningstjenesten ud inden valget. Men ligesom LaRouchePAC brød igennem med Bill Binneys afsløring af Russia-fupnummeret, bryder vi nu igennem med historien om militærkupplanerne, udklækket af det demokratiske partis lederskab og de generaler, som gav os de sidste to årtiers morderiske regimeskifte krige – bogstavelig talt har hundredetusindvis af folk over hele verden hørt forhenværende Oberst Richard Black dokumentere de kriminelle forberedelser til at fjerne præsidenten ved brug af magt.
Se “En stærk advarsel om et forestående kup; opspor og arrester de sammensvorne!” https://larouchepac.com/20200916/stark-warning-impending-coup-track-and-arrest-conspirators
Faren for en global krig øges dagligt, så længe den “femte kolonne” har frie hænder til at spille deres dødelige spil. Trump arbejder på det, men som vi har set det før både på udenrigs- og indenrigsområdet bliver hans instrukser ofte ignoreret.

Nu da hele den kriminelle kabale og deres britiske partnere i stigende grad er afsløret af præsidenten for verdenen – som de også de sidste mange år er blevet udpeget og afsløret af LaRouche bevægelsen – er det op til den amerikanske befolkning, og folk med god vilje i resten af verden, at demonstrere over for præsidenten, at han har fuld opbakning til at “vælte alle træerne i skoven”.

Den 26. juli (EIRNS) – Da sikkerhedspersonalet fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium brød ind i det kinesiske konsulat i Houston, blot få timer efter 72 timers fristen for fraflytning udløb, rømmedes det amerikanske konsulat i Chengdu hurtigt for at overholde den gensidige frist på 72 timer, som Beijing pålagde mandag. Lederartiklen i Global Times spørger: ”Hvor længe vil den nuværende kinesisk-amerikanske konfrontation fortsætte? Vil en ny kold krig tage form? Vil der være militære konflikter, og vil de mulige sammenstød udvikle sig til storstilet militær konfrontation mellem de to”? Man konkluderer: ”Tragedierne i 1910’erne og 1930’erne må ikke gentages”.

Schiller Instituttet sponsorerede indenfor de seneste tre dage to internationale fora med den tidligere tekniske direktør for NSA, William Binney, der gennemgik sit bevis for at efterretningssamfundets påstand om russisk indblanding i valget i 2016 var en skrøne, og forlangte en ende på NSA’s overvågningsregime samt fængsling af gerningsmændene bag denne kriminelle politik. Endvidere implicerede Binney også udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo i det fortsatte kupforsøg mod præsident Donald Trump og beskrev sin briefing til den daværende CIA-direktør Pompeo om bedrageriet med “russisk indblanding”, hvilket Pompeo ignorerede, idet han i stedet godkendte Obama-efterretningsholdets løgn om, at Rusland hackede Demokraternes e-mails for at hjælpe Trump med at blive valgt. Hvis der herskede nogen tvivl om, at Pompeo er en del af kampagnen mod sin egen chef, blev det manet i jorden med hans rejse til London i sidste uge, hvor han gav fuld støtte til den nuværende hetzkampagne imod Kina, der ledes af de tidligere MI6-folk Richard Dearlove og Christopher Steele – selve bagmændene for det ‘russiske kupforsøg’ mod Trump.

Hvad angår Pompeos vilje til at risikere en atomkrig med Kina for at bevare det britiske imperiums imperialistiske magt, skal man lytte til hans ord i London: ”Og hvis vi ikke handler nu, kan vores børnebørn i sidste ende blive underlagt Det kinesiske Kommunistpartis nåde… Generalsekretær Xi er ikke bestemt til at tyrannisere i og uden for Kina for evigt, medmindre vi tillader det”. For en imperialistisk oligark udgør storstilet infrastrukturel udvikling gennem Bælte- og Vejinitiativet “tyranni”.

Den anglo-amerikanske krigsfraktion presser stadig på for konfrontation med Rusland på trods af ‘Russiagates’ tilnærmelsesvise sammenbrud. I både Washington og London beskylder militære ledere Rusland for at have affyret et ”våbenlignende projektil” i rummet (uden noget forsøg for at beskrive hvad et ”våbenlignende projektil” kan være), og bebuder derfor en revurdering af deres politik for militarisering af rummet. Ligesom med USA’s tilbagetrækning fra ABM-traktaten og INF-traktaten blev det i første omgang erklæret, at Rusland “snyder” med traktaterne, hvilket retfærdiggør et fuldstændigt ophør af traktaten, og fører verden ind i et nyt våbenkapløb og potentiel militær konfrontation.

I tilfældet med Rusland fortsætter præsident Trump med at imødegå provokationerne fra sit eget kabinet gennem personligt diplomati, og foretog en lang telefonsamtale med præsident Vladimir Putin den 23. juli. Samtalen dækkede mange kritiske områder – vigtigst af alt: Planer for et topmøde mellem lederne af de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, der kan bringe præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping sammen. Præsident Trump har i mange afgørende situationer demonstreret, at hans personlige møder med potentielle modstandere kan tilsidesætte den konfronterende og provokerende politik fra hans kabinet og hans militær. Aldrig har sådant personligt diplomati været mere presserende. Det demokratiske Partis lederskab, inklusive deres patetiske sandsynlige præsidentkandidat Joe Biden, udgør langt fra et alternativ til det vanvittige anti-Rusland og anti-Kina-hysteri, men lover at være endnu hårdere end Trump-administrationen.

I mellemtiden er den af Det demokratiske Parti støttede opstand, der finder sted på gaderne i USA mod Trump og imod selve nationen, optrappet endnu mere i løbet af den sidste uge. Barack Obamas personlige rolle i orkestrering og tilskyndelse til disse Jakobinske bander er ikke fordækt – men simpelthen “tredje akt” af Det demokratiske partis bestræbelser, efter “Russiagate” og “Ukrainegate”, på at vælte den amerikanske regering.

Den mangesidede krise, som civilisationen står overfor – pandemien, den økonomiske opløsning, den finansielle boble, truslen om omfattende hungersnød i Afrika, truslen om krig – kan ikke løses “én for én”. “LaRouche-planen til genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi – Verden har behov for 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive job” giver den omfattende løsning, der både afslutter farerne og iværksætter det nødvendige nye paradigme for menneskeheden. Det foreslåede topmøde for P5-lederne, der er aftalt, men uden en fastsat dato, er den minimale og essentielle struktur for at formidle denne akut nødvendige proces.

Den 13. juli (EIRNS) – En kronik i dag af EIR’s Washington-korrespondent, William Jones, udgivet af Kinas Tv-station CGTN, trak den direkte linje fra britisk efterretningsvæsens fire år lange forsøg på at tvinge Præsident Donald Trump til at gå af – hvorunder Roger Stone kom under angreb – tilbage til de samme efterretningstjenesters fængsling og forsøg på at eliminere Lyndon LaRouche. Stone selv, som har sagt, at han lærte om Præsident Ronald Reagans interesse for LaRouches idéer, mens han ledte Reagans kampagne i New Hampshire i 1980, var selv ganske klar over forbindelsen. Han forstod, at Præsident Trump har været udsat for ”LaRouche-behandlingen” fra de britiske og amerikanske efterretningstjenester; det er nu vigtigt, at præsidentens patriotiske støtter forstår dette, og at indflydelsesrige personer i Kina også forstår det.

Lyndon LaRouches program for et ”stort udviklingsprojekt”, den Eurasiske Landbro i 1989, og Helga Zepp-LaRouches arbejde, som førte til infrastruktur-platformen den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen i dag, er alment kendt i Kina. Hvad der må forstås er, at LaRouche blev bagvasket og forfulgt – ”seks veje fra søndag” (reference til C. Schumers ”six ways from Sunday” – på et utal af måder -red.), iværksat af det britiske imperiums og USA’s efterretningstjenester, fordi han udarbejdede forslag med henblik på udvikling til topmøder med stormagterne, blandt USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien. I 1980’erne arbejdede han direkte – og også bag kulisserne – for en amerikansk-sovjetisk aftale for at gøre en ende på atomkrigsterroren under doktrinen for ”gensidig garanteret udslettelse” (”mutually assured destruction”, MAD), gennem en ny æra med udvikling af laser-lignende systemer, både indenfor anti-misilforvar og industriel udvikling i de underudviklede nationer.

Som Jones skrev på CGTN: ”Stone har ofte selv refereret til den klassiske sag om operationer mod den nu afdøde økonom og mange gange præsidentkandidat, Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche har spillet en central rolle i at få Præsident Reagan til at indføre hvad der blev kaldt det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI).

”LaRouche – og Præsident Reagan – anså et sådant forslag som en fredsplan, der ville hive verden væk fra den nærtforestående atomare aftrækker under doktrinen for ”gensidig garanteret udslettelse”… Præsident Reagans synspunkt var det samme som LaRouches.

Hvis et forsvar mod atomvåben kunne findes, ville en sådan teknologi kun blive udviklet i samarbejde med Sovjetunionen. Mens den officielle historie fremstiller SDI som et forsøg på at give USA en strategisk overhånd over russerne, indikerer et nyligt frigivet hemmeligstemplet Nationalt Sikkerhedsdirektiv, NSDD-172, underskrevet af Reagan selv i 1985, at præsidenten var klar til at forhandle med Sovjetunionen om at opbygge et fælles eller komplementært forsvarssystem for at beskytte begge nationer.” (Betoning i det originale.)

Det var på det tidspunkt at Robert Mueller blev ansat til at retsforfølge Lyndon LaRouche.

LaRouches metode var at finde den overbevisende fornuftsmæssige fælles interesse for topmødeforhandlinger mellem tilsyneladende fjendtlige stormagter, som også skulle gavne resten af verdens nationer. Dette var i det mindste Præsident Trumps stærke intention, da han tiltrådte embedet i 2016, hvad angår Rusland og Kina. Et britisk anstiftet krigsparti har kæmpet for at forhindre dette, gennem et kup imod ham. Nu må denne proces for et topmøde påbegyndes indenfor de næste 60 dage, for at håndtere de enorme problemer med pandemien, det økonomiske sammenbrud i adskillige nationer samt en tydelig voksende trussel for et atomart våbenkapløb og atomkrig.

Og den kursændring, som kunne komme fra en sådan ”overraskelse i september” i form af et topmøde, er også den eneste måde hvorpå Præsident Trump kunne genvælges. Han, og præsidenterne fra Rusland og Kina, bliver nødt til at forstå hvem deres fælles fjende er, og hvorfor denne, i mere end 40 år, forsøgte at ødelægge personen Lyndon LaRouche, hans navn og hans virke. Og, som Jones konkluderer, hvorfor Trump ”burde gøre det til en pointe at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn”.

Introduktion til Helgas tale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Mange tak.

Den 22. juni (EIRNS) – Vi er i en dyb, voksende krise, som truer moderne nationers eksistens, og burde derfor hæfte os ved den lange artikel: ”75-året for den Store Sejr: Fælles Ansvar for Historien og vores Fremtid”, udgivet d. 19. juni i magasinet The National Interest af den russiske præsident, Vladimir Putin. Den russiske præsident minder os om, gennem sin egen families erindringer, hvordan det måtte have været at se en styrke af millioner af fuldt udrustede, mekaniserede og veltrænede tyske soldater storme hen over hver eneste grænse i juni 1940, og hurtigt begynde at løbe Rusland over ende – og derefter, gennem år med ubegribelig frihedsberøvelse og død og beslutsomhed, at finde en vej ud af den nationale, eksistentielle krise, for til sidst at møde de amerikanske tropper ved Elben og afslutte krigen.

Putin skriver først og fremmest som en leder, hvis land er blevet ”behandlet ondskabsfuldt” af nylige, uhyrlige forsøg på, selv fra den Europæiske Unions side, at beskylde Sovjetunionen, i samme grad som Hitlers nazister og deres bagmænd i Europa, for at have forårsaget 2. Verdenskrig. Han sætter begivenhederne i det rette lys. Dækningen af Putins arbejde i amerikanske, europæiske og australske medier er begyndt at dukke op, med rapporter om hvad han fremviser fra de omfangsrige arkiver, som Rusland har om de diplomatiske begivenheder, der førte til krigen og kostede Sovjetunionen mere en 25 millioner døde.

I Forbes skrev den højtstående korrespondent, James Rodgers, den 21. juni: ”Hvorfor, 75 år efter afslutningen på den konflikt, og i en meget anderledes verden, er disse begivenheder så vigtige?”

Det første svar er størrelsesordenen af Ruslands offer. Antallet af sovjetiske militære og civile dødsofre bliver generelt antaget til at være over 20 millioner. I sin artikel skriver Putin ’næsten 27 millioner’, og tilføjer som sammenligning, at i 2. Verdenskrig ”mistede Sovjetunionen hver syvende af dens borgere, Storbritannien hver 127. og USA hver 320”. På hjemmesiden ”Moon of Alabama”, som hovedsageligt omhandler militære og efterretningsrelaterede emner, skrev en skribent: ”Som tysker og tidligere officer der har læst en hel del om krigen, er jeg enig med det russiske synspunkt. Det var den lidet anerkendte industrielle magt, Sovjetunionen, og den Røde Hærs soldaters bemærkelsesværdige pligttroskab, der besejrede den tyske Wehrmacht… Jeg har ikke fundet nogle større fejl med de historiske fakta i essayet, og anbefaler at læse det i fuld længde.”

Nyhedsbureauet Associated Press’ rapport om Putins artikel citerede hans hovedkonklusion: ”Han udtrykte håb om, at et russisk foreslået topmøde mellem lederne af landene med vetoret i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd snart ville finde sted, for at diskutere den globale sikkerhed, corona-pandemiens økonomiske konsekvenser m.m.’ Der kan ikke være nogen tvivl om, at topmødet mellem Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, USA og Storbritannien kan spille en vigtig rolle i at finde fælles svar på moderne udfordringer’.” Putins andet, underliggende tema: Rusland er en nation, som er utrolig svær at besejre, når den forsvarer sig selv; men ønsker ikke at føre en aggressiv krig, og endnu mindre en krig mod Europa eller en supermagt som USA.

Præsident Putins artikel tager direkte fat på denne krise, bestående af en finansiel krise og økonomisk forfald, en pandemi, hungersnød, socialt kaos og jacobinisme (efter den jacobinske terror under Den franske Revolution –red.), og den tydelige forøgede krigstrussel blandt atommagterne. Han foreslår, at lederne af disse supermagter nu mødes, med en dagsorden for global økonomisk genrejsning og en global tilrettelagt offensiv mod pandemi, i særdeleshed nu i udviklingslandene. Og, med en forståelse af hvad menneskehedens egentlige historie – ikke politiske partier – kræver af dem.

Vi tilføjer: Udelad Londons imperialister, hvis man ønsker at diskutere enten økonomisk udvikling af underudviklede nationer, at redde liv fra sygdom, eller at undgå krig – de er de værste i alle disse tilfælde. Endnu bedre ville være det firemagts-topmøde, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer til – med ledere fra mindst USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – for at igangsætte et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem.

Den 21. juni (EIRNS) — Den geopolitiske trussel i britisk stil fortsætter nu på sporet mod det punkt, hvor vi ser ethvert spørgsmål – fra COVID-19-pandemien på Jorden til rumrejser mod stjernerne – fremstillet som ‘os imod dem’, hvilket er den anvendte form for det klassiske britiske ‘great game’, der udøver kontrol ved at spille alle godtroende fjolser ud imod hinanden. Lige nu har vi det ekstreme tilfælde med den amerikanske gruppering af krigshøge fra de britiske geopolitiske kredse, der er gået bersærk mod Kina og fortsætter mod Rusland. I lyset heraf er der for nyligt udgivet et amerikansk rumforsvars-strategidokument, “Defense Space Strategy”. Dette er især farligt i forbindelse med ustabilitet og atomvåben.

Modgiften mod denne galskab præsenteres i drøftelserne forbundet med den række af Schiller Instituttets internationale konferencer, hvor den næste er endags-begivenheden den 27. juni med titlen ”Will Humanity Prosper eller Perish? (Vil menneskeheden gå fremad eller fortabes?) Fremtiden kræver et ‘firemagts-tomøde’ nu ”.

Betragt, i stedet for dette perspektiv af fælles interesse, den konfrontation der er rettet mod Kina og Rusland, op til et ellers meget vigtigt, strategisk møde mellem amerikanske og russiske embedsmænd den 22. juni med samtaler om atomvåbenkontrol. Den amerikanske hovedforhandler er Marshall Billingslea, præsidentens særlige udsending for våbenkontrol; den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov leder den russiske side. Mødet finder sted i Wien.

Den 19. juni fastholdt en af amerikanerne i delegationen, Robert Wood, USA’s faste repræsentant ved konferencen for nedrustning, i et CBS-interview, at “vi kan ikke vende det blinde øje” til de “voksende udfordringer fra Rusland og Kina”. Først insisterede han på, at Kina kom til Wien-forhandlingerne, selvom det kinesiske udenrigsministeriums talsmand blot dagen før sagde, at Kina ikke ville komme. Wood sagde til CBS: ”Det er på høje tid, at Kina kommer til bordet…” Han sagde, ”Vi vil ikke tillade, at Rusland og Kina fortsætter med at gå videre med deres moderniseringer og forøgelse af lagrene med atomvåben…”

Den 17. juni kom en større salve imod “modstanderne”, Kina og Rusland, med det amerikanske forsvarsdepartements fremlægning af sin nye “rumforsvars-strategi.” I pressemeddelelsen hedder det, at det nye dokument, “identificerer hvordan forsvarsministeriet vil fremme rum-styrken for at kunne konkurrere, afskrække og vinde i et komplekst sikkerhedsmiljø, der er kendetegnet ved stor magtkonkurrence”. Forsvarsminister Mark Esper sagde på Pentagon-pressekonferencen, at “vores modstandere har gjort rummet til et domæne for krigshandlinger, og vi er nødt til at gennemføre omfattende forandringer … for dette nye strategiske miljø.” Han sagde, at Kina og Rusland udgør “de mest øjeblikkelige og alvorlige trusler mod amerikanske rumoperationer…” Specielt udgør “kinesiske og russiske strategiske intentioner og kapaciteter presserende og vedvarende trusler mod ministeriets evne til at opnå de ønskede forhold i rummet”.

Og for det tredje kommer der i dag endnu et angreb mod Kina. Peter Navarro, direktør for handel og industripolitik for præsident Trump, gentog endnu en gang sin tirade om, at Kina forårsagede pandemien. Virusset “kom fra Kina”. De “skjulte det”; de “spredte det” gennem hundredvis af borgere, der fløj til udlandet. ”Det er en kendsgerning.” Han sagde: ”Det virus var et resultat af det Kinesiske Kommunistparti”. Karrieremageren og Kina-haderen tilføjede, at han i den bog, han skrev i 2006 sagde (se side 150): “Jeg forudsagde, at Kina ville skabe en viral pandemi. …”

Disse løgne og kneb er den lige vej til helvede. De er samme slags usandfærdigheder, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin nu imødegår i sin nyudgivne artikel, der er baseret på fuld dokumentation, om hvad der førte frem til 2. verdenskrig, og hvem der var de virkelige heroiske personer, hvad dynamikken var, ikke de farlige myter. (Se: “The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II” (”Den virkelige lære af 75-årsdagen for 2. verdenskrig”) National Interest, 18. juni).

Spred budskabet i denne uge for at alle og enhver kan deltage i Schiller Instituttets konference den 27. juni.