Fredag den 9. december. Besøget i Saudi-Arabien af Kinas præsident, Xi Jinping, er “en del af en ny strategisk tilpasning”, forklarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i sin webcast i dag. “Araberne vender sig mod øst”, og der er indgået aftaler for mere end 30 milliarder dollars. Dette er en del af en ny dynamik, som indebærer en eksplosiv vækst i BRICS-alliancen. Dette udgør ikke en trussel mod Vesten, hævdede hun – Vesten bør “opgive geopolitikken … og samarbejde” i stedet for at fastholde fortidens fejlslagne politik.

Zepp-LaRouche, som i denne uge blev interviewet af den førende russiske tv-personlighed, Vladimir Solovyov, og som modtog prisen for ytringsfrihed tildelt hende selv og Schiller Instituttet af den mexicanske journalistklub, udtalte, at hun er blevet opmuntret af reaktionen på de ti principper for en ny strategisk og finansiel arkitektur, som hun havde foreslået. Et nyt kor af verdensborgere er ved at finde sammen, hvilket er det bedste håb for menneskeheden i lyset af NATO’s fortsatte krigsfremstød.

Transskription af teksten på engelsk:

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly webcast with Schiller Institute founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is Friday, Dec. 9, 2022.

And Helga, it’s been a busy few days, especially for you: There were two events that occurred in the last couple of days. One was an interview with the preeminent talk show host in Russia Vladimir Solovyov, where he asked you about the 10 fundamental principles that you drafted, and then there was the award bestowed on you and the Schiller Institute by the Journalists Club of Mexico, the Freedom of Expression Award. Why don’t we start with the Solovyov interview? This was really quite important, wasn’t it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, I think it’s one of the major talk shows on Russian TV. And I think it’s very important that Mr. Solovyov obviously has looked quite in detail at the 10 principles I proposed to have a new international security and development architecture. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/] And he said it was very thought-through, and in general he came across with the idea that there is hope, that a diplomatic solution can be found. So I think it was important that, now, millions of Russians now know about these 10 principles. And since we are also spreading it elsewhere, I’m quite optimistic that, hopefully, we can put it on the international agenda.

SCHLANGER: It’s important that at the end he said, “I hope you succeed!” And I think the award from the Journalists Club of Mexico is also something which is part of the spread of these ideas.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think Mrs. Celeste Sáenz, the chairwoman of the very prestigious Mexican journalists’ association, basically in her opening speech mentioned the fact that it’s an outrageous scandal that myself and others are on this Ukrainian list. And she said the Schiller Institute’s work is extremely important in times when the freedom of speech is not guaranteed. So, I’m very happy about this award, because sometimes, a prophet is not appreciated in his or her own country, but Mexico is one of my favorite countries, anyway, so that’s very, very, good.

SCHLANGER: Mine, too, having lived in Texas for years, and done a lot of work in Mexico. It’s a very interesting country, and very beautiful.

In terms of the spread of these ideas, I think it’s quite important to look at the motion toward the new financial and strategic architecture: This week, Xi Jinping was in Saudi Arabia, for meetings with a number of Arab countries in the Middle East. This is an extension of the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the new diplomacy. What do you make of this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this is really important: Because this has been, in one sense, prepared since Xi Jinping visited the Middle East in January 2016, when he went to Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. And this time, he’s participated in three summits, one with the Saudi government; one with the Arab states, and one with the Gulf Cooperation Council. And China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said this is “epochal” historic visit. It puts the Chinese-Arab and Chinese-Saudi relationship on a completely new strategic level. And generally, the press coverage and observers are saying that the Arabs are turning East.

Now, that obviously is very big. Not only in this visit to Saudi Arabia were there economic deals for $30 billion, concluded 34 contracts. China imports 25% of the Saudi export of crude oil. But I think even more important than that is that Xi Jinping was treated with top honors. Six Saudi fighter jets accompanied his plane, and they colored the sky with the colors of the Chinese flag, that is, red and gold. And that is in total contrast to the rather subdued way how Biden was treated in July when he visited.

And it is very clear that there is a new strategic alignment going on. This involves the whole BRICS dynamic, because there are now many countries that want to join the BRICS-Plus, that is Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Turkey, Iran; and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said that there are altogether 17 countries that have lined up and applied for full membership in the BRICS. Now, already now, the BRICS has a GDP which is larger than the G7, and if you add all of these countries, it is very clear that the power center of the world economy, which already has shifted to Asia, will be amplified a lot in the direction of the countries of the BRICS-Plus, plus the countries that work with this organization which is very quickly growing.

So I think this is very important, and in one sense revives the spirit of the ancient Silk Road, because the Chinese-Arab relationship dates back about 2,000 years, and obviously, it will have an impact on the entire dynamic in the Middle East. Also, important, is that Xi Jinping had meetings, I think with 40 leaders from regional countries, including the new Prime Minister of Iraq, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, and there, also, a strategic partnership was agreed. And the oil-for-technology agreement that had existed before, but was dormant because of all kinds of sabotage and intervening problems, but that means, also, that Iraq is now looking in the direction of cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative.

I think the Western countries, rather than trying to fight this, which they continue to do with all kinds of racist statements, like coming from Chatham House almost every day, they would do so much better if they would adjust to the new emerging reality, give up the geopolitical confrontationism, and rather start to cooperate! This is a new world economic order which is emerging, and it is based on non-interference in the internal affairs of the other one, it’s based on respect for the sovereignty of the other one, non-meddling with the social system, and this is just a much more durable concept for peace in the world than what we have seen with the “right to protect” and humanitarian interventions, especially with the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, which only resulted in millions of people dying for nothing, 17 million refugees—I mean, this is the biggest human rights violation which you can imagine. Obviously, it is not being discussed, but I think the West should really draw the conclusion out of the failed policies of the last decades, and join this new arrangement which is emerging, and which brings hope for many millions of people throughout the entire region.

I’m actually quite optimistic that this is a very, very important game-changer in the entire region and beyond.

SCHLANGER: And it reflects what you wrote in your article on the Spirit of Bandung [https://larouchepub.com/hzl/2022/4945-the_role_of_the_nonaligned_mov-hzl.html ] which is being published in a book, which I should have mentioned at the outset that this is coming out, now. But it also raises the question that you brought up: Why would the West be angry or upset, as though they’re being betrayed, by countries that are looking out for their own interests and moving into this new architecture?

Now, in that context, we had the statement from a Trilateral Commission member from Japan, who raised the question of why are you forcing us to choose? This is a completely absurd approach from the West but it’s a self-isolation, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Given the fact that the Trilateral Commission is an organization which basically represents the establishment, and then, somebody from Japan saying, don’t force us to choose, because if we have to choose, we will choose China over the United States—I think this is also a sign of the times.

SCHLANGER: We have a very interesting story unfolding in Germany, of the attempted coup that the German police supposedly foiled—I think there were 3,000 police and security officials involved in it—what do you know about this, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, this is, on the one side, a farce, but it has a serious background. The farcical part of it is that this was the biggest raid in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany, since the Second World War: 3,000 police, special intervention units, the SEK, and various other units, they raided altogether 130 apartments; they arrested 25 people. This was supposedly because they had information that the Reichsbürger, an association of people who basically say the Federal Republic of Germany does not exist, and since we never had a peace treaty and there was never a referendum on a new constitution, they say that the old Kaiser Reich, or the old Weimar Republic, or whatever, still exists, or they want to go back to a monarchy. There may be 20,000 people in Germany who believe this; most of them, and that is also shown by the pictures, are pensioners, gray-haired people. Supposedly they were planning a coup, that they were planning to take over the government.

Now, I think this is a PR stunt if you ever have seen one, because one parliament member from the Linkspartei said that she knew about this two weeks ago, as she also knew that many of the media were informed: Selected mainstream media knew about it; they had time to prepare background articles, which suddenly, the records were published on the day of the raid, so everything was there. The media were along with the deployment of the police, filming everything—it was the big story. So, if these Reichsbürger would have been that dangerous, and with weapons and everything—maybe they have some weapons—but it’s so out of proportion; if they would have been so absolutely dangerous then the police should have been very secretive, not warning anybody ahead of time. But obviously, the purpose of it was quite different: The purpose was to discredit these Reichsbürger and all the other demonstrators, which—we should not forget the role of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz national police agency in previous deployments of the NSU and other deployments against the rightwing.

So this is a very dubious thing, and it’s like you take something which has a little kernel of reality, and then you blow it up in such a way as to discredit the whole thing. And everybody knows that there are many people taking to the streets because of the sanctions, which they feel is a blowback against the German economy; many firms are going bankrupt; energy prices are going through the roof; people are afraid of inflation; many people fear that they won’t get through the winter because of the exploding energy prices. So there is a total social ferment, and therefore, if you do what looks like such a staged operation beforehand, you discredit those kinds of protests. And then Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said, “We were looking into the abyss of a terrorist threat,” with all of these people with their walking canes and rollators! It’s just not real.

And I think the former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev also satirized it, because naturally Russia was blamed again that they have some hand in that. But the White House immediately offered support to Germany because these are people who believe the same QAnon conspiracy narratives, and this is exactly like the January 6 raid on the U.S. Capitol building. Now that is also very questionable, and there are a lot of questions that have arisen as how that was staged.

I think it has a serious background, that it’s being staged because there is a social ferment, but we should really keep a clear head about it.

SCHLANGER: And it occurs at a moment when the German government is losing popularity. The new polls that are coming out show that they’re dropping fairly quickly, like a rock in water. And at this point you have Chancellor Scholz, and Economy Minister Habeck and Foreign Minister Baerbock taking the point against China. How does that fit into the situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: You know, Scholz went to China, and he also keeps saying that he is not for breaking off relations with China, and so forth. So he has a slightly different position, but we have learned from people are in the business, that Baerbock, whose Foreign Ministry has prepared a China paper, she apparently—I can only say, we have this from a source—she apparently sent out her paper to all the German embassies internationally, pretending this was already accepted German policy. So, I thought that the Chancellor defines the rules for foreign policy, but one has to see if this so-called “foreign minister” decides what Germany’s policy is, or the Chancellor. In any case, it is completely idiotic: If Germany wants to really commit hara-kiri, then they should continue to alienate China. And I think Xi Jinping’s state visit to Saudi Arabia hopefully wakes some people up, that the momentum is not against China but it is with China. And I hope this is a wakeup call for some people.

SCHLANGER: Also news from Germany was the admission by former Chancellor Angela Merkel that the Minsk Agreement was designed to buy time for Ukraine. That was said by former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko before, and now it’s coming from Merkel. This tasks the whole situation of the pre-special military operation by Russia in an entirely different light, doesn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this is really incredible! Because we always made the point that Germany and France, which were supposed to be the countries enforcing or encouraging the Minsk Agreement [for negotiations between the Ukraine government and the Russian-speaking Donbass region], and we always said they didn’t do anything. But now it turns out— and Merkel said it in two interviews, one with Der Spiegel and then again with Die Zeit—that there was no intention to go ahead with Minsk 2! That there was an intention to gain time for Ukraine to rearm and become stronger.

I mean, this is incredible—and Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova correctly said that this means the whole credibility of Germany is completely destroyed, that Merkel has admitted that she did not intend to work for peace, but that the idea was to use lies and manipulation to prepare for war! This is incredible! And I think it should be at rest for good the idea that Putin attacked Ukraine without a reason and out of the blue. Obviously, if Merkel has admitted, as Poroshenko did, that they were just lying to Russia, misleading Russia in order to arm Ukrainian troops on a NATO standard, it is putting the truth into the whole story, and it shows the lies.

Now, this is dangerous, because Putin obviously knows about that as well, and he said that he now thinks it was a mistake to wait for eight years to react to the attacks on Donbass by Ukrainian armed forces, which killed 14,000 people, and about which Russia complained many times to the OSCE; and the OSCE had never done anything about it. And Putin now says, he thinks it was a mistake and he should have responded to the coup in 2014, militarily, immediately. And also, it has strategic implications when you do that.

So Putin is now also saying that the fact that the United States is putting all these modernized tactical nuclear weapons into Germany basically may force them to rethink the Russian nuclear doctrine which says that Russia will never make a first strike, because they only will use nuclear weapons when the existence of the Russian Federation is at stake. Now, he says, putting these weapons in such close vicinity to the Russian border means that Russia may not have time to go for a second strike—I mean, this is really escalating the spiral toward nuclear war, and it is just totally disgusting.

SCHLANGER: You also have the discussion under way about the Ukrainian strikes on Russian air bases inside Russia. Some people are saying it’s a provocation to force Russia to respond, it would lead then to a further escalation. So it does appear as though the whole situation is escalating as you are warning.

Now, there was an event on Dec. 6 by Chatham House on “Russia’s War on Everybody” [https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/members-event/russias-war-everybody] and what they laid out is their racist view that Russia has an imperial doctrine that predates Putin, that that is the danger. And this, of course, fits in with the talking points that have come from the British from the beginning. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to watch the video, but what do you make of this kind of discussion going on now in this context?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it just is one more confirmation that it is, again and again, the British who are instigating the escalation. As Boris Johnson, who in April personally flew into Kiev to sabotage the then-existing negotiations to which Zelenskyy had already agreed. And you can actually say that it was to Boris Johnson’s credit that 100,000 people have died since—including Ukrainians. So it’s just totally disgusting.

I think this double standard, people should really look at that. The former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Jiří Paroubek, he just came out and said that all the upset about Russia attacking the infrastructure in Ukraine, targetting the electricity supplies, that that is completely phony. And then he quotes the NATO spokesman James Shea from the time of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, who said, yeah, sure, we’re bombing the electricity because that’s also used by the military and this is completely legitimate to do. So, Paroubek says that after these statements, you cannot apply a double standard, because Russia just learned from NATO what you do in such a situation.

SCHLANGER: Not to mention what was done in Iraq by the United States and NATO.

Now, Helga, this does bring us back to what we started with, which is the importance of the 10 fundamental principles that you laid out, to move to a new strategic and financial architecture. I know there’s a lot of discussion that’s going on. It has to continue, and in fact, be raised to a higher level, and should be discussed by governments. But what’s your sense of where we have to go from here, to bring these ideas into the policies of governments?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I’m quite encouraged, because a lot of people who have looked at these 10 principles are reacting very well. They say it’s a very serious and well thought-through conception, because these 10 principles are not programmatic points: They’re principles and I try to look at the situation and say what must be remedied about what prevents peace? I took the Peace of Westphalia as an example, where one of the principles that came out of that was the idea that if you want to have peace, you have to take into account the interest of the other. There can be no lasting peace, if one or two or more parties are neglected. That’s a very important principle.

So my 10 principles start off with the idea that you have to have an alliance of perfectly sovereign nations, because otherwise you have no accountability; supranational institutions just don’t work. So the principle of sovereignty is the first idea.

Then the idea of overcoming poverty as the most important task, because if there are 2 billion people threatened with starvation, that is right now the most urgent task.

Naturally, a world health system.

And then the second part basically goes into the philosophical considerations which have to be the underpinning of such an approach: And I refer to those conceptions in the different cultures which say that there is a higher lawfulness which has to be respect, which in European history was called “natural law”; in India it’s called “cosmology,” which needs to be applied on the planet; in China, it’s called the “Mandate of Heaven.”

These are important ideas. I refer in one principle to Cusanus’ [Nicholas of Cusa] “Coincidence of Opposites” as a way of thinking: How you can think the One, which has a higher power than the Many—the one humanity which is more important than the many nations.

And then finally, the 10th principle is that the nature of man is that man is essentially good, and that all evil comes from a lack of development.

Now, I’m just referencing these very briefly, but I think these ideas must be discussed, because we have to come to principles which unite humanity, and not divide it. So I would encourage you, our viewers, to read these principles, and if you want, write something about it. We will introduce, on the Schiller website a page where important articles that are contributed will be published. And then hopefully, we will get other organizations to enter such a dialogue, because we need actually a chorus of world citizens who say, we need a change in the paradigm, because if we are going into nuclear war, there will be nobody left. So that means that everybody has to take responsibility to remedy this present, very dangerous, but also very hopeful situation, and bring it to a better direction. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/ ]

SCHLANGER: The responses that I’ve been getting are people who are saying, initially, well, this is hard to do on a philosophical level. But then if you ask them, “How far has pragmatism and Realpolitik gotten us? That’s why we’re in this crisis.” And in fact, you only overcome this kind of crisis by moving to the higher basis for agreement.”

Helga, I thank you for joining us today. I think the developments of this last week, including the interviews that you and your associates are doing, the award in Mexico, the developments around China and the Middle East, all point in a hopeful direction. But we still have to engage more people in this process, and the fundamental principles drafted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche will be appended to the webcast today, at the bottom of the description section, so you can read them and comment on them.

So Helga, thanks for joining us, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week. [hzl/hcs]

Dec. 7, 2022 (EIRNS)—Vladimir Solovyov aired a 21-minute interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche on Dec. 7.

VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV: Well, unfortunately, that’s about my German, so if you don’t have anything against it, we’ll try English. I’m sorry for being a late a couple of minutes. You know, those Russians, they’re never good on time. There’s always a problem with Russians being good on time! [laughter]

I have to say: I was quite impressed with your very tough point of view, should I say that? very revolutionary. Definitely not mainstream of current European political ideas. How come? It looks like the Dawn of Europe, the book that was written more than a 100 years ago, suddenly comes true. What are we facing right now? And what should be done, in order to save the world?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the problem is that we are, as some of the Russian officials have stated recently, we are already at a state of war between NATO and Russia, and many people in many countries are extremely worried that this may lead to nuclear war. And if it would come to that, I don’t think it would be a limited nuclear war. I think regional war, the use of only tactical nuclear weapons, I think this is all ruled out. And if it comes to the use of only one single nuclear weapon, it would have the danger of a global nuclear and that would mean the annihilation of civilization.

And for me, I think you have to start with that: This is why I have suggested principles, 10 principles for a new international security and development architecture, which is drawing very much on the example of the Peace of Westphalia which ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. And I’m really fighting very hard to put this on the agenda before it is too late.

SOLOVYOV: So what are those 10 principles? And what makes you think that current political power in Germany, but basically in U.S.A.—we realize that; whatever is there right now in Germany, it’s just a reflection, it’s just another projection of American point of view—that they will hear you? That you won’t be punished severely for your point view. Because now it’s not—it’s impossible to talk about the freedom of speech and the freedom of philosophical ideas in Europe.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I know it’s not allowed, and you are being ostracized immediately, and worse. But I think we are in a situation—I mean, this is not a tenable situation. Germany, for example, has lost all of its sovereignty with the present government, at least concerning certain ministers. We are running against a collapse in Germany: The economic situation is absolutely devastating. The result of the sanctions, which Germany imposed against Russia, on orders practically of the United States, is boomeranging, and the blowback is threatening the existence of Germany as an industrial nation. So this will become apparent in the next weeks and months.

And I think we are in an epochal change: It’s not just a war between the West and Russia, but the result of the policies imposed against Russia in particular, have led to a counterreaction: The entire Global South is in a revolutionary spirit to establish a just new economic order, and this is a revival of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was already on that course in the 1970s, and now I think it is unstoppable. You have the emergence of a completely new system, which is the BRICS, the SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the Eurasian Economic Union, all of these countries are reacting to the policies coming especially from the British and the United States, and they’re forming a new world economic order.

Some people may think it is enough if you have a multipolar world; the unipolar world is definitely over. But I am of the opinion that even multipolarity is not sufficient, because it still has the potential of a geopolitical confrontation. So this is why I think the most advanced proposal to overcome that in the present world comes from President Xi Jinping, who is talking about the “shared community of the future of mankind.” My 10 principles are basically an effort to elaborate principles how we can get people to understand what the new paradigm is, in which we have to move. That is a very deep philosophical conception: I’ve been working together with my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on that for the better part of the last 50 years. So I’m convinced that this is resonating with what the world right now urgently needs, which is a new conception—the question, really, is can we as a human civilization give ourselves an order which allows the long-term survivability of our species? So this is the biggest challenge to our intelligence you can have. And since I’m—and that’s the 10th point of my 10 principles—I’m convince that man is fundamentally good, and that the evil in the world is the result of a lack of development.

So I’m confident. I think the danger is incredibly big, but on the same time, I’m also extremely optimistic that a solution to this present calamity can be found.

SOLOVYOV: So what are those 10 principles? What are they? How dare you bring those 10 principles to the world of Schwab! Who is saying that humanity is a disease, and it’s better to be without humanity for the world! So how come that, nowadays, you’re coming with basically, let’s say “humanitarian tradition” of understanding humanity? Instead of modern liberal, Nazi view, where basically humanity should be destroyed?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the present world order, in large part suffers from the problem of oligarchism: That is not a new phenomenon. You had empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Venetian Empire, the British Empire, which in one sense still exists, and these forms of government were based on the idea that you have a small, powerful elite, sometimes the aristocrats, sometimes the financial elite, and that they have all the privileges and rule over backward masses of people. That system is the origin of what a former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, calls the “green delirium,” which is the idea that we are living in a world of finite resources, that you have to have management of scarcity, and all of this.

But that’s not the real universe. The good thing is that man is different from animals, because we are capable of discovering universal principles about the physical universe. This is called scientific and technological progress, and when we apply that progress in the production process, then it leaves to an increase in the living standard, the longevity of people. So, I think we have reached the point now where the evolution of mankind is at a point where we have to adjust the political and economic order to the actual lawfulness of the physical universe, if we want to survive. That is not a new idea: That was actually a philosophical conception in Europe, it was called “natural law.” You have the same idea in other cultures. In India, for example, it’s called “cosmology,” where basically politics is supposed to implement the lawfulness of the cosmos. You have the same idea in Chinese philosophy, with the “Mandate of Heaven.” So in all great cultures, you have the idea that there is a higher lawfulness which we have to respect, or bring about destruction.

So I think we are in a very optimistic change of an epoch. I would call it that mankind is about to reach the age of adulthood.

SOLOVYOV: [laughs] That is very optimistic, should I say! But by reaching the age of adult, we have to face quite new challenges. One of them is that Europe is basically put in an Iron Curtain, by trying to recognize Russia as a “sponsor of terrorism” state, they are just cutting all possible ties that have been left, and it’s leading us to a completely new scenario. Europe without Russia is basically a very small place!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Right now, the mainstream media and the major political parties, as they are represented in the European Parliament, which made this resolution about Russian being a terrorist state, that is the surface. And if you only look at the mass media, you get the impression that that is everything there is. But we are organizing people: Look, there are demonstrations in all European countries, to end the war, to have a peaceful negotiation, use diplomacy already, and many people are demonstrating in east Germany, in Belgium, in France, in Italy, even in Great Britain. So I think, this is a very dangerous moment, obviously, but I think that as the crisis will become bigger, and you have hyperinflation, the energy prices, the food prices, I think we are heading towards a very big moment of decision. And what the Schiller Institute is trying to do, is we are organizing international conferences, which have to be virtual because of the still existing pandemic conditions, and we are trying to bring together people from all over the world.

I have initiated something which is called—I should explain—Friedrich Schiller, after whom the Schiller Institute is named, had the idea that there must not be contradiction between patriots and world citizens. So, given the fact that the danger of nuclear war makes everybody, instantly a world citizen, because the whole world is challenged, so I’ve called for a world citizens’ movement. And since I was born in Trier—which some people may recognize the importance of that—I have called for “World Citizens of All Countries, Unite!” [laughs] in which I find a certain irony.

But many people have responded. We’ve had three conferences already with many sitting and former parliamentarians, and former ministers and Presidents from Latin America, who have issued a call to all parliamentarians and elected officials of the world to join this movement, and fight essentially for these 10 principles, and a new security and development architecture.

SOLOVYOV: So you are still an optimist? Do you still think that humanity is going to survive?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes! You know, obviously, the danger is enormous, because if it comes to nuclear war, there will not be even an historian left to investigate the reasons why it came to this point. So I’m not unaware of the incredible danger. But I believe that the majority of the world is already creating a new system: The BRICS countries already have a GDP which is higher than that of the G7. And you saw at the recent G20 meeting, despite incredible pressure, the majority of the countries of the Global South do not want to change sides! Even the Trilateral Commission, which is really—not exactly my kind of organization—the Japanese representative of the Trilateral Commission just recently said, telling the United States and Great Britain, do not force us to choose sides between China and the United States, because if we are forced, we will choose China. This came from Japanese Trilateral Commission members!

So the spirit is really not—people do not want this geopolitical confrontation any longer. And I think there is a tremendous chance—look, Modi, who will chair the G20 in the coming year, just wrote a very beautiful statement, where he echoed essentially what I’m saying, that there are people who say that man is evil, but he says, no, the fact that there are so many aspirations in religion and philosophy that man is fundamentally good. And I think that with the leadership of India in the G20, you will see that the Global South will have a much great voice.

And we are trying to convince people in the United States and in Europe to join with that new system, rather than trying to oppose it. And, OK, maybe that will not function, but I’m optimistic that it’s the only choice: Because we have to get the United States and Europe to cooperate with the countries of the Global South and China. If the United States and China, which are the two largest economies of the world, are not working together, then no problem of the world can be solved. On the other side, if we succeed in showing that there is an advantage for everybody, to solve poverty—I mean poverty should be eliminated! It is the biggest violation of human rights you can imagine. So, all I want to say, is that what we are proposing is actually in cohesion with the wishes and desires of the world population.

SOLOVYOV: Well! But how can you imagine those guys in U.S., in U.K., in Germany, giving up the complex of superiority, where they still consider the other part of humanity, according to Kipling, half-beast, half-humans, as in the burden of the white man? So how can you imagine Americans suddenly recognizing that they’re not the chosen nation? They won’t count it! They don’t want to do it! No one ever gave up the complex of superiority before being defeated. There is no brain to apply to: Look at Biden! There is no brain to apply to! There is a number of stereotypes! And that’s about it.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, but look, Josep Borrell from the EU made this incredible statement that the EU is a beautiful garden…

SOLOVYOV: Yes, surrounded by jungle.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And that made him the laughingstock of the whole world!

SOLOVYOV: But he is an idiot! And he represents the diplomacy of the EU! What kind of idiot right now represents the EU as the top diplomat? That’s annoying!

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. But, in a certain sense, you have to laugh about it, as many countries of the Global South are doing.

The countries of the developing sector are right now in a mood where they recognize that this is the effort to keep the colonial order. But that is not—Look, all of these countries have a different tradition. The United States, for example, made their independence in the War of Independence against the British Empire. And the Constitution of the United States was the first real republic in the history of mankind, and if you look at the principles of Benjamin Franklin, of George Washington, of John Quincy Adams—John Quincy Adams said exactly what we are saying today, that you need a partnership of perfectly sovereign republics and the United States should not go out and look for foreign monsters. And then, Lincoln had the same idea. Franklin D. Roosevelt, when he designed the Bretton Woods system, it was meant as the first priority to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries. Even Kennedy had a beautiful idea about the role of technology would solve all the poverty in the Third World. So there is a tradition in the United States which is completely different. The problem with the United States right now is that they have adopted the model of the British Empire as the basis to rule the world in a unipolar world, in a unipolar style. But that is not the whole United States! The people of the United States are essentially good. It is what some people call the “MICIMATT”—you know, Ray McGovern—

SOLOVYOV: Right.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s the military-industrial complex, plus the Congress, plus the media, plus Silicon Valley, but that is a small minority. They look like the all-powerful force right now, but I think this other tradition of America is there, and we are trying very hard to make a revival of the best traditions of the United States.

SOLOVYOV: I hope that you succeed. I hope you succeed! Unfortunately, our time is running out. And excuse my smile: The reason is that my wife’s name is Olga Sepp [ph], so when I see Helga Zepp, I feel like I’m talking to a relative, should I say! [laughter]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That’s funny!

SOLOVYOV: Yes, that’s quite unusual. And, I love what you’re saying! And I love your very sweet, idealistic, but very thought-through, based on the belief that human are better than they are.

The only minor thing is: The Founding Fathers of the United States, after all about democracy and “human rights,” shall we say, so they all owned slaves. So, their definition of free men, were only for WASPs, and that’s what makes us Russians being so careful when we’re dealing with the West—the definition of every word. You have to be sure that you understand words in the same way. In any other case, we’re running into problems all the time.

It was a pleasure, and I to continue our discussions in the coming future. [hzl]

Den 6. dec. 2022 (EIRNS) – Mange mennesker hævder, at forslaget om, at nationer og folkeslag kan finde sammen til gavn for hele menneskeheden, er utopisk nonsens, aldrig vil ske og ikke er muligt, fordi enkeltpersoner, og derfor nationer, i bund og grund udelukkende lever “for deres egen skyld”, og ikke for alvor bekymrer sig om andre end “deres egne”. Det, insisterer visse, er “den menneskelige natur”.

Narendra Modi, premierministeren i Indien, en gammel nation, hvis befolkning udgør en sjettedel af den samlede menneskehed, er lodret uenig i dette synspunkt.

Indien overtog formandskabet for G20-landene den 1. december. I en artikel, der blev offentliggjort samme dag på hans blog og i den indiske presse, skrev Modi, at Indien har til hensigt at bruge det år, hvor landet har formandskabet for denne gruppe af forskellige nationer, til at fremme “… et grundlæggende skift i tankegang til gavn for menneskeheden som helhed”.

Han argumenterer: Menneskeheden har hidtil levet under forhold med knaphed og kæmpet om begrænsede ressourcer, og den er stadig “fanget i det samme nulsumspil” den dag i dag. Det kan nu ændres, for “i dag har vi midlerne til at producere tilstrækkeligt til at opfylde de grundlæggende behov hos alle mennesker i verden…. Teknologien af i dag tilvejebringer ligeledes midlerne til at løse problemerne for hele menneskeheden.” At opnå dette bør være dagsordenen for G20-processen, erklærede han.

 Modi er klar: Det er ikke kun, at vi nu har midlerne til at tage os af alle, men det er menneskets grundlæggende natur at ville sørge for det. Premierministeren anførte:

“Nogle vil måske hævde, at konfrontation og grådighed netop er menneskets natur. Jeg er uenig. Hvis mennesker i sagens natur var egoistiske, hvad ville så forklare den vedvarende tiltrækningskraft af så mange spirituelle traditioner, der hylder, at vi alle grundlæggende er ét?”

Schiller Instituttet er helt enig! Schiller Instituttets leder Helga Zepp-LaRouches insisteren på at inspirere til begrebet “Én Menneskehed”, som alle nationer deltager i, er i sidste ende baseret på det sidste af de ti principper, som hun fremlagde den 22. november som “stof til eftertanke og en dialog mellem alle mennesker, der er engagerede for at finde et grundlag for en verdensorden, der garanterer den menneskelige arts varige eksistens”. I hendes tiende princip fastslås følgende:

Den bærende antagelse for det nye paradigme er, at mennesket grundlæggende er godt og i stand til uendeligt at perfektionere sit sinds kreativitet og sin sjæls skønhed, og at det er den mest avancerede geologiske kraft i universet, hvilket beviser, at sindets og det fysiske univers’ lovmæssighed er i overensstemmelse og sammenhæng, og at alt ondt er resultatet af manglende udvikling og derfor kan overvindes.

Modi skrev, at “Indiens G20-formandskab vil bestræbe sig på at fremme denne universelle følelse af enhed”. På to møder den 5. december foreslog han lederne af alle Indiens politiske partier og også sit eget, BJP, at de i løbet af det kommende år også skulle være med til at bringe denne diskussion til Indiens enorme, forskelligartede befolkning.

I dag har Ruslands velkendte økonom og nuværende minister med ansvar for integration og makroøkonomi i Den eurasiske økonomiske Kommission, Sergey Glazyev, givet sit besyv med i denne globale dialog. Han postede Zepp-LaRouches ti principper på sin Telegram-kanal med kommentaren: “Gode forslag fra @ZeppLaRouche om principperne for overgangen til et nyt globalt sikkerhedssystem”.

Den russiske præsidents assistent, Jury Ushakov, åbnede ligeledes det årlige Primakov-læsningsforum med en henvisning til de nye principper, der giver liv til nye institutioner. “[Man] kan allerede nu antage, at en ny stærk, konstruktiv kraft er ved at tage form på eurasisk jord, det, man kan kalde verdensflertallet, som forsvarer retfærdige og universelle principper og tilgange”, sagde han og bemærkede, at Afrika og Latinamerika også afviser en verdensorden baseret på “regler bestemt af hvem som helst” frem for de fælles interesser.

Saudi-Arabien forbereder sig på at byde den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping velkommen på onsdag til en række møder i denne uge med deltagelse af omkring 30 nationer, herunder et kinesisk-arabisk topmøde og et møde i Kinas og Golfstaternes Samordningsråd. Kina har fremlagt sine egne principper for, hvordan man kan katalysere den generelle udvikling gennem landets Globale Udviklings- og Globale Sikkerhedsinitiativer.

Den verdensomspændende diskussion om de principper, som Schiller Instituttets Zepp-LaRouche forsøgte at fremprovokere, er i gang og breder sig hurtigt. Indien, Rusland og Kina udgør ikke små aktører!

Er det ikke på tide, at amerikanerne og europæerne stiger ned fra deres høje heste og slutter sig til resten af menneskeheden som bevidste partnere for at føre menneskeheden ind i en helt ny epoke, hvor nationer samarbejder til gensidig fordel for alle og enhver?

Det globale malthusianske oligarki, der er samlet omkring den britiske krone og dets amerikanske lakajer, betragter sig selv som en særskilt art og agter ikke give op så let. Men hvad så? Som den engelske digter og patriot Percy Shelley skrev: “I er mange, de er få”.

Foto: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, Pexels, CCO

Den 7. december 2022 (EIRNS) – “Jeg håber, at I får succes. Jeg håber det lykkes for jer!”

Det var de afsluttende bemærkninger fra Vladimir Solovyov, vært for “Solovyov Live”, Ruslands store tv-talkshow, der følges af millioner af seere, ved afslutningen af et 21 minutter langt interview i morges med Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I diskussionen havde Zepp-LaRouche advaret om, at “vi allerede befinder os i en krigstilstand mellem NATO og Rusland, og mange mennesker i adskillige lande er ekstremt bekymrede for, at dette kan føre til atomkrig”. Hun hævdede, at en sådan krig ville betyde civilisationens udslettelse, og at “det er derfor, jeg har foreslået principper, 10 principper, for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som i høj grad tager udgangspunkt i eksemplet med den Westfalske Fred, der afsluttede 150 års religionskrig i Europa. Og jeg kæmper virkelig meget hårdt for at få dette på dagsordenen, før det er for sent.”

Efter at have adspurgt Zepp-LaRouche om, hvordan dette var muligt, i betragtning af den nuværende forpligtelse i Vesten til unipolær plyndring og angreb på suverænitet; og efter at have lyttet opmærksomt til hendes detaljerede forklaring om, at “der er en tradition i USA, som er fuldkommen anderledes” end den nuværende politik, en tradition, der går tilbage til Washington, Quincy Adams, Lincoln og FDR; svarede Solovyov: “Jeg elsker det du siger!”, og roste Zepp-LaRouches “idealistiske, men meget gennemtænkte” politiske forslag – samtidig med at han med forsigtighed bemærkede, at russerne skal være “så varsomme, når vi har med Vesten at gøre”.

Senere på dagen tildelte Mexicos Journalistklub deres prestigefyldte 2022-pris for “fremme af ytringsfrihed” til Schiller Instituttet og dets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, for instituttets modige kamp for retfærdighed og udvikling for alle nationer.

I sit videobudskab med påskønnelse, som blev afspillet ved prisoverrækkelsen i overværelse af en stor del af den nationale og internationale presse i Mexico samt landets øverste politiske repræsentanter, understregede Zepp-LaRouche endnu en gang, at “vi befinder os på et utroligt afgørende tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, hvor vi på den ene side er truet af en mulig global atomkrig, på den anden side af den hurtige fremkomst af en ny retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden”. Hun tilføjede, at “Mexico kan spille en enestående rolle, ikke blot for at hjælpe med at få hele Latinamerika til at arbejde med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, men i betragtning af dets historiske og geografiske placering kan det gøre noget, som menneskehedens eksistens kunne afhænge af: at få USA og Kina, de to største økonomier på planeten, til at arbejde sammen om en fælles udvikling af det latinamerikanske kontinent og hele det Globale Syd.”

Der opnås imponerende fremskridt i retning af en sådan ny international arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling i mange dele af verden – uden for USA og Europa. Den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping, ankom f.eks. i dag til Saudi-Arabien for at deltage i tre beslægtede topmøder (Kina-Saudi-Arabien, Kina-arabiske stater og Kina-Golf Samarbejdsrådet). Udenrigsministeriets talskvinde Mao Ning meddelte, at besøget “vil udgøre en epokegørende milepæl i de arabisk-kinesiske forbindelsers historie”, og at “vi håber, at vi i fællesskab kan handle i forbindelse med det Globale Udviklingsinitiativ og det Globale Sikkerhedsinitiativ, gøre fremskridt med hensyn til Bælte- og Vej-samarbejdet af høj kvalitet og bidrage til fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten og i verden som helhed”.

På samme måde har den kinesiske regering netop annonceret færdiggørelsen af en 10 km lang tunnel under Yangtze-floden, som vil indeholde tre naturgasrørledninger, hvilket er en afgørende komponent i den 8.100 km lange østrute-rørledning, som Kina og Rusland aftalte at bygge tilbage i 2019, og som vil forsyne Shanghai med russisk gas inden 2025.

I mellemtiden er Storbritannien sunket ned i en depression, som ifølge Confederation of British Industry vil være ensbetydende med “et tabt årti” for den økonomiske vækst – det næstværste i Europa, kun overgået af Tyskland. Ungarn har erklæret en energikrise, da folk er begyndt at hamstre den knappe benzin og andre produkter, og forventer en 30 % mangel på de nødvendige energiforsyninger. Og i USA har FED’s desperate renteforhøjelser været med til at udløse et fysisk økonomisk sammenbrud og hyperinflation på samme tid.

Således LaRouche-faktoren. “Vi forsøger at overbevise folk i USA og Europa om, at de skal tilslutte sig det nye system i stedet for at forsøge at modsætte sig det”, forklarede Zepp-LaRouche i sit interview med Solovyov. “Jeg er optimistisk og tror, at dette er det eneste valg: Fordi vi er nødt til at få USA og Europa til at samarbejde med landene i det Globale Syd og Kina.”

Den 5. dec. 2022 (EIRNS) – Selv mens Victoria Nuland (planlæggeren af kuppet i 2014) stormer til Kiev for at fremme en ubarmhjertig kamp mod Rusland, snarere end nogen form for forhandling, og mens ukrainske embedsmænd stiller betingelser for forhandlinger, der effektivt fuldstændigt udelukker diskussioner med Rusland, er der voksende kræfter i hele verden, der modsætter sig USA’s, Storbritanniens og NATO’s hensigt om at knuse Rusland og Kina. Men vil disse kræfter finde den nødvendige organisering og ledelse til at fremtvinge et paradigmeskifte?

De seneste begivenheder tyder på, at dette er en tid for store forandringer:

Elon Musk gør rent i Twitters beskidte,”augeiasiske” stalde, ved gennem journalister at offentliggøre samarbejdet bag kulisserne med regerings- og politiske embedsmænd for at træffe afgørelser om mådeholdenhed, herunder op til valget i USA i 2020. Hvis en sådan koordinering ikke er indblanding i valget, sagde Musk, så ved han ikke, hvad der er det. Den proces, han har sat i gang, kan spille en vigtig rolle i frigørelsen af den velovervejede tankegang, og modvirke tendensen til stigende censur under dække af at afsløre (endog på forhånd) det der kaldes “misinformation”.

At den franske præsident Emmanuel Macrons lunkne forslag om støtte til Ruslands sikkerhedsinteresser blev mødt med et ramaskrig af modstand fra ukrainske embedsmænd afspejler ikke styrken af den ukrainske position, men hvorledes dens opretholdelse afhænger af at forhindre diskussion af situationen i området.

I Kina blev protesterne mod COVID-foranstaltningerne offentliggjort af vestlige medier som værende muligvis et varsel om præsident Xi Jinpings undergang. Men Kina har blot foretaget en fornuftig opdatering af sine COVID-foranstaltninger i samarbejde med sundhedseksperter og ledere af tænketanke.

I mellemtiden viser den kaotiske situation i USA’s politiske diskurs, at der er behov for en ledelseskvalitet, som ellers mangler hos offentlige personligheder “fra gængse rækker”.

Menneskehedens fælles mål ses i den ceremonielle start på opførelsen af “Square Kilometer Array-teleskopet” den 5. december og den 207 sekunder lange affyring af Artemis’ Orion-kapsel kun 126 km. fra Månen, hvilket sætter den på kursen til at vende tilbage til Jorden i løbet af næste uge.

Men den kvalitet af drøftelserne, der er nødvendig for at skænke verden en fred præget af bekæmpelse af fattigdom, infrastruktur og økonomisk fremgang samt kulturel forbedring – den eneste mulige form for fred i dag – leveres fortsat af LaRouche-bevægelsen, og er senest illustreret i de ti principper for en ny verdensarkitektur, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har fremlagt til videre diskussion. (https://laroucheorganization.com/article/2022/11/24/ten-principles-new-international-security-and-development-architecture )

Helga Zepp-LaRouche omtalt på CGTN

Det strategiske landskab for BVI: Fortid, nutid og fremtid

“Så, landene i Vesten bliver nødt til at træffe et valg i den kommende tid: Enten vil de holde fast i deres ideologisk motiverede politik og blive mere og mere marginaliserede, eller også vil de ihukomme deres bedste traditioner og beslutte sig for at samarbejde med den nye økonomiske orden, som er ved at opstå.”

Fru LaRouche var med i et CGTN-indslag i denne uge, hvor hun skarpt beskrev den virkelighed, som den vestlige verden står over for.

CGTN TV:

“Når man ser tilbage på de seneste ni år, har Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet (BVI) frembragt en lang række resultater, såsom højhastighedsbanen Jakarta-Bandung, Phnom Penh-Sihanoukville-ekspresbanen, Kina-Laos-jernbanen, Velana Internationale Lufthavn osv. 

Hvad er de vigtigste faktorer for en vellykket gennemførelse af BVI-projekterne? I 2023 markerer Kina 10-årsdagen for BVI i Kina. Hvilken udviklingsretning bør man koncentrere sig om i de kommende år? Og hvilket område vil være toneangivende i fremtiden? Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, for at få mere indsigt.”

Link til video her:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-12-03/A-strategic-landscape-of-BRI-Past-present-and-future-1fsxJB1SHsc/index.html

Engelsk transskription:

Dec. 3, 2022 (EIRNS)—CGTN TV broadcast a 15-minute special video featuring Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on Dec. 3, under the headline, “Strategic Landscape of the Belt & Road Initiative—Past, Present and Future.” Her presentation was illustrated with beautifully composed photography. Below is a transcript, giving the questions and her answers. (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-12-03/A-strategic-landscape-of-BRI-Past-present-and-future-1fsxJB1SHsc/index.html)

Looking back at the past 9 years, BRI has made a lot of achievements, such as the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway, Phnom Penh-Sihanoukville Expressway, China-Laos Railway, Velana International Airport, etc. What are the key factors to implementing all these BRI projects successfully? Do you think these cases can be replicated on other projects? Do these cases prove that BRI is of interest for both parties?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: In all of these cases, and one could add the CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] or projects in Africa, these transport projects provided, often for the first time, the beginning of the construction of modern infrastructure in countries of the developing sector. They always bring an improvement in the speed and access for the movement of goods and people, save an enormous amount of time, always create the framework for investments in industry and agriculture, sometimes are enlarged with investments in energy production and distribution and communication, and often are the beginning of entire development corridors, opening up landlocked areas for development.

As one could see with the joy and pride with which President Widodo announced the opening of the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway at the occasion of the G20 summit in Bali, these projects contain within them the hope for a better future of the respective country. The tragic earthquake occurring within days after the G20 summit in Indonesia on the island Java, killing so far 162 people, just underlines the need to finally install a global earthquake early warning system, since the effect of such natural disasters can only be minimized through better infrastructure systems.

If one looks in the history of the development of the so-called advanced countries, let it be the United States, Germany, Japan, or Russia, the building of a grid of national infrastructure was always the beginning of industrialization. The criticism by the West of the BRI, that it would be an effort by “China to take over the world,” create debt traps, create dependencies, etc. are thinly veiled cover stories. The former colonial powers had a long time to build railways, roads and industrial parks in their former colonies, but obviously they didn’t. So the BRI has spread so quickly by finding the cooperation with 140 countries, because these nations often see the participation in the BRI as the first real chance to overcome poverty and underdevelopment and create a hopeful future for their citizens.

It is the natural course of the advancement of mankind, that eventually all nations will enjoy the infrastructural, industrial and agricultural conditions for a decent living standard of their populations. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which destroyed approximately 500 million jobs and the ongoing threat of a world famine, the world needs the creation of around 1.5 billion new productive jobs. Many of these can be facilitated by developing continentally integrated grids of railways, highways, waterways in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, as well as creating the energy requirements for an improved living standard of the people in the Global South. The fact, that circa 2 billion people don’t have access to clean water, points to the need to create new fresh water sources, through water management, as well as the investments in desalination projects with the help of small nuclear reactors, ionization of the atmosphere, or accessing aquifers.

One of the most exciting projects of the BRI is the ongoing engagement of Chinese companies building a massive science city in Iraq, under the landmark oil-for-projects agreement signed with Baghdad in 2019. There are other such science-city projects underway with different countries of the Global South, which will allow them to educate a great number of students in advanced sciences, and in this way make it possible for the country to leapfrog from underdevelopment, to a modern, science-oriented economy.

Until August 2022, nearly 60,000 China railway expresses have been launched, and more than 250 companies joined the “Silk Road Maritime Association,” 12 trillion yuan invested in BRI countries, besides, BRI created over 340,000 jobs. What are the impacts of these developments for the global economic landscape?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: While the world economy overall has been sluggish, investments in infrastructure in Europe and the U.S. are dangerously lagging behind and geopolitically motivated sanctions are completely backlashing against especially European economies, the Chinese economy and the BRI have been the true motor of the the world economy. China is the largest trade partner for the U.S., the EU and ASEAN. But the most important aspect of the BRI projects is that they are all investments in physical economy, therefore, they represent real assets, as compared to investments in monetary values, which can evaporate in a crash. These investments remain physical assets, even if many of the monetarist values are being wiped out by the hyperinflation now threatening the financial sector of the neoliberal system.

What are the challenges to the BRI so far?
The most significant challenge comes from a negative shift in the attitude of some Western governments, think tanks and media, which first ignored this largest infrastructure project in the history of mankind, the BRI, for about four years, but then from 2017 on started to portray the BRI as an expression of China’s “imperial designs.” Initially many people and entrepreneurs in the U.S. and European nations reacted very enthusiastically to the “New Silk Road,” once they learned about it, for example from the Schiller Institute or people doing business with China. After these politicians, think tanks and media started to paint China as a “strategic competition” and “systemic rival,” the public opinion became influenced negatively.

This could be reversed, however, because of the present tumultuous political developments, with challenges even to the existence of some European nations as industrial states. More efforts have to be made to show the advantages these European nations would have if they engage in joint ventures together with China in investments in third countries. Under conditions of hyperinflation and even energy blackouts, the cooperation with China can become the lifeboat for many countries.

Follow up questions: according to BBC, EU launches €300 billion bid to challenge Chinese influence, meanwhile, leaders detail $600 billion plan to rival BRI at G7 summit 2022. What is your assessment of all the initiatives which are similar to BRI (e.g. Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), Build Back Better World (B3W) Partnership, Global Gateway initiatives, etc.)?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: So far, neither the United States nor the EU has come up with anything to match China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The so-called Build Back Better plan was repeatedly reduced in size, scope and cost, ultimately rejected through procedural tactics used in the Congress, and bits of it finally included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. “The EU’s Global Gateway is already delivering,” Ursula von der Leyen claimed during her State of the Union speech in September, but the question is, for whom? She did not mention the word “development” once, there is no fresh money allocated for it, and it is just a rebranding of previous plans like the Juncker plan, which went nowhere, since it counted on a combination of public investments, loan guarantees and private investments, which never came.

The key problem is that the G7 has no passion to alleviate poverty in the Global South through real economic development, but they want to export their Malthusian ideology as a geopolitical weapon against China. But they don’t realize that the countries of the Global South can see that the Emperor is naked. As long as the leaders of the G7 are sitting on their high horse, like Josep Borrell, who thinks the EU is a garden and the rest of the world is a jungle, their ideological blindfolds will mean that they are living in a delusional world.

[Continued exchange:]

In 2023, China will mark the tenth anniversary of BRI, which development direction should be concentrated on in the next 5 years? And what field will be trending in the future? What do you think about the ‘Digital Silk Road’ and the ‘Green Belt and Road Initiative’?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think that one of major foci should remain building basic infrastructure in all the countries who wish to cooperate. That is the key precondition for everything else. Then, the pandemic has demonstrated that the building of the Global Health Silk Road, a modern health system in every single country on the planet, is a top priority.

Obviously the Digital Silk Road carries the promise that the countries of the Global South can leapfrog to some of the most advanced technologies provided it is combined with appropriate education programs. They do not have to march through all stages of development which the industrial countries passed through during the last 200 years, but, with the help of China and like-minded countries, they will be able to catch up in the foreseeable future.

The Digital Silk Road will bring dramatic changes in the next period as artificial intelligence and robots will increasingly replace traditional human physical work, setting human beings free to spend much more time for lifelong learning. This means that coming generations will have a much greater opportunity to develop all potentialities embedded in every single individual, something which is now completely wasted for billions of people who have to worry that they get their meal for the next day. Naturally the education of the mind and the aesthetic education of the character have to go along with these breakthroughs in science and technology and their application in the production process. But many Asian countries have already found the key to that problem, by reviving their sometimes 5,000-year-old cultures with an optimistic outlook for the potential of the future. So the Digital Silk Road and the Cultural Silk Road should be seen as part of the same project.

Also the Space Silk Road is related to that, because the extension of infrastructure into nearby space will represent the indispensable next phase in the evolution of mankind. Several countries of the Global South already have demonstrated great interest in participating in space programs. So there is all reason for optimism for the future of humanity.

Facing the severe global economic situation, how do BRI projects help participators cope with the economic downturn?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: As one can see now the central banks of the G7 are trapped in the hopeless contradiction between quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT). Eventually soon, only an end to the casino economy can resolve that problem. Several countries of the Global South are already reacting to the weaponization of the dollar system by designing their own international currency and a new credit system.

The Chinese economic miracle demonstrates also another interesting aspect, namely that continuous innovation eliminates the occurrence of so called long term economic cycles.

So the countries of the West will have to make a choice in the coming period, either they will stick to their ideologically motivated policies and become increasingly marginalized, or they will remind themselves of their better traditions and decide to cooperate with the emerging new economic order.

Given the immediate threat of deindustrialization of the German economy, because the German government follows policies dictated by the Anglo-Americans in the confrontation against Russia, the sanctions, and weapons deliveries to Ukraine, we will go into a very dramatic weeks and months in the coming winter. And if the German economy collapses, it will affect all other European economies. There are more and more people demonstrating in many German cities, against the sanctions, against the high food and energy prices, and for a negotiated end to the war. Germany is an export-oriented economy, and therefore, the possibility to participate in projects of the BRI, in joint ventures together with China and other participating countries, is the only recognizable way how a deep depression in all of Europe can be avoided. And naturally, in many countries of the Global South there is already a total spirit of optimism concerning the chances the BRI offers to them. [dns][mgm]

Den 2. dec. 2022 (EIRNS) – Webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, jeg er Harley Schlanger, og velkommen til vores ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. I dag er det den 1. december 2022.

Som vi har rapporteret for nylig, vokser faren fortsat for at snuble eller fumle sig ind i en atomkrig med aldeles ukontrollerede udtalelser fra forskellige NATO-embedsmænd, amerikanske embedsmænd, som briterne støtter: Så vi vil starte med en gennemgang af dette, fordi det generelt ikke bliver afdækket på en fyldestgørende måde for det vestlige publikum. Helga, du nævnte tidligere udtalelsen fra Ryabkov: Russerne tager situationen meget alvorligt, ikke sandt?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Viceudenrigsminister Ryabkov udtalte, at han er ganske bekymret over, hvor afslappet folk taler om en begrænset atomkrig i Europa, at det er meget farligt, og det er præcis det, jeg har understreget ved de seneste taler og konferencer. Hvis man begynder at tro, at det er naturligt at bruge et atomvåben, så overskrider man virkelig grænsen. Vi har flere videoer på vores hjemmeside – og se dem venligst – hvor vi meget tydeligt viser, hvad der sker i en atomkrig [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0zlyfhz7hk]. Det er civilisationens undergang, og det er det som disse mennesker er i færd med at lege med.

Det er altså ikke folk, der er sådan, det er regeringerne: Det er NATO-regeringerne, det er den amerikanske, den britiske og den tyske regering (og vi kommer til det om lidt), men det er ikke befolkningerne. Vi har i mange diskussioner, i Europa, i Tyskland – især dér, fordi jeg tror, at der er større bevidsthed om hvad krig er, end det er tilfældet i USA – folk er ved at blive ret desperate, fordi de ser hvordan flere våben sendes til Ukraine, som blev nævnt igen på NATO’s udenrigsministermøde den 29.-30. november, eller ideen om, at der ikke er nogen grænse for støtten til Ukraine, hvad det så end betyder. General Kujat (pensioneret) har dybest set ment, at hvis man påstår det, overdrager man en del af sin statsmagt til den ukrainske regering, for det er op til dem at afgøre, hvornår det er nok. Dette er ved at bevæge sig ind i en meget farlig retning.

Derefter følger disse usaglige udtalelser fra Ursula von der Leyen om, at EU vil konfiskere de russiske aktiver, som europæiske banker på en eller anden måde har fået fat i, hvilket blev imødegået meget skarpt af Maria Zakharova, talskvinde for det russiske udenrigsministerium. Hun erklærede, at de vil reagere, det er endnu ikke klart hvordan, men hvis det sker, vil de træffe lignende foranstaltninger: De kan konfiskere europæiske virksomheders ejendom: Dette er en spiral med optrapning, som helt og aldeles er imod Europas interesser.

For ganske kort tid siden så jeg yderligere en video af Scott Ritter fra en tysk platform ved navn “Counterpole” – Gegenpol – og jeg kan kun anbefale jer alle at se den, fordi han udfordrer nu den tyske befolkning for anden gang [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6Su8YARJg] eller tredje gang på en meget direkte facon, hvor han udtaler: Hvad er denne regering? Har de været medskyldige i sabotagen af Minsk-processen? Tyskland og Frankrig havde ansvaret for at sikre, at Minsk-aftalen ville blive gennemført, og de foretog sig tydeligvis ikke noget i flere år. I mellemtiden har Ukraines tidligere præsident Porosjenko meget åbent tilkendegivet, at “de udelukkende lod som om, at de ville gå med i Minsk-aftalen, som alligevel aldrig rigtig blev gennemført, for at have yderligere fire og et halvt års tid til at træne de ukrainske tropper op til NATO-standard”.

Så Scott Ritter påpeger på en meget polemisk facon: “Hvad er der galt med den tyske regering? Vidste de noget om det? Vidste de, at hele Minsk-arrangementet var en fuser for at forberede de ukrainske tropper på kampen mod Rusland? Eller, hvis de ikke vidste det, er de så en del af NATO?  Han siger i bund og grund, hvilket desværre er ret indlysende, at denne tyske regering bare tumler af sted, at de ikke tager initiativ til noget, at de reagerer; i mellemtiden er den tyske økonomi ved at blive skudt i sænk. Amerikanske LNG- [gas-] og andre virksomheder opnår en gigantisk fortjeneste, mens de europæiske økonomier bryder sammen. Vi er på vej ind i det største sammenbrud af industrien i den tyske økonomi, men derefter vil det på grund af den tyske økonomis størrelse og betydning for hele Europa føre til en gigantisk økonomisk nedtur for Europa! Ritter spørger altså ganske polemisk: Er det jeres venner? Er det jeres allierede?

Jeg mener, at det er en utrolig situation. Han siger endda i endnu skarpere toner, at disse embedsmænd, der accepterer denne politik, begår forræderi mod det tyske folk.

Det er stærke ord, men hvis man tænker på, hvad der er på spil, og hvilken utrolig propagandakrig der udkæmpes, hvor NATO-landene og de såkaldte vestlige demokratier lader som om, at de er de gode, og Rusland og Kina og alle disse “autokratiske regimer” er de onde, ser virkeligheden helt anderledes ud; befolkningen bliver imidlertid tilpasset til at følge med, men de går med til deres egen undergang. Så på en måde er det bedre, hvis folk polemisk rejser disse spørgsmål, før det er for sent, men det er en meget, meget farlig situation.

Resten på engelsk:

SCHLANGER: You mentioned von der Leyen, and one of her statements was on making Russia and its oligarchs pay to compensate Ukraine. She said, “We have the means to make Russia pay,” which sounds a lot like Biden, when he promised that the Nord Stream pipeline would not be brought online. Now, at the same time, the European Union issued a call for a special court for a war crimes tribunal to prosecute Russian senior officials. I don’t think they ever did that for the U.S. policy of Cheney and others to destroy Iraq, Afghanistan—Hillary Clinton and others in Libya—this is the height of arrogance coming from the European Commission and von der Leyen, isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And hypocrisy. You know, it is that an Iraqi court right now has indicted Trump and Pompeo for the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil. So, at least, there is some reaction of this sort. But you are absolutely right, the blatant hypocrisy and double standard of accusing Russia and China for everything, but the West is condoning these things and covering it up, and this is definitely something we have to raise.

SCHLANGER: You had mentioned some of the problems coming out of Germany from the German government. German President Steinmeier had made some comments. There just seems to be no end to the piling on, to make it seem as though Germany is the most loyal member of NATO.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah. Steinmeier is now so concerned about human rights in China, and the protests against the COVID measures. On that, I should just note, if you calculate how many people died in China, 5,700; and if you extrapolate the number of people living in China, which is more than three times, almost four times as much as the United States—if China would have had the same death ratio as the United States, they would have had 4.7 million deaths, and compare that to the 5,700. So, it is quite possible that some people are annoyed by the continued measures China is taking for its zero COVID policy, but these are a few thousand people as compared to 1.4 billion in the whole country.

And the idea that Steinmeier is so concerned about their freedom of expression, I can only laugh about that: Because one German court, and I think the Bundestag as well had made a legislation, confirmed a change in paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code, article 5, which was an attachment to other legislation, and it means a tremendous sharpening of the law against so-called “incitement.” According to that, if you cover up any war crimes, or if you say something which could lead to an increase in hatred, but, as several legal experts have noted, this is such a rubble paragraph, that it gives room for the courts and police, it opens up the floodgate to completely suppress any opinion! If you take that together with another atrocity, namely an EU guideline for teachers, whereby they’re supposed to “pre-bunk” pupils, that is, children, against Russian propaganda. Now, “debunking” means if somebody says something bad, you can always debunk it: You say this is not true, and say what you think is the truth. But “pre-bunking” means that you inoculate people in such a way that they don’t even get the idea to ask questions. So they have made a whole list of things you are not allowed to say, for example, “NATO expansion is hurting the interest of Russia”; “NATO is aggressive”; and there’s a whole list of things, or there is even a pre-history to the war in Ukraine, all of these things are supposed to be forbidden. And pupils, that is, children, are supposed to be psychologically vaccinated against any such interpretation.

Now, in my view, this is not “freedom of expression” Mr. Steinmeier, this is a dictatorship. This is mind control. And we are now doing an investigation into the various, many, many efforts to completely manipulate the debate. Many people complain about the fact that there is no more discourse, you cannot have different opinions; and I’m afraid this does not mean we are living in a democracy, it means we are living, increasingly, in an authoritarian regime.

SCHLANGER: On this note, an interesting development this last week, Nina Jankowicz, who was run out as the attempted disinformation czar in the United States, has now returned as a registered British agent. So it makes it clear where these narratives are coming from.

I’d like to bring up, on this question, the proliferation of discussion from the Pentagon and leading officials, of the threat from China. One of the topics taken up at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, with Blinken and [NATO head] Stoltenberg joining arms on this, was the need to have a global NATO, to confront China. You have all sorts of developments around this. Helga, what do you have on that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The Pentagon must put out their annual global “China Military Power Report,” where they characterize China as a pacing threat, and they say that the idea of China that they want to have a “rejuvenation” of the Chinese nation by 2049 is a pacing threat, an existential threat to the United States. [https://www.defense.gov/CMPR/] Now, that shows you how absolutely ideological these people are. I’m familiar with the effort of China, or the programmatic intention to have this rebirth of the Chinese nation. Now what is wrong with that? China has been in history for millennia—and I emphasize, for millennia—the leading scientific and cultural nation in the world. That only stopped basically around the 15th century; and then they had the “century of humiliation,” which was the 19th century, and then they had the struggle which led to the formation of the People’s Republic of China, in 1949. And they have now defined as a goal that they want to have the rejuvenation of China by the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, by reviving the 5,000 years of history, by creating a modern socialist, culturally advanced, democratic country which is supposed to create happiness for the people.

Now, from everything I know, and I’m in contact with China experts from Western countries—from Germany, from Spain, from Italy, from Denmark, from other places. And people who are China experts, that is, not that you are blind to what is happening in China, but that you know something about Chinese history, Chinese economics, Chinese policies, that all the things that are being said about China, in terms that they want to change the world order to replace the American empire with a Chinese empire, it’s just completely wrong! It does not go along with what Chinese history is. And in a certain sense, it is their absolute sovereign right if they want to revive their tradition of being a great cultural, civilizational nation. And I think this is completely crazy, and it really something people should not fall for.

So I really think that the idea of the United States and China being in an adversarial relationship, who can it help? Not the United States, not the American people, but the British. And the British have put out another report: They have a Council on Geostrategy, it’s called. They have just put out a report, about being concerned about the Himalaya, and that has been a British Empire concern since way back, when, because of their manipulation at the point of Indian Independence, they split what are today Bangladesh and Pakistan from India; and they defined certain areas in the Himalayas as contested areas between India and China, for only one purpose—to keep stirring it up for future conflict. And in this report, they define the Himalayas as the “northern front of the Indo-Pacific” scenario. (https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/research/geopolitics-in-the-himalayas-towards-a-british-strategy/ )

This is ridiculous! The countries of Asia do not want to be pulled into this geopolitical confrontation, having to choose between the United States and China. And it is quite interesting that the Japanese representatives at the recent meeting of the Trilateral Commission, they invited the press for the first time to participate, and then, these Japanese participants said—warning from the Trilateral Commission of all places—they warned the U.S. not to force the countries of Asia to choose, because if they would be forced to choose, they would choose China.

So the sentiment of Asia is not to be pulled into this confrontation, but they want to cooperate in the BRICS-Plus, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), in all of these countries are moving under the pressure of the sanctions, with the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT agreement, they’re now moving to create their own financial system; and the West is pursuing policies which are contrary to the interest of the nations of Europe and the United States. So we should really not fall into this trap.

SCHLANGER: I think it’s interesting: This Council on Geostrategy is essentially putting forward the old arguments from the Great Game, as you mentioned, from the mid-19th century, as part of this pivot to Asia, and we see Adm. Charles Richard, who can’t seem to keep his mouth shut on these things, once again surfacing, talking about China as the “big one,” it’s coming up soon. But at the same time, we just had this very interesting vote in Taiwan elections, where it appears as though the people of Taiwan don’t want the United States to force them to choose independence. What’s your assessment of this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This is very interesting, because the DPP, the party of President Tsai Ing-wen, they just lost in a local elections in 21 jurisdictions, they only won 5 and Kuomintang (KMT) won 13. President Tsai resigned as the party leader of the DPP (she’s still Taiwan President), but it is very clear this was an overwhelming vote by the Taiwanese people for peace, they don’t want this confrontation. And the interesting thing is, this was not reported by the Western media at all. If you didn’t know about it, you would not find this information except as maybe a tiny note in one or two papers—but at the same time, there were massive reports about the “huge” demonstrations in China of maybe a couple of hundred people, with the white piece of paper, and it has all the signs that it was exactly like it happened in 1984 with the Tiananmen Square demonstration, that a lot of these people have been paid by foreign intelligence services. Some of them have confirmed that, already.

So you see how the manipulation occurs. But that does not change the fact that China is moving ahead. They just have sent three taikonauts to their Chinese space station, where they will be there for a short period of time with the three taikonauts who were already there. Then those three will return and new taikonauts will take over the post. Now, this is incredible, you know, and that is not reported as a great accomplishment.

And what’s even bigger, in my view, is the fact that the thermonuclear fusion research facility in Hefei just announced that they are confident that they will be able to have a continuous plasma fusion process by 2028 and that they will be able to put fusion-generated electricity directly into the grid by 2035! Now, that is an accomplishment for all of mankind, because once we have thermonuclear fusion, we have energy security on Earth, and that will mean that one major reason for war and conflict will be gone—but that is not newsworthy to these geopolitical warhawks. But that does not mean that China is not moving ahead on that, for the benefit—and they just have basically donated a tokamak fusion reactor to Thailand, for which they manufactured all the parts in China, and then is shipping it to Thailand. And that is what’s newsworthy, but that’s not being reported.

SCHLANGER: It’s mind-boggling when you look at the media, trying to find out what’s going on, and it’s nothing but a City of London/Wall Street continuing narrative.

You brought up the question earlier of mind control and the use of narratives, and censorship, and threats, open threats: that’s what the Committee to Counter Disinformation (CCD) of Ukraine is being used for by NATO to silence opposition. What do you make of the possibility that the situation around NATO unity is in grave danger. There was a former Reagan administration official, Bruce Fein, who came out this last week saying the United States should leave NATO. Do you see more of that tendency developing?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think so. Obviously, there are these demonstrations in all of Europe, in Italy, in France, in Belgium, in Germany, where people demand a stop in sending weapons to Ukraine, a stop to the sanctions, a stop to the inflation of the energy prices. So there is a lot of motion, and there is a big divide between the populations and the governments, that’s one thing. Then, there is obviously rifts in the trans-Atlantic unity. Politico for example, has an article in which they quote an unnamed EU official expressing anger about the fact that the American energy firms are becoming mega-rich, while Europe is going into a deep depression because LNG gas is being sold to Europe; it is four times as the energy prices were before, or even more.

So there are these tensions, and naturally, von der Leyen is on a rampage against Hungary. If they keep doing that, you may have Hungary exit—Hungexit, you would call it. And the EU is in general not in such a unity, whatsoever.

I think there are lone voices which make it into the news, like Oskar Lafontaine has made very sharp statements. [https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=90778] He has a new book out, in which he also demands that Europe should take its own self-interest. And there are some people who recognize that. But I think it’s far below what would be necessary. Because we are, right now, with this government—Chancellor Olaf Scholz is one thing; he has a mixed character; but I think Economy Minister Robert Habeck is completely ruining the Germany economy! If people are freezing to death in the winter, they can thank Habeck! If we get into a war with Russia, thank Baerbock: This woman, who is supposedly the foreign minister, she has no knowledge, she’s the most uninformed, most inadequate foreign minister Germany ever had! She has no knowledge of Russia, she has no knowledge of culture. She’s just a NATO tool, and the sooner people wake up to that, the better.

SCHLANGER: And then, in terms of shaping the opposition, you released this document of the 10 fundamental principles for achieving peace and security. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/) Last week, when we talked about this, we asked people to engage with us in a dialogue, circulate it, become involved in promoting it. We’re seeing some motion on that, but how do you see this moving? It seems to be somewhat slow, but starting to move.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think many of the participants in the conferences are quite active. [https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/21/conference-stop-the-danger-of-nuclear-war-now/] That may not show every day, because it takes time. We have the call by Mexican Congressman Robles, calling on elected officials all over the world. (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/16/letter-to-current-and-former-legislators-of-the-world/ ) That is moving. Then, the former President of Guyana Donald Ramotar just wrote a very biting article, which I find actually useful, because he says, the former colonial powers of Europe, are now the colonies. And he basically says the same thing as Scott Ritter, but he says it from the standpoint as a former President of a developing country.

So a lot of things are happening, and I can only say, it’s important to discuss these principles, because there’s also a discussion, are these 10 principles a programmatic statement? No, they are not. They are not a program: There’s a difference between a program, where you say we want to have certain projects economically, or Glass-Steagall or whatever. These are supposed to be principles which define the orientation of the effort: Like the Peace of Westphalia accomplished the very important principle that if you want to have a peace order, you need to take into account the interest of the other. That’s a principle, that’s not a program. And the idea to eliminate poverty, to absolutely have sovereignty, and the partnership of sovereign countries, these are principles, and not a program.

So, I can really only encourage people to engage in a discussion, because, it is the question, in light of the danger of nuclear extinction and a collapsing Western system, an emerging new system coming mainly from the BRICS countries and the Global South, can we give ourselves a political order which allows the long-term survivability of humanity? And that is something everybody should be concerned with, because if you’re not concerned with it, the oligarchy, for sure, is, and you’re just leaving them the room to make the rules.

SCHLANGER: So I think the point is, the discussion goes into the philosophical realm, not the pragmatic realm, and your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was always insisting that one of the weaknesses of people engaging in politics is that they’re looking for short-term pragmatic solutions, when, in fact, the solutions exist on a higher level.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this is why we not only have the effort to build a world movement of world citizens, in line with Friedrich Schiller, who stated there is no contradiction between a patriot and a world citizen. And the idea that people have to start thinking about the one humanity first, to think as a world citizen, is really a very important question, because you will not be able to solve this incredible conflict if you are thinking only in terms of national or regional considerations. And that is why the adjunct campaign, if you want, is very important: Namely, we have started to have our own Schiller choruses in many corners of the world, to perform this beautiful canon “Dona Nobis Pacem”—Give Us Peace—which is not only an expression of the desire to have world peace, it’s appeals to the higher nature of human beings. And we have now choruses singing in France, in Denmark, in Germany, in the United States, and we want to encourage any choir, church choir, other choirs, to join with us and sing this canon, as an expression of wanting to have world peace and avoid the annihilation of the human species. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXMhxZ2KBlw] So, go to our website, look at some examples, and become inspired, because that is bringing in this higher quality of humanity which is needed right now.

SCHLANGER: And also, in the Schiller Institute website, while you’re there, download Helga’s 10 principles for peace that she drafted as part of the followup to the meeting on Nov. 22 (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/30/ten-principles-of-a-new-international-security-and-development-architecture/). And you can also watch that video, because it’s very relevant for this discussion

Get involved in the discussion, send us your thoughts! You can always contact us through https://schillerinstitute.com.

Helga, anything else?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. But I think we’re going now into Advent, the Christmas period, where people are distracted by a lot of running around, shopping. And I am afraid that we are in for a surprise: There are now reports, both from Col. Douglas Macgregor (ret.) who said that he sees signs for a coming Russian offensive. Then there are Western reports about satellite pictures that 500,000 troops are amassing and a lot of activity is indicating that a new Russian offensive may be in the works. Various Ukrainian officials have said that they want to “take back” Crimea; British think tanks have said it should happen this year. So, I’m not so sure that we will have a peaceful Christmas, but that we may go into a period of heightened danger to civilization. And that’s why the idea to have an end to this war, to have negotiated solutions, diplomacy, is more urgent than ever. And obviously, the catalogue of a new security architecture is really what is required.

SCHLANGER: You can join us in building that new security architecture. And again, if you’re not a member, become a member of the Schiller Institute! (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/membership)

So, Helga, thanks for joining us again this week. And if all things work out, we’ll see you again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Den 30. november 2022 (EIRNS) – Kinas “Science and Technology Daily” rapporterede den 28. november om status for den omfattende forskningsfacilitet for fusionsteknologi (CRAFT), der er ved at blive bygget på Hefei Universitetet for videnskab og teknologi. Kina, fremgår det klart af rapporten, mener det alvorligt med at nå sit mål om at generere stabil fusionsenergi inden 2028 til anvendelse i et hybrid fission-fusionskraftværk og at skabe fusionsenergi direkte til elnettet inden 2035. Materialer og teknologier, der er nødvendige for at kontrollere fusionsreaktioner, afprøves i forvejen på CRAFT, et gigantisk kompleks, der vil være fuldt udbygget i 2024, som en del af det overordnede fusionsprojekt, forankret på universitetet, som er hjemsted for den superledende EAST-tokamak ( Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak) og det kinesiske videnskabsakademis institut for plasmafysik.

Det er en glædelig nyhed for alle på verdensplan. Det fænomenale fremskridt i menneskehedens magt på Jorden og i solsystemet, som vil følge af at beherske kontrollerede termonukleare fusionsreaktioner, har været velkendt i årtier. Lyndon LaRouche grundlagde Fusion Energy Foundation i 1974 for at fremme dens udbredelse, og da den amerikanske regering nedlagde den i 1987, var stiftelsens månedlige tidsskrift, Fusion, et af de mest populære videnskabelige tidsskrifter i USA.

Udviklingen af en økonomi fuldstændig baseret på fusionsenergi har taget så lang tid af rent politiske grunde, ikke af tekniske eller videnskabelige årsager. Det malthusianske, imperiale oligarki har været dens dødsfjende, men når folk forstår det næsten ubegrænsede fremskridt, som fusionskraft og de dertil knyttede teknologier kan tilvejebringe, er det slut med den malthusianske tankegang.

Kina er ikke udelukkende engageret i at udvikle fusion, men involverer også andre nationer for at få del i denne udvikling. For 12 dage siden meddelte Kinas institut for plasmafysik, at en af instituttets fire fungerende tokamaks (reaktorer) var blevet demonteret, forsvarligt pakket ned i seks containere og nu er klar til at blive sendt til Thailand i midten af december, hvor den vil blive monteret  og sat i drift på Thailands Institut for Atomteknologi!

Kina donerer tokamakken til Thailand og uddanner de thailandske videnskabsmænd og ingeniører, som skal betjene den. Når den officielt er sat i gang i første halvdel af næste år, vil videnskabsfolk og ingeniører fra alle de sydøstasiatiske lande kunne modtage den uddannelse, de ligeledes har brug for med henblik på at drive fremtidige fusionseksperimenter og -reaktorer i deres egne lande.

Denne handling er et mikrokosmos af en verdensorden, i samklang med menneskeheden.

Forestil dig, hvilke fremskridt der kunne gøres for at forbedre livet for alle mennesker på denne planet, hvis USA, Japan, Frankrig og Tyskland – for eksempel – handlede på samme måde.

Men i stedet truer de hidtil urystelige anglo-amerikanske magter og deres europæiske medløbere med deres bestialske syn på menneskeheden til stadighed med at udrydde selve menneskeheden. De er ikke tilfredse med den ødelæggelse, som deres krig mod Rusland har bragt over verden (herunder Ukraine), men forbereder sig på “den store”, som lederen af USA’s strategiske kommando, admiral Charles Richard, udtrykker det: en krig mod Kina.

I dag offentliggjorde Pentagon sin årlige “China Military Power Report”, hvori det erklæres, at Kinas beslutsomhed med hensyn til at fuldføre “den kinesiske nations opblomstring inden 2049” er det, der gør Kina til en trussel mod USA. Dagen før meddelte den amerikanske Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) , at den har oprettet en “Kina-missionsgruppe”, der skal integrere alt arbejde, som DIA udfører om Kina, fordi Kina udgør “en eksistentiel trussel mod USA’s langsigtede succes”.

Den britiske neokonservative tænketank, Council for Geostrategy, har lanceret en kampagne for at få Hans Majestæts regering til at hæve sine operationer mod Kina i Himalaya-regionen op på samme niveau som sit engagement i dets maritime Indo-Stillehavs-“udfald”. En af anbefalingerne er bl.a. at fremme den indisk-kinesiske grænsekonflikt. Modstand mod Kina stod højt på dagsordenen for NATO’s udenrigsministermøde på dets anden dag. NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg og udenrigsminister Tony Blinken erklærede inden mødet begyndte i dag, at NATO er forpligtet til at stå sammen mod Kina, idet Stoltenberg pralede med, at NATO har trænet og udrustet Ukraines væbnede styrker siden 2014.

USA’s militær fremviste for tredje gang demonstrativt en af sine ballistiske missilubåde, denne gang på den britiske militærbase på Diego Garcia midt i Det Indiske Ocean. Ligeledes meddelte USA’s strategiske kommando, at den tidligere i november havde gennemført en øvelse, Spirit Vigilance 2022, hvor det blev demonstreret, at otte stealth-bombefly kunne rulle ud og lette på én gang fra en flyveplads i Missouri.

Og de beklager sig over, at russiske og kinesiske strategiske bombefly fløj en fælles patrulje over Det Japanske Hav og Det Sydkinesiske Hav i dag?

Det er meget, meget skræmmende og fuldstændig unødvendigt, hvor dette er på vej hen. Mennesker er skabt til noget bedre, nemlig til at samarbejde om gensidig udvikling og til at glæde sig over det. Lad verdens borgere fatte mod og slutte sig til Schiller Instituttet for at etablere en verdensorden, der er værdig til princippet om, at mennesker er i stand til at regere selv, på vegne af hinanden.

Foto: Miguel Á. Padriñán, Pexels CCO

Den 29 november, 2022 (EIRNS) – “Dette utroligt vigtige øjeblik i historien … er fyldt med fare for, at den nuværende geopolitiske konflikt mellem NATO på den ene side og Rusland og Kina på den anden side eskalerer til en atomkrig, som kunne indebære menneskehedens udslettelse, men som også har potentiale til at udgøre vendepunktet til en helt ny og meget bedre epoke i menneskehedens historie,” indledte Helga Zepp-LaRouche sin tale til et publikum af videnskabsfolk, diplomater og studerende i dag på den internationale BRICS-skole.

At skabe denne meget bedre epoke forudsætter skabelsen af et nyt grundlag for relationer mellem nationer. Zepp-LaRouche har fremlagt ti principper for at gøre netop dette og præsenterede dem indledningsvis til diskussion ved et arrangement den 22. november i Schiller Instituttet. De er blevet offentliggjort i skriftlig form på dette link:

https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2022/11/ti-principper-for-en-ny-international-sikkerheds-og-udviklingsarkitektur/

Mens LaRouche-bevægelsen organiserer ledere og verdensborgere omkring dette perspektiv, er det nyttigt, at Patrick Lawrence (The Nation) har genset den historiske baggrund for Zepp-LaRouches forslag i en nylig artikel om Zhou Enlais fem principper for fredelig sameksistens – og deres udvidelse til de ti principper, der blev diskuteret af Den alliancefri Bevægelse i 1955 – som et alternativ til den såkaldte “regelbaserede orden”, der ikke er andet end en USA-Storbritannien-NATO-orden.

De fem principper er det første punkt på dagsordenen i Zepp-LaRouches koncept med en række specifikke mål og fremgangsmåder: afskaffelse af fattigdom, sikring af global sundhedspleje, universel uddannelse. Det transatlantiske finansielle/økonomiske system skal omorganiseres med disse mål for øje for gennem målrettet kredit at støtte den infrastrukturplatform, som er nødvendig for at bringe den økonomiske produktivitet op på et langt højere niveau. Geopolitik og truslen om atomkrig må afskaffes gennem indførelse af en fornuftig international fremgangsmåde, illustreret ved Nicolaus af Cusas tilgang til modsætninger. En optimistisk kultur af videnskab og skønhed, der er baseret på menneskets enestående fuldendte fornuft, er vejen til at overvinde det onde, som den utilstrækkelige udvikling udgør.

Der er hårdt brug for en sådan tilgang, og tiden er moden til, at store, nye idéer kan vinde indpas.

Truslen om atomkrig får flere og flere ledere til at bryde deres indre barrierer for at tale sandheden. Bidens patetiske bedrag som en ny FDR er helt åbenlyst i hans brutale krav om, at Kongressen skal tvinge jernbanearbejderne tilbage på arbejde uden selv den mest basale sygeorlov. Og mange af dem, der erkender den enorme fare ved at starte en atomkrig mod Rusland, bliver draget i retning af at opfordre til en revolution i Kina!

Tiden for en ny epoke er kommet. “Forudsat at vi kan samle den bedre del af menneskeheden omkring sådanne principper og således sætte den samlede menneskeheds interesse før alle særinteresser, vil vi være aktive skabere af det, der kan blive en smuk ‘Sternstunde der Menschheit’, en stjernestund for menneskeheden”, konkluderede Zepp-LaRouche, da hun afsluttede sine bemærkninger til BRICS-forsamlingen. “For Friedrich Schiller var der ingen modsætning mellem en patriot og en verdensborger, der ville tage hele menneskehedens skæbne i sit hjerte og sind. Så lad os skabe en verdensbevægelse af verdensborgere!”

Foto: Pexels, CCO

Den 28. nov. 2022 (EIRNS) — Jan Egeland, lederen af Norges Flygtningehjælp (NRC), sagde i et interview med Euronews, at der vil komme hundredtusindvis af ukrainske flygtninge den kommende vinter. “Det er i realiteten et valg mellem at fryse eller flygte”, udtalte han. “Derfor flygter rigtig mange mennesker frivilligt…. Europa må forberede sig på hundredtusindvis af nye flygtninge denne vinter, fra Norge i nord til de sydeuropæiske lande.” 

“Vi befinder os i et kapløb med uret,” sagde Egeland. “Jeg har rejst rundt i hele det sydlige og østlige Ukraine… og hver eneste by man kommer til er mørk, og folk fryser.”

Foto: Simon Berger, Pexels, CCO

Den 28. november 2022 (EIRNS) — Den britiske premierminister, Rishi Sunak, meddelte i sin første udenrigspolitiske tale til Lord Mayor’s Banquet (i City of London), den 28. november 2022, at Storbritannien vil øge den militære bistand til Ukraine i 2023, meddelte hans embedsværk.

“Vær ikke i tvivl. Vi vil stå sammen med Ukraine, så lang tid som det tager. Vi vil fastholde eller øge vores militære bistand næste år. Og vi vil yde fornyet støtte til luftforsvaret for at beskytte det ukrainske folk og den kritiske infrastruktur, som de er afhængige af. Ved at beskytte Ukraine beskytter vi os selv”, erklærede Sunak. 

Den 19. november udtalte Sunak under sit besøg i Kiev, at omfanget af Storbritanniens militærhjælp til Ukraine havde oversteget 3 mia. pund (3,6 mia. dollars). Storbritannien har allerede bevæbnet Ukraine med tæt på 7.000 NLAW-panserværnsmissiler, over 100 pansrede køretøjer, selvkørende luftværnskanoner “Stormer” med Starstreak-missiler, flere dusin M109 haubitser og L119 bugserede kanoner, M270 MLRS, over 16.000 artillerigranater, løs ammunition og 4,5 tons plastisk sprængstof.

I sin tale gik han ligeledes til angreb på Rusland, og han smed virkelig fløjlshandskerne for at angribe Kina, idet han proklamerede afslutningen på den “gyldne æra” i relationerne med Kina, som hans forgængere havde bebudet. 

“Vores modstandere og konkurrenter planlægger langsigtet. Efter i årevis at have skubbet til grænserne, udfordrer Rusland de grundlæggende principper i FN-pagten. Kina konkurrerer iøjnefaldende om global indflydelse ved at anvende samtlige af statsmagtens værktøjer. … Vi er derfor også nødsaget til at tilpasse vores tilgang til Kina. Lad os gøre det klart, at den såkaldte “gyldne æra” er overstået, ligesom den naive idé om, at handel automatisk ville føre til sociale og politiske reformer. … Vi erkender, at Kina udgør en systemisk udfordring for vores værdier og interesser, en udfordring, der bliver mere akut, efterhånden som landet bevæger sig i retning af en stadig mere autoritær styreform.” (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-lord-mayors-banquet-28-november-2022 )

Den britiske premierministers kontor bekræftede, at Storbritannien i øjeblikket er i gang med at revidere og opdatere den integrerede gennemgang af sikkerhed, forsvar, udvikling og udenrigspolitik fra 2021, for at imødegå de “massive geopolitiske skift” som har fundet sted, siden gennemgangen blev offentliggjort.

Foto: Pexels. CCO

Den 25. november 2022
SCHLANGER: Jeg tror, at hvis folk ser på forløbet af diskussion og de forskellige præsentationer på Schiller Instituttets sidste konference, som du kan finde på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside for den 22. november på https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/21/conference-stop-the-danger-of-nuclear-war-now/ , vil man kunne se, at denne proces er i færd med at udvikles. Det ser ud til, at vi med deltagelsen af nuværende og tidligere folkevalgte borgere fra Latinamerika, Mellemamerika og Europa nu faktisk er ved at etablere denne diskussion. Så jeg kunne godt tænke mig at vide, hvad er det næste skridt i denne proces?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Hvis man ser på de tre konferencer, som vi havde – to i oktober og en i november – så bragte vi inden for fem uger denne organiseringsproces til blomstring. Jeg tror, at årsagen hertil afspejler, at der er flere og flere mennesker rundt om i verden, som er meget bange for muligheden for en tredje verdenskrig. Man kunne måske mene, at Latinamerika er langt væk fra Ukraine, men hele processen startede i virkeligheden med en diskussion mellem nogle parlamentarikere i Mexico, Peru, Bolivia og Ecuador, og den bredte sig hurtigt. I denne omgang deltog allerede to forhenværende ministre, den tidligere præsident i Guyana, en tidligere minister fra Argentina og Ecuador, og disse mennesker opfordrer på det kraftigste deres kolleger rundt om i verden, ledere af Den alliancefri Bevægelse, lovgivere og andre folkevalgte fra hele verden til at skabe en bevægelse af folkevalgte for at appellere og lægge pres på regeringerne med henblik på at stoppe denne vanvittige krigspolitik.

I denne sammenhæng er jeg også meget glad for, at vi oplevede en betydelig deltagelse fra Europa, især fra nogle mennesker, der har deltaget i disse demonstrationer, i særdeleshed fra det østlige Tyskland: håndværkere, borgmestre, fredsaktivister, der går på gaden, fordi de bestemt ikke ønsker at fungere som kanonføde for en vanvittig NATO-krig, som kun kan føre til ødelæggelse af alle. Så denne gang deltog også borgmestre fra Frankrig, som støttede et fredsinitiativ fra den tyske by Stralsund, som har tilbudt at være vært for fredsforhandlinger på byens landområde. Dette går tilbage til et initiativ fra byen i 1370, hvor de indledte en lignende fredsproces. Jeg synes virkelig, at det er meget, meget opmuntrende, og den grundlæggende idé er, at i et øjeblik, hvor der er fare for atomkrig, som kan føre til udslettelse af hele menneskeheden, gør det automatisk ethvert menneske på planeten til verdensborger. Vi har derfor kaldt dette en verdensbevægelse af verdensborgere: “Verdensborgere fra alle lande, foren jer!” var idéen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 24. nov. 2022 (EIRNS) – Da det kortlægger den tilgang, der er nødvendig for at løse den samlede krise, som den samlede menneskehed nu er stillet over for, og derfor er i centrum for LaRouche-bevægelsens aktiviteter på alle fronter internationalt, samt kræver den bredest mulige undersøgelse og overvejelse, gengiver vi nedenfor det afsluttende afsnit af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale til Schiller Instituttets konference den 22. nov.: “Stop faren for atomkrig nu; tredje seminar for politiske og sociale ledere i verden”, som blev afholdt af Schiller Instituttet den 22. november.

Det nye paradigme, som vil være karakteristisk for den nye epoke, og som den nye globale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal rettes mod, skal derfor fjerne begrebet oligarkisme for altid og videreføre organiseringen af den politiske orden på en sådan måde, at menneskehedens sande karakter som den skabende art kan realiseres.

Derfor foreslår jeg, at følgende principper skal drøftes og, hvis der opnås enighed, realiseres. Disse ideer er tænkt som stof til eftertanke og som en dialog mellem alle mennesker, der er interesseret i at finde et grundlag for en verdensorden, der garanterer menneskeartens varige eksistens.

Første: Den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal være et partnerskab mellem fuldstændig suveræne nationalstater, som er baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og FN-pagten.

Andet: Den absolutte prioritet skal være at afhjælpe fattigdommen i alle nationer på planeten, hvilket er fuldt ud muligt, hvis de eksisterende teknologier anvendes til gavn for det fælles bedste.

Tredje: Den forventede levetid for alle levende mennesker skal forlænges til det fulde potentiale ved at skabe moderne sundhedssystemer i alle lande på planeten. Dette er også den eneste måde, hvorpå de nuværende og fremtidige potentielle pandemier kan overvindes eller forhindres.

Fjerde: Da menneskeheden er den eneste kreative art, der hidtil har været kendt i universet, og da menneskelig kreativitet er den eneste kilde til rigdom gennem den potentielt ubegrænsede opdagelse af nye universelle principper, skal et af hovedmålene i den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur være at sikre adgang til universel uddannelse for alle nulevende børn og voksne mennesker. Menneskets sande natur består i at blive en smuk sjæl, som Friedrich Schiller omtaler det, og den eneste person, der kan indfri denne betingelse, er geniet.

Femte: Det internationale finanssystem må omorganiseres, så det kan tilvejebringe produktive kreditter til opfyldelse af disse mål. Et referencepunkt kan være det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system, som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde tænkt sig, men som aldrig blev gennemført på grund af hans alt for tidlige død, og de Fire Love som foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche. Det primære mål med et sådant nyt kreditsystem skal være at øge levestandarden betydeligt, især for nationerne i det Globale Syd og for de fattige i det Globale Nord.

Sjette: Den nye økonomiske orden skal fokusere på at skabe betingelserne for moderne industrier og landbrug, begyndende med infrastrukturudvikling af alle kontinenter, der på sigt skal forbindes med tunneller og broer for at blive til en verdenslandbro.

Syvende: Den nye globale sikkerhedsarkitektur skal afskaffe begrebet geopolitik ved at afskaffe opdelingen af verden i blokke. Der må tages hensyn til alle suveræne nationers sikkerhedshensyn. Atomvåben og andre masseødelæggelsesvåben skal straks forbydes. Gennem internationalt samarbejde skal der udvikles metoder til at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede, sådan som det oprindeligt var hensigten med det forslag, der blev kendt som SDI, som LaRouche foreslog, og som præsident Reagan tilbød Sovjetunionen.

Ottende: Tidligere kunne en civilisation i et hjørne af verden gå til grunde, og resten af verden ville først opdage det flere år senere på grund af afstanden og den tid, der var nødvendig for at rejse. Nu sidder menneskeheden for første gang i samme båd på grund af atomvåben, pandemier og andre globale virkninger. Derfor kan en løsning på den eksistentielle trussel mod menneskeheden ikke opnås ved hjælp af sekundære eller delvise ordninger, men løsningen skal opnås på niveauet af den højere Ene, som er mere magtfuld end de mange. Det kræver tænkning i retning af {Coincidentia Oppositorum}, Modsætningernes Sammenfald, af Nikolaj af Cusa.

Niende: For at overvinde de konflikter, der opstår som følge af indbyrdes stridende opfattelser, som er den måde, imperier har bevaret kontrollen over de underordnede, må den økonomiske, sociale og politiske orden bringes i sammenhæng med lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. I europæisk filosofi blev dette diskuteret som væren i karakter med naturloven, i indisk filosofi som kosmologi, og i andre kulturer kan man finde tilsvarende begreber. Moderne videnskaber som rumvidenskab, biofysik og termonuklear fusionsvidenskab vil løbende øge menneskehedens viden om denne lovmæssighed. En lignende sammenhæng finder man i de store værker af klassisk kunst i forskellige kulturer.

Tiende: Den bærende antagelse for det nye paradigme er, at mennesket grundlæggende er godt og i stand til uendeligt at perfektionere sit sinds kreativitet og sin sjæls skønhed, og at det er den mest avancerede geologiske kraft i universet, hvilket beviser, at sindets lovmæssighed og det fysiske univers er i overensstemmelse og sammenhæng, og at alt ondt er resultatet af manglende udvikling og derfor kan overvindes.

En ny økonomisk verdensorden er ved at opstå, som omfatter langt størstedelen af landene i det Globale Syd. De europæiske nationer og USA skal ikke bekæmpe denne indsats, men ved at gå sammen med udviklingslandene samarbejde om at præge den næste epoke i menneskehedens udvikling, så den bliver en renæssance af de højeste og mest ædle udtryk for kreativitet!

Lad os derfor skabe en international bevægelse af verdensborgere, som i fællesskab arbejder for at forme den næste fase i menneskehedens udvikling, den nye epoke! Verdensborgere fra alle lande, foren jer!

Den 24.nov. 2022 (EIRNS) – Som TASS rapporterer, vil Rusland og Ukraine uundgåeligt skulle sætte sig ved forhandlingsbordet for at løse den igangværende konflikt, sagde Tyrkiets udenrigsminister, Mevlüt Cavusoglu, på en konference onsdag. Militære aktioner vil ikke bringe en afslutning på konflikten og vil udelukkende forlænge fjendtlighederne, tilføjede han.

“På den ene eller anden måde vil denne krig ende ved [forhandlings]bordet”, sagde ministeren til en forsamling på Bilkent-universitetet i Ankara. “Vi tror ikke, at kampen vil blive afsluttet gennem militære sejre på landjorden”, tilføjede han, og advarede om  “risiko for en krig, der kan vare i årtier”.

Ifølge Cavusoglu var Rusland og Ukraine allerede “meget tæt på en våbenhvile” under samtaler i Istanbul i foråret, inden de ” fjernede sig” fra forhandlingsbordet. De to parter har ikke mødtes for at forhandle siden samtalerne i Istanbul i slutningen af marts. Moskva var oprindeligt optimistisk med hensyn til udsigterne til en fredsaftale, men beskyldte senere Kiev for at sabotere forhandlingerne.

Virkeligheden er siden da blevet “mere kompleks”, indrømmede Cavusoglu, og Tyrkiet vil stadig være nødt til at gøre en indsats for at presse på for en diplomatisk løsning. “At være en NATO-nation er ikke ensbetydende med, at vi ikke kan [holde møder] med Rusland eller andre lande”, forklarede Cavusoglu, og tilføjede at Tyrkiet skal ” opretholde balancen” på dette område. Han tilføjede, at denne afbalancerede tilgang var nødvendig, fordi den moderne æra er en “usikkerhedens tidsalder”, efter at det “unipolære system”, der begyndte at opstå efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, viste sig at være kortvarigt. Det unipolære system skiftede “hurtigt” til multipolaritet, sagde ministeren, og tilføjede at verden “stadig søger efter en identifikation af systemet”.

Billede: pexels

Tirsdag den 22. november

Ordstyrer: Dennis Small, Stephan Ossenkopp, Schiller Instituttet  

Et internationalt kor for fred: Dona Nobis Pacem 

Videotale fra Lyndon LaRouche  

– Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Tyskland); grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet: “Principper for en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling” 

– Benjamín Robles Montoya (Mexico); kongresmedlem: “En opfordring til nuværende og tidligere lovgivere i verden: Vi må handle nu for at stoppe faren for atomkrig” 

– Oberst Richard Black (pensioneret) (USA); tidligere senator for Virginia: “Faren for atomkrig efter det amerikanske midtvejsvalg”

– Steven Starr (USA); pensioneret direktør for University of Missouris Clinical Laboratory Science Program, ekspert i atomkrig: “Hvad ville der ske, hvis en atomkrig udbrød i Sortehavet?” 

– Karl Krökel (Tyskland); grundlægger af Craftsmen for Peace: “Håndværkernes rolle til fremme af forståelsen mellem folkeslag”  

– Søster Ortrud Fürst (Tyskland), dominikansk missionær: “Tanker om aktuelle verdensanliggender” 

– Dr. Andreas Uhlig (Tyskland); arrangør af borgerinitiativet “Peace Negotiations NOW”, Dresden: “Fredsforhandlinger NU”, Dresden, Dresden: “Fredsforhandlinger NU” 

– Liane Kilinc (Tyskland); fredsaktivist

– Scott Ritter (USA); tidligere FN-våbeninspektør

– Patrice Kindt (Frankrig); borgmester i Chidrac, departementet Puy de Dôme;

– Patrick Gombault (Frankrig), borgmester i Viâpres-le-Petit: “”Støtte fra franske borgmestre til Stralsund-opfordringen til fred”

– Antonio Ingroia (Italien); tidligere anti-mafia-magistrat på Sicilien; tidligere kandidat til premierministerposten: “Italien og Europa står i forreste linje i tilfælde af en atomkrig”

– Julio de Vido (Argentina); tidligere minister for føderal planlægning, offentlige investeringer og tjenesteydelser (2003-2015), tidligere kongresmedlem (2015-2017): “De nødvendige betingelser for udviklingen af Den tredje Verden”

– Paulo Cannabrava Filho (Brasilien); journalist, redaktør af Diálogos do Sul: “Faren for atomkrig: Alternativet er ved at blive udarbejdet af BRICS” 

– Alberto Quintanilla (Peru); tidligere kongresmedlem: “Slutningen på globaliseringen og BRICS’s fremkomst”. 

– Pedro Páez (Ecuador); tidligere minister for økonomisk politik (2007-2008): Hilsen

– Pino Arlacchi (Italien); tidligere leder af FN’s kontor for narkotikakontrol (1997-2002), professor ved universitetet i Sassari.

Spørgsmål og svar

Den 22 november, 2022. [delvis udskrift af panel 1-talerne]

DENNIS SMALL: Den første taler i dag er Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Hun er stifter af Schiller Instituttet.  Hun er den ledende kraft i Schiller Instituttet og i LaRouche-bevægelsen internationalt, og hun er naturligvis hustru og enke efter Lyndon H. LaRouche samt hans nærmeste politiske samarbejdspartner i over 50 år.

Hun vil holde dagens hovedtale under overskriften “Principper for en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur”.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg hilser jer velkommen, hvor end i måtte befinde jer.

Det, der har bragt folk fra hele verden sammen til denne konference, er erkendelsen af, at menneskeheden står ved en skillevej.  Der er helt klart en fare for, at den nuværende geopolitiske konfrontation mellem de kræfter, der ønsker at hævde, at den vestlige liberale demokratimodel bør være den eneste “gode” og accepterede model, og de kræfter, der insisterer på, at idéen om en unipolær verden uigenkaldeligt er fortid og allerede er blevet erstattet af en multipolær verdensorden, kan medføre en atomkrig. En sådan krig kunne blive udløst, med vilje eller ved et uheld, i nær fremtid som følge af stedfortræder-krigen i Ukraine. En sådan krise kunne bryde ud inden årets udgang, hvis de forslag, der blev fremsat tidligere i år af folk som Malcolm Chalmers, vicegeneralsekretær for Royal United Service Institute (RUSI), om at “koge den russiske frø” ved at fremprovokere en “Cuba-krise på steroider”, som han siger, gennemføres som følge af et ukrainsk forsøg på at generobre Krim. Rusland kunne opfatte dette som en eksistentiel trussel og aktivere sit atomarsenal på højeste alarmberedskab og true med at anvende det, siger Chalmers. “Det ville være et øjeblik med ekstrem fare”, siger han, men på grund af den ekstreme overhængende fare i en sådan situation kunne det gøres “enklere” for alle parter at finde kompromiser.

At foreslå en politik, der har til formål at drive den strategiske konflikt til randen af menneskehedens udryddelse, afføder ikke engang en kommentar fra regeringerne i den regelbaserede ordens åh-så-gode regeringer, men at argumentere med fakta om, at den russiske intervention i Ukraine har en forhistorie, kan i værste fald give en fængselsstraf i henhold til en ny lov, der blev vedtaget af det tyske parlament den 20. oktober, med en ændring af straffelovens artikel 130, stk. 5.

I tråd med dette britiske perspektiv er tilsyneladende Ukraines viceforsvarsminister Havrylov, som netop i et interview med Sky News har udtalt: “Vi kan trænge ind i Krim inden udgangen af december”, og understregede om generobringen af Krim: “Det er kun et spørgsmål om tid. Selvfølgelig vil vi gerne gennemføre det hurtigst muligt.”

Briterne er tilsyneladende villige til at udmærke sig ved at skabe verdenskrige, da det var Boris Johnson, der i april personligt sørgede for, at løftet om at afslutte krigen gennem forhandlinger blev saboteret. Desværre ser det ud til at hovedparten af det transatlantiske sikkerhedsetablissement, hvoraf mange netop har mødtes til den internationale sikkerhedskonference i Halifax, er enige: “Måden at beskytte det globale demokrati på nuværende tidspunkt er med våben og støtte til Ukraines kamp mod Rusland, ikke gennem forhandlinger”, og de afviser ligefrem forslaget fra general Mark Milley, chef for USA’s forsvarskommando, om at det nu måske er tidspunktet for diplomati.

Det er denne kriminelle politik for atomar balancegang, som indeholder faren for udslettelse af hele menneskeheden i en global atomkrig og den efterfølgende atomvinter, som automatisk gør hvert enkelt menneske på Jorden til verdensborger, der må tage ansvar for resultatet af denne nuværende fase af menneskehedens historie. Vi ønsker derfor at katalysere en international bevægelse af verdensborgere, som er engageret i at foreslå en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, der vil tage hensyn til de enkelte landes interesser på planeten. Dette begreb, at tage hensyn til alle landes interesser, var princippet i den Westfalske Fred, som dannede grundlaget for fred efter 150 års religionskrig i Europa, og som var begyndelsen på Folkeretten og grundlaget for FN-pagten, som vi skal opretholde og bekræfte.

Hvad er de grundlæggende principper, som en sådan ny global sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal baseres på?

Det ufravigelige udgangspunkt for en sådan ny arkitektur må være et menneskesyn, som alle nationer kan blive enige om. Mennesket adskiller sig fra alle andre arter ved at være begavet med kreativ fornuft, at det er det eneste væsen, der igen og igen kan opdage nye gyldige principper i det fysiske univers, og kan, gennem anvendelse af disse videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt i produktionsprocessen, øge livskvaliteten, levetiden og antallet af levende mennesker. Det er dette kreative potentiale, som kendetegner mennesket som værende helligt.

Den epoke, der er ved at nærme sig sin afslutning, består af de sidste ca. 600 år, som begyndte med fremkomsten af den suveræne nationalstat, der er baseret på Nikolaj af Cusas’ skrifter og den første suveræne nationalstat under Ludvig XI i Frankrig i det 15. århundrede, som for første gang var optaget af befolkningens fælles bedste, og modstanden mod denne idé fra det venetianske imperiums side. I 600 år har der været en uafbrudt kamp mellem disse to styreformer, mellem den suveræne nationalstat og den oligarkiske samfundsform, der har svinget frem og tilbage og til tider har vægtet den ene eller den anden tendens i en højere grad.

Alle imperier baseret på den oligarkiske model var orienteret mod at beskytte den herskende elites privilegier, mens de forsøgte at holde befolkningsmasserne så tilbagestående som muligt, fordi de som “får” er lettere at kontrollere (og det skal vi høre noget om lidt senere). Det blev anset for “normalt” at holde en vis andel af befolkningen som slaver, eller “helotter”, som Schiller beskriver det i sit skrift om “Solons og Lycurgus’ love”, der kan slås ihjel, hvis de bliver for mange. Det var den samme oligarkiske anskuelse, som var grundlaget for Malthus’ ideologi og den underliggende forudsætning for al kolonialpolitik, også i de moderne former for kolonialisme, som præsident Sukarno havde advaret imod i sin tale på den første Bandung-konference i 1955.

Det er modstand mod denne moderne kolonialisme, der nu er en kraftig renæssance for i den alliancefri bevægelse, som arbejder på et nyt økonomisk system, der omfatter BRICS-Plus, som flere og flere lande ønsker at tilslutte sig, Shanghai-samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), den eurasiske økonomiske union (EAEU) og andre organisationer i det globale syd.

Kristendommen opstod allerede under Romerriget, og for første gang i den europæiske civilisation indfandt sig ideen om, at det enkelte menneske er helligt som et billede af Skaberen og begunstiget med den skabende kraft, “{vis creativa}”, som Cusa kalder det, der udgår fra hans eller hendes lighed med Skaberen. Den samme idé forekommer også i de to andre monoteistiske religioner, jødedommen og islam, samt i den sekulære humanisme, konfucianismen og den indiske filosofi og religion i traditionen fra de vediske skrifter, og der findes genklang af denne idé i andre kulturer. Hver gang der opstod strømninger i disse religioner, som afveg fra ideen om, at alle mennesker er hellige, som i korstogene eller inkvisitionen, betød det, at de blev redskaber for de oligarkiske eliter til deres formål.

Det nye paradigme, som vil være karakteristisk for den nye epoke, og som den nye globale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal rettes mod, skal derfor fjerne begrebet oligarkisme for altid og videreføre organiseringen af den politiske orden på en sådan måde, at menneskehedens sande karakter som den skabende art kan realiseres.

Derfor foreslår jeg, at følgende principper skal drøftes og, hvis der opnås enighed, realiseres. Disse ideer er tænkt som stof til eftertanke og som en dialog mellem alle mennesker, der er interesseret i at finde et grundlag for en verdensorden, der garanterer menneskeartens varige eksistens.

For det første: Den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal være et partnerskab mellem fuldstændig suveræne nationalstater, som er baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og FN-pagten.

For det andet: Den absolutte prioritet skal være at afhjælpe fattigdommen i alle nationer på planeten, hvilket er fuldt ud muligt, hvis de eksisterende teknologier anvendes til gavn for det fælles bedste.

For det tredje: Den forventede levetid for alle levende mennesker skal forlænges til det fulde potentiale ved at skabe moderne sundhedssystemer i alle lande på planeten. Dette er også den eneste måde, hvorpå de nuværende og fremtidige potentielle pandemier kan overvindes eller forhindres.

For det fjerde: Da menneskeheden er den eneste kreative art, der hidtil har været kendt i universet, og da menneskelig kreativitet er den eneste kilde til rigdom gennem den potentielt ubegrænsede opdagelse af nye universelle principper, skal et af hovedmålene i den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur være at sikre adgang til universel uddannelse for alle nulevende børn og voksne mennesker. Menneskets sande natur består i at blive en smuk sjæl, som Friedrich Schiller omtaler det, og den eneste person, der kan indfri denne betingelse, er geniet.

For det femte: Det internationale finanssystem må omorganiseres, så det kan tilvejebringe produktive kreditter til opfyldelse af disse mål. Et referencepunkt kan være det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system, som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde tænkt sig, men som aldrig blev gennemført på grund af hans alt for tidlige død, og de Fire Love som foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche. Det primære mål med et sådant nyt kreditsystem skal være at øge levestandarden betydeligt, især for nationerne i det Globale Syd og for de fattige i det Globale Nord.

For det sjette: Den nye økonomiske orden skal fokusere på at skabe betingelserne for moderne industrier og landbrug, begyndende med infrastrukturudvikling af alle kontinenter, der på sigt skal forbindes med tunneller og broer for at blive til en verdenslandbro.

For det syvende: Den nye globale sikkerhedsarkitektur skal afskaffe begrebet geopolitik ved at afskaffe opdelingen af verden i blokke. Der må tages hensyn til alle suveræne nationers sikkerhedshensyn. Atomvåben og andre masseødelæggelsesvåben skal straks forbydes. Gennem internationalt samarbejde skal der udvikles metoder til at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede, sådan som det oprindeligt var hensigten med det forslag, der blev kendt som SDI, som LaRouche foreslog, og som præsident Reagan tilbød Sovjetunionen.

For det ottende: Tidligere kunne en civilisation i et hjørne af verden gå til grunde, og resten af verden ville først opdage det flere år senere på grund af afstanden og den tid, der var nødvendig for at rejse. Nu sidder menneskeheden for første gang i samme båd på grund af atomvåben, pandemier og andre globale virkninger. Derfor kan en løsning på den eksistentielle trussel mod menneskeheden ikke opnås ved hjælp af sekundære eller delvise ordninger, men løsningen skal opnås på niveauet af den højere Ene, som er mere magtfuld end de mange. Det kræver tænkning i retning af {Coincidentia Oppositorum}, Modsætningernes Sammenfald, af Nikolaj af Cusa.

Niende: For at overvinde de konflikter, der opstår som følge af indbyrdes stridende opfattelser, som er den måde, imperier har bevaret kontrollen over de underordnede, må den økonomiske, sociale og politiske orden bringes i sammenhæng med lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. I europæisk filosofi blev dette diskuteret som væren i karakter med naturloven, i indisk filosofi som kosmologi, og i andre kulturer kan man finde tilsvarende begreber. Moderne videnskaber som rumvidenskab, biofysik og termonuklear fusionsvidenskab vil løbende øge menneskehedens viden om denne lovmæssighed. En lignende sammenhæng finder man i de store værker af klassisk kunst i forskellige kulturer.

Tiende: Den bærende antagelse for det nye paradigme er, at mennesket grundlæggende er godt og i stand til uendeligt at perfektionere sit sinds kreativitet og sin sjæls skønhed, og at det er den mest avancerede geologiske kraft i universet, hvilket beviser, at sindets lovmæssighed og det fysiske univers er i overensstemmelse og sammenhæng, og at alt ondt er resultatet af manglende udvikling og derfor kan overvindes.

En ny økonomisk verdensorden er ved at opstå, som omfatter langt størstedelen af landene i det Globale Syd. De europæiske nationer og USA skal ikke bekæmpe denne indsats, men ved at gå sammen med udviklingslandene samarbejde om at præge den næste epoke i menneskehedens udvikling, så den bliver en renæssance af de højeste og mest ædle udtryk for kreativitet!

Lad os derfor skabe en international bevægelse af verdensborgere, som i fællesskab arbejder for at forme den næste fase i menneskehedens udvikling, den nye epoke! Verdensborgere fra alle lande, foren jer!

Den 18. nov. – “Jeg taler derfor om fred som det nødvendige rationelle mål for rationelle mennesker. Jeg er klar over, at bestræbelserne på at opnå fred ikke er lige så dramatiske som bestræbelserne på at opnå krig – og ofte falder stræberens ord for døve ører. Men vi har ingen mere presserende opgave.”

– John F. Kennedy, American University, 10. juni 1963

Schiller Instituttets arrangement “Stop faren for atomkrig”, det tredje i rækken, finder sted tirsdag den 22. november, på 59-årsdagen for mordet på præsident John F. Kennedy. Skyggen af en mulig, pludselig, total udslettelseskrig, som blev kastet over jordens overflade i sidste uge, da Ukraine (måske) ved et uheld bombede Polen, bør understrege, hvorfor enhver bestræbelse i de næste tre dage bør gøres for at gøre Schiller Instituttets og dets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouches stemme kendt i den internationale offentlighed. Zepp-LaRouches forslag til en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som for nylig blev offentliggjort i et essay med titlen: “Den alliancefrie Bevægelses rolle i et nyt paradigme for de internationale relationer”, er nu genstand for en diskussion af en voksende liste af nuværende og tidligere nationale kongresmedlemmer, statslige lovgivere fra forskellige nationer og andre, som vil deltage i tirsdagens virtuelle møde.

Denne vej til fred, som bør udforskes i ånden af en ny “Bandung II”-bevægelse for alliancefrihed, der er imod organiseringen af konkurrerende blokke af nationer, er en vej, som Kinas præsident Xi Jinping og Italiens premierminister Giorgia Meloni omtalte i deres respektive kommunikéer, der berettede om deres møde den 16. november på G20-mødet. Begge omtalte de “tusind års kontakt og dialog” mellem kulturerne i Italien og Kina – et virkelig “særligt forhold”, der ikke er baseret på krig eller forretning, men snarere på kunst, musik, videnskab og handel. Denne vej til fred, især fordi Lyndon LaRouche med succes havde banet vejen for dialog med præsident Ronald Reagan og Sovjetunionen for 40 år siden gennem LaRouches forslag om et Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ, udgør den rette standard inden for diplomatiet, som burde være fremherskende i amerikansk kontakt med andre nationer. Den bør erstatte den inkompetente ” amatøragtige” proces, der har fået den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergej Ryabkov til at erklære, at Rusland “fortsat er nødsaget til holde fast i en politik, hvor vi ikke på forhånd informerer nogen om vores planer på det militære område. Jeg henviser til vores virkelige modstander, en magtfuld modstander, i dette særlige tilfælde, USA.”

Fortvivlelse er ikke berettiget. Tag det næstfarligste øjeblik i forholdet mellem USA og Rusland, Cubakrisen. Præsident John F. Kennedy og hans bror Robert, der nægtede at bøje sig for presset fra en fejlvurderende “utopisk” militærfraktion, befandt sig i centrum af en potentiel atomar ildstorm, der kunne have udslettet menneskeheden. I en resolut opvisning af lederskab fik JFK og hans forhandlingspartnere i Sovjetunionen verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand. Den nuværende situation kan imidlertid være langt farligere end den i 1963, fordi rationelle mænd og kvinder er færre og mere sjældne og sværere at finde i den transatlantiske sektor end dengang. Frem for besindighed, opfordrede en joker-lignende forhenværende komiker, der optrådte som Ukraines præsident, i denne uge verden til at starte en Tredje Verdenskrig. Ifølge visse rapporter nægtede Biden at tale med Zelenskyj, mens “affæren om missilet” udspillede sig. Biden har tilsyneladende ikke talt med ham lige siden.

I betragtning af, hvad repræsentanter for City of London har anført i de seneste numre af The Economist, kan vi ikke afvise muligheden for, at den seneste uges næsten-atomare konfrontation mellem USA/NATO og Rusland simpelthen var en generalprøve på det, der skal komme, muligvis i denne uge, muligvis i næste uge eller måske i perioden inden årets udgang. Det indebærer ikke nødvendigvis, at de britiske styrker planlægger en atomkrig på en bestemt dag eller et bestemt tidspunkt, men det betyder at milliarder af mennesker på denne planet står over for det mest mareridtsagtige scenarie, nemlig at der ikke længere er nogen der bestemmer, og at det derfor er umuligt at undgå strategiske fejlvurderinger. Som Lyndon LaRouche hævdede i en hovedtale i sommeren 1978 til International Caucus of Labor Committees: “Briterne foretog i deres uendelige visdom en fejlberegning, og verdenskrigen begyndte.”

Men hvorfor så ikke fortvivle? Det har været heldigt for dem, der har tilknytning til Lyndon LaRouche, at have indgået i en organisation, der blev sammensat som en filosofisk forening i stil med de bedste af Athens civile soldater, som Sokrates, som Aischylos, og ikke som Spartas civile soldater. Det er lovgiveren Solon fra Athen, ikke Lykurgus fra Sparta, og Solons forfatning, der er komponeret som et digt, og som af medlemmerne af LaRouche-organisationen opfattes som standarden for praksis i statskundskab, gennem offentlige møder, uddeling på gaden og politisk dannelse gennem publikationer, pamfletter og uafhængig research ved hjælp af originale kilder. Kandidater til embeder udvælges og opmuntres med denne standard for øje. Der tilskyndes f.eks. til interventioner, dvs. afbrydelser af den uerkendte, men gennemgribende sociale accept af ondskabens banalitet i den politiske klasse. Sådanne indgreb konfronterer på ikke-voldelig vis dem, der ikke hører hjemme i Kongressen/parlamentet, men på anklagebænken ved en nystiftet Nürnbergdomstol (som begyndte den 20. november 1945), med offentlig identifikation og offentlig anerkendelse af deres forbrydelser.

Den bevægelse, der blev dannet og ledet af LaRouche gennem valgprocessen til præsidentvalget, gjorde det muligt for LaRouche gennem sit kandidatur til præsidentposten at spille en rolle i amerikansk politik i et halvt århundrede, som var enestående, især på grund af den måde, hvorpå dybe ideer, ideer af Nikolaus af Cusa, Gottfried Leibniz, Bernhard Riemann, Alexander Hamilton, Edgar Allan Poe, Friedrich Schiller og mange andre, blev gjort let tilgængelige for millioner af mennesker på gadehjørner og i indkøbscentre, lufthavne og kongrescentre i mange lande i omkring 50 år. Det var i høj grad på grund af dette, at LaRouche var i stand til at få en præsident fra USA til, under sin tale om Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ den 23. marts 1983, at sige: “Jeg er efterhånden blevet mere og mere dybt overbevist om, at den menneskelige ånd må være i stand til at hæve sig over at behandle andre nationer og mennesker ved at true deres eksistens. Da jeg føler dette, mener jeg, at vi grundigt må undersøge enhver mulighed for at mindske spændingerne og indføre større stabilitet i den strategiske planlægning på begge sider…. Efter omhyggelig drøftelse med mine rådgivere, herunder stabscheferne, mener jeg, at det er en mulighed. Lad mig dele en fremtidsvision med jer, som giver håb.”

Det er vores opgave at skabe, dele og forsvare denne vision af en fremtid, der giver håb, og det er emnet for Schiller Instituttets konference tirsdag den 22. november.

Mandag den 14. november 2022

Her er afskriftet på engelsk, som kom i Executive Intelligence Review Vol. 49, Nr. 46, November 25, 2022
Interviewet af Michelle Rasmussen, næstformand.
Videoen findes også på Schiller Instituttets amerikanske YouTube kanal her, hvor knap 6.000 personer har set den indtil den 20. november.

Her er en pdf version. En tekst version findes nedenunder.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW: Jens Jørgen Nielsen

Danish Historian Fired After Ukraine Blacklists Him

Jens Jørgen Nielsen has degrees in the history of ideas and communication, was the Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken in the late 1990s, is the author of several books about Russia and Ukraine. He is a leader of the Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, and an associate professor of communication and cultural differences at the Niels Brock Business College in Denmark; he has been a teacher at the Copenhagen adult night school Folkeuniversitetet for eight years.

Mr. Nielsen has participated in several Schiller Institute conferences, including the Institute’s Danish-Swedish videoconference on May 25, 2022 for a new international security and development architecture. Then, on July 14, 2022 he, along with other speakers at the May 25 conference, was put on the blacklist of “information terrorists” put out by Ukraine’s UK-supported and U.S.-funded Center For Combating Disinformation. There was widespread coverage of this in the major Danish media. The Danish parliament conducted a consultation about this affair with the Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod on Aug. 28, 2022.

He was interviewed for EIR and the Schiller Institute by Michelle Rasmussen in Copenhagen on Nov. 14. The transcript has been edited, and subheads added.

EIR: You have just been fired from one of your teaching posts for political reasons. You are currently teaching a course about the history of Crimea, which you will be allowed to finish, but next year’s courses about “Russian Conservatism” and “History of Ukraine” have been canceled.

Why have you been fired, and what led up to that?

Nielsen: Well, I would say I was not fired for anything which took place in the classroom. Because there have been some evaluations of my teaching and they have always been very good. The latest evaluation was from February this year. And when people were asked about the professional level, 100% were very satisfied. So that’s nothing to do with it. And I’m not politicizing in my teaching. When I teach, I objectively lay out various interpretations and sources, the interests of various nations and actors in the political process. So, it’s not for something I’ve done in the classroom. It’s obvious. Even though the board of directors who wrote me this letter tries to legitimize it by saying that I may be politicizing in the classroom, but they have never attended any of my lessons. They didn’t know what’s going on there, and they never invited me to talk about it. They never invited any of the students who attended the courses. So it’s obvious.

There’s no doubt that it was for something which happened outside the classroom. I was on this Ukranian blacklist that you mentioned. And I gave also an interview to Vladimir Solovyov, a Russian on a Russian TV channel. And I didn’t endorse the war, like some would say. We talked about the explosion of Nord Stream 2, and who may have done it, who might not have done it, what the Danes thought about this kind of thing, and things like that.

I was not endorsing the war. That’s very important, because I have my doubts about this Russian engagement in Ukraine. That is another question. But I didn’t endorse it. But the fact that I gave an interview brought about a crisis in the board. The old board had left, and there was a new board. And the old, original board supported me, and the leader of the school said it was okay because there was nothing wrong with my teaching…. What I do outside the classroom, which points of view I had, was up to me. They didn’t have anything to do with it as long as the teaching in the classroom was done objectively and people were satisfied with this.

So it was because I was considered to be a person who showed understanding for Putin. Showed understanding for Putin. And I was asked by a journalist, do you really show understanding for Putin? I said, you have to be aware that you use the word understand. What does it mean? It is very important to understand Putin, what his situation is, his background and his way of thinking, and things like that. It’s absolutely not the same thing as to say it is very good, but you have to understand him. But I think in the Danish media, journalists think it’s an offence, in itself, to understand Putin, and to understand Russia, not either endorsing or not endorsing, but to understand them….

%%’No, We Don’t Have Freedom of Speech’

Well, it seems like we are living in—our thinking—something has happened. It resembles something that happened in Stalin’s time. You have very strict control with people at the university, or you’re allowed to say some things, and you have a lot of taboos you’re not allowed to talk about.

So, for me, it was really a surealistic experience in my own country, which I was brought up to believe is one of the best countries. We have freedom, and we have freedom of speech. We have all these kinds of things. No. It doesn’t really work that way today. And I was surprised about it because I had some illusions about my own country, which I don’t have now. So, freedom of speech. No, we don’t have freedom of speech.

Of course I have not been killed. I will not be put in the gulag…. But when you fire people, you indirectly also tell people at other universities, “Beware about what you write and what you say. Don’t try to say something which is opposed to government policy right now.” This is the logic. This is the conclusion I have reached, that you have to get in line with the government policy….

So I think it’s a sad day. Firstly, I think it’s a sad day for democracy, because in a democracy, we come up with various points of view, and we discuss them, and we find a solution. Secondly, how do you develop new knowledge, if the young people who enter a career as a researcher in this field, indirectly they have been told, ‘Beware. Look at what happens to people who have some controversial points of view…. And I think this is the sad thing. For me, of course, personally, but a sad thing for the country, in terms of developing and knowledge, in terms of having a vibrant working democracy. I think it’s a disaster for those two endeavors, for those two very, very important things in a democracy.

EIR: One of the things that immediately tipped off the controversy was that three of your fellow teachers resigned, saying that if you were allowed to continue, then they would resign. And then, the board of directors started an investigation and they accused you of “politicizing your teaching in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine.” On the radio interview on Radio 24/Seven after you were fired, the chairman of the board of directors simply said that you have very strong, very biased opinions.

First of all, is this this true in terms of “politicizing in favor of the Russian understanding of the war in Ukraine” in your classroom? Have have you brought your own political views into your classroom?

Nielsen: No, of course not, because normally when I start a course, I say that I have my own points of view, of course, but I will work here as a professional historian. I will present various interpretations and various viewpoints about this conflict, the situation, because I’m also teaching very ancient history. Regarding Crimea, the first two, three classes were from ancient times and from the Middle Ages, 2000 years of history. So it’s impossible. Putin has not really anything to do with Crimea a thousand years ago. That’s one thing.

And secondly, these people who criticize me, those of my colleagues who would not want to teach if I teach, they have never attended even a second of any of my courses. So, I don’t know what is going on there. And there was one colleague who also participated in this debate on the radio. He has never read any of my books. He did not understand the interview with Vladimir Solovyov because it was in Russian. Well, I asked very humbly, on what basis have you made this decision? Because you don’t know anything whatsoever about me, apart from what some people say on Facebook, and other social media.

So I couldn’t call it anything other than a witch hunt. It seems like a kind of a witch hunt, because it’s as much a witch hunt, as we had here in Denmark and northern Europe 400 years ago, where we picked out some women, and we killed them because, we said that they were probably evil, but we didn’t know exactly how, but probably, they were evil….

%%Students Shocked

We are not discussing anything I said, anything I wrote, anything I have done. We are discussing a picture which someone has made about me being like a Putin follower who likes what is going on, who likes to kill Ukrainian children, and things like that. That’s what’s going on. And I think it’s not at all worthy for a democracy like the Danish democracy. I think it’s outrageous.

EIR: You said that neither you, nor any of your students were spoken to by the board of directors. Have any of your students complained that you were politicizing your teaching, and now, after your firing, have any of the students protested against your being fired?

Nielsen: Yes. Of course. Many of the students there have been protesting now. And if you go back, there was one remark in February. But an evaluation was made where 100% were satisfied with the professional level of the teaching. And 75% were very satisfied and 25% were satisfied. There was no one who was dissatisfied or less satisfied. But there was one who mentioned that it was a little bit too pro-Putin. That was one among 30 people who made this remark. But that was compared to the other 29 or so. It couldn’t, by any means, be a reason for this. Of course, it’s not. Because you could also say that it was at the beginning of the war, and actually, in the classroom, there were several people who were very staunch supporters of Putin—a small group—and a small group who very much disliked Putin; and they had some quarrels between themselves, which has nothing to do with me, because I was not part of that. I think that this was the reason why one person said this. But before that, there hadn’t been anything like that. Nothing of the sort. There have been several evaluations, and apart from this, there haven’t been any remarks at all.

EIR: And you said that that many of your students have written to you protesting your being fired.

Nielsen: Yes. I don’t know exactly how many, but many said they would protest it. How many actually have done it? I’m not quite aware, but I think that there probably will be a lot, because it was a shock, because people have been following me for years. Some of those … have attended all my courses, or many of my courses, and they were shocked, because they didn’t understand it at all.

And I also gave a course on the history of Ukraine last year, and there were really many participants. And the people said they were in shock because I didn’t politicize, I didn’t do anything. I just put forward some facts and various viewpoints. Because when you’re talking about Ukraine, you have very different narratives about what Ukraine is. And even inside Ukraine, you have very different points of view. What constitutes actually a country like Ukraine? I have several Ukrainian friends who have very, very diverging ideas and concepts of what Ukraine is, what constitutes Ukrainian identity. It’s not a simple or unambiguous concept, because it’s very controversial, what it actually constitutes. It’s not that easy. So I had to put forward something.

But many of the people who criticize me, they criticize me because they think I should say exactly what the Western governments and the Ukrainian government say. This is the thing, that I have to say something exactly like the public version of the Ukrainian nationalist government’s interpretation of Ukrainian history. But as an historian, that’s very easy to criticize. Because there are historical facts which run counter to much of the Ukrainian [government’s] way of thinking.

EIR: Along that line, the one thing that the board of directors did do, besides referring to these very few student remarks, was that they read one of your books called Ukraine in the Field of Tension. What did they criticize about your book?

Nielsen: They criticized me when I wrote about the so-called annexation. First, I would say that it’s a book written six years ago. So a lot of things have happened since then. But there was a discussion about what does annexation mean? Because, I admit also that the Russian troops did not adhere to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine regarding the lease of the Sevastopol naval port. They were allowed to have 25,000 soldiers to defend the fleet and the port, but the Russian troops had no right to stay in Simferopol. They went from Sevastopol to Simferopol. It´s true. But on the other hand, it´s a very strange annexation where there was hardly any bloodshed. There were two or three people who were killed by accident, and there were 21,000 soldiers in the Ukrainian army in the Crimean garrison, but 14,000 decided to join the Russian side.

So it means that it’s a very split country, whatever you may call it. And I also said that, I think it was in the Summer of 2014, Q International American Polling Institute made a survey in Crimea saying that 80 or 90% of the population endorsed the status as a part of Russia. And the same result was arrived at by the German polling company GfK in 2015. So, when the majority of the population accepts this transfer from Ukraine to Russia, is it an annexation? I had a discussion in the book about it: Because you can say, on the one side, it depends, if you look at it like that, you can consider it to be an annexation. But in other ways, it’s not a very typical annexation, because of what I’ve just mentioned.

So they really made a mistake, because they said it shows that I am teaching the history of Russia in favor of the Russian war in Ukraine going on right now. So they are manipulating things to get it to fit into their own narrative. It’s not serious. Not at all. And I’m open to debate about this. Of course I am. But they are not interested in a debate. I wrote a letter to them and they have, of course, not answered the letter.

And whatever I wrote six years ago, it is not what I’m saying in the classroom.

%%Liberties Only in Time of Peace?

EIR: As a teacher at the Folk University, don’t you have the right to take part in the public debate, even if some may object to your views? What do you think about that? And why do you participate in the public media debate about Russia and Ukraine?

Nielsen: Well, my case seemed to prove the fact that if you take part, and have some points of view, which do not suit public opinion, or does not suit the government, you will lose your livelihood. You will lose your job. So this is what it proves, that you can lose your job. I have lost two jobs because of this. So it’s obvious that there are some costs connected to it. It shouldn’t be like that. You should not be fired because of some points of view you have, and that you bring into the public discussion such a very, very important question as the war going on in Ukraine right now. So it’s difficult. At any rate, it comes with big costs for those who participate. They can be fired. There can be a witch hunt against them. There can be a campaign against them, smear campaigns, and such kind of things. It has taken place here, and I also understand—I just followed some of my German colleagues, and they have been exposed to something like that.

EIR: Yes, you liken this to a German word “Berufsverbot”. What is that?

Nielsen: Beruf means your work. Verbot means you’re blocked, your fired, you’re not allowed to work there. And some years back, 40 or 50 years ago, we had this discussion. Are you allowed to work at university, if you have certain points of view? And also at this time, there were people who were fired, some from the right and some from the left, by the way. And we had a discussion. Well, I don’t recall precisely, but it was in around the ’70s, Vietnam, the ’80s, where we had this discussion. I was very young at this this time. And I think it ended up with the fact that we agreed that you should not be fired because of your public opinions. One of the leaders of the Nazi Party in Denmark was a teacher at Aalborg University. I knew this guy. I didn’t like him. But that is off the mark. But there was discussion, and actually, he was allowed to stay there, because there was no complaint about his teaching. He was teaching German language and literature. There was a discussion about it.

So it’s not a new thing. We didn’t have this discussion for many years. Now it’s come back, and it tells that when you have some tension, some conflict, and things like that, our highly valued liberties, they immediately fly away. So it’s a thin layer. Our democracy, the democratic culture here, is maybe a very thin layer. So I wonder, if Denmark enters the war more directly, I think we’ll probably lose all our liberties. We can have liberties when you have peace. There’s no danger. But when you have some tension, they should prove themselves. These liberties should prove themselves in times of tension.

%%’Europe Should Not End Up in Nuclear War’

EIR: And why is it that you have participated in the debate about Russia and Ukraine in the public media?

Nielsen: Because I’m very dissatisfied with the policy. I think that the policy the West is pursuing towards Russia—and also Ukraine—I think it’s hopeless. I think it’s very, very foolish, and is very dangerous, by the way. Well, for Russia, of course, but also for ourselves. I think we’re playing with fire. It’s a very dangerous situation. I think this is the most dangerous situation we have, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was 60 years back. Of course, I’m driven by this, that the West, that Europe should not end up in nuclear war. Because I know exactly, that if there will be a nuclear war, Europe will be the first theater which will be hit, and it will really, really, really have consequences which we have not seen in the history of mankind, ever.

We know the potential for nuclear war. We know where it is. And you can be angry with Putin around the clock. But, at the end of the day, there’s no alternative to have some kind of agreement with Russia to find some kind of solution. To defeat Russia is stupidity. And I’m not talking, maybe, because I feel sorry for the Russians. I feel sorry for ourselves. I feel sorry for the Europeans who are following a very shortsighted policy, especially from America, the United States of America. I think Europeans, we should find another approach to the policy, because it’s obvious for everyone now, because of the sanctions, Europe is really in straits. Europe is the part of the world which is hit most by the sanctions. It’s actually not really Russia. It’s Russia to some extent, of course. But Russia can sell their oil anywhere. And we buy their oil. Much of the gas and oil from Russia goes to India, and China, and they sail around the globe, and they end up in Germany for four-five times the price. It’s stupidity. It’s pure stupidity, and that’s why I engage in the debate.

EIR: You’ve also said that in your media debates, you have not legitimized Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine, but that you have stressed that it’s important to find out how we got here. Also the responsibility on the western side. I have made interviews with you, actually, before the start of the war in February. I interviewed you in December of last year, and you were warning about—that was at the point where Russia had just proposed two treaties to try to avoid crossing their red lines. But you said that you have also participated in the media debate to find out how can we reach a peaceful solution?

Do you think that you being put on the Ukraine blacklist, and that being widely publicized in Denmark, could have been a factor that led to this situation where you’ve been fired?

%%Arrogance of the West

Nielsen: Definitely, among other factors. But it definitely has played a role, There’s no doubt about it.

And I also need to just add that the two questions are actually interrelated, because to find out what brought us to this point, it will also be very meaningful when you find out how we proceed from here, how to get to a more peaceful solution. So those questions are interrelated actually. You can’t find a road to peace, really, if you don’t find out how we how we got here and how to proceed. So I think that is very interrelated.

But when I look at many of the researchers in Denmark, they have some strange ideologically fixed pictures of Russia. There’s a lot of things to criticize in Russia. That’s not the point. But to find out, more exactly, what’s taking place. And I think that the West should take off their ideological glasses, and look much more realistically at what’s happening on the ground. And then, they will probably, maybe, come to some more effective solutions, I don’t know. But then there’s a chance of it, at least.

EIR: You have also warned in your media debates that people who think that if you just get rid of Putin, then the problem is solved—you have warned that there are factions which are very anti-Western.

Nielsen: Yes, sure. Because I think many in Denmark, and in the West in general, tend to forget that Putin was actually very pro-Western in the beginning of his term when it started more than 20 years back. He was President in 2000. They seem to forget it. He actually wanted Russia to become part of NATO. He appealed to the West in his speech in the Bundestag, in the German parliament, and so on, and met with George W. Bush, and things like that. He was very good friends with Tony Blair, I think. There was a hope for the world, but things changed, and I think is very interesting to understand what changed in those years. I think that there were many steps. It’s a little complicated to put it shortly here, but a lot of it, I think, was the West’s arrogance, and the West saying we can do anything, without asking Russia.

The first thing was the bombing of Serbia in 1999, and the extension of NATO, and things like that. And secondly, was the Iraq war, and things like that. So things changed in Russia…. I lived in Russia in the ’90s, and I talked to the Russians. I had another picture. I knew, at this time, that Russia would rise again as a superpower.

And it was important, also, to have some kind of confidence in each other, and to get into a more comprehensive cooperation with Russia. It didn’t happen for several reasons…. And does the West’s attitude have anything to do with it? It definitely has. But this is the discussion.

I think that’s also where many of the discussions tend to stop today, because in the West, many politicians, and also people from think-tanks in the West, tend to think that our way of thinking is the only way of thinking…. I think it’s a very, very dangerous way of thinking. I think they will end up with conflicts.

So, I think it’s important to have, in universities, but also among politicians, to have a discussion. Where has this American-led world brought us today? It has brought us to the brink of catastrophe, to the brink of a breakdown of a lot of things. And many of the Russians are aware of this. They look at it this way, but many in the West have difficulties to see it, because we are blindfolded, more or less, ideologically, and it’s dangerous.

%%Voices of Dissent Are Important Now

EIR: Just to conclude, what has to change now, on the western side, and also in Russia, to make it possible for us to switch over to peace negotiations to avoid nuclear war?

Nielsen: The first thing is to have a ceasefire. And it’s interesting: Everyone knows that there had been some steps to make ceasefire in March and April. And it’s very interesting to see who stopped it? It was actually not the Ukrainians, in the first place. It was first, the European Union, and then Boris Johnson from the UK, and also Biden. It was the West that stopped it. There were some attempts in Belarus in the first place, and later on in Turkey. Erdogan invited Russia and Ukraine to some talks, and there are still some talks. There are still some talks about the export of wheat from Odessa, and they’re sitting in Istanbul, while we are talking. And it was because of Erdogan. There are many people in the West who do not like Erdogan. I’m not very much in love with Erdogan, but this is a very, very—it’s the most reasonable step which has been taken. It’s been taken from Erdogan, because he invited Russia and Ukraine.

And now, maybe, it could seem that it’s too late. I don’t know exactly, But it seems now that—because the Ukrainians, Zelensky has now changed his mind. He wants to go to the end, to have a military victory. So he believes that Ukraine can kick all the Russian soldiers out of Ukraine, and the Crimea included. I don’t believe it will be that easy. Definitely. If you look at it a little cynically, it might seem that the Americans want a war of attrition against Russia, so that Russia will be weakened. Because they’re saying that what happened, probably in the beginning of the ’80s, … the Americans made some new armaments, and the Soviet Union could not follow. Eventually, the Soviet Union collapsed. And maybe they are thinking about the same strategy now, which they had in the ’80s with the war in Afghanistan, and also with the armaments, that it will break the back of Russia. But it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing.

I’m definitely not sure it will happen this time, because Russia and China are allied this time, and Russia has strong allies, also, in India, Pakistan and all the Asian countries. Russia has integrated itself into the Asian environment. And I think that it’s not a realistic policy from the United States and Europe. So I think, eventually, it will be bad for us, definitely.

I think it’s important for us that there is a voice of dissent. As I said, that there are some people who will present some other ways of thinking, because many of us who think like that, we are in a minority right now. But things can change very quickly. And I wouldn’t be surprised if, suddenly, there will be a situation where people in the West, people in Europe, and also in America, will say enough is enough. We can’t do it any more, because this huge amount of money we’re sending to Ukraine, I mean, we are taking the money from other projects: infrastructure, education, hospitals, health care system, things like that. So I think that there’s a limit to how long time we can continue this war. And I also think that that goes for Ukraine. How much can they destroy the country, and how many people should be killed? It’s very important that some voices in the West demand that we have this peace process taking place as fast as possible.

EIR: Jens Jørgen, thank you very much. And thank you for your courage in standing up for your views, for your personal views in the media, and for having a professional attitude towards your teaching, where you have been presenting different viewpoints.

Torsdag den 17. november 2022

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag, velkommen til den ugentlige dialog med Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Jeg er Harley Schlanger, og det er torsdag den 17. november 2022. Helga, i de sidste par dage i den forgangne uge, så det ud til, at vi har undveget et potentielt atomprojektil med missilhændelsen i Polen. Jeg er endnu ikke sikker på, at de fleste mennesker er klar over, hvor alvorligt dette er, men jeg tror, at det er meget vigtigt for dig at forklare folk din opfattelse af, hvad der foregik i forbindelse med denne hændelse.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg mener, at vi virkelig alle bør studere denne hændelse, fordi den anskueliggør, hvor hurtigt vi på grund af dumhed, provokationer, overreaktioner, en kombination af alle disse ting, kan komme i en situation, hvor man har en fuldbyrdet NATO-Rusland-konfrontation, for det var det, der var på nippet til at indtræffe.

I tirsdags kom nyheden om, at et missil havde ramt et sted i Polen, og straks var der en hel række medier og nogle politikere, der påstod, at dette var et russisk angreb på Polen, et NATO-medlem. Folk begyndte endda at tale om NATO’s artikel 5, dvs. den forsvarsmæssige betingelse, hvor hele NATO skulle have forsvaret Polen. Nogle af medierne, især de britiske medier, Daily Telegraph, The Mail, gik grassat og talte om et russisk angreb på Polen; Bildzeitung og flere tyske medier gik helt amok med overskrifter som “Putin leger med Tredje Verdenskrig”. Sådan lød overskrifterne onsdag; endog i en lederartikel. Dette på trods af at præsident Biden allerede tirsdag aften, naturligvis grundet tidsforskellen, havde sagt meget klart, at der ikke var noget bevis for, at der var tale om et russisk missil, men at mistanken var, at det var et ukrainsk luftforsvarsmissil, som på den ene eller den anden måde var endt i Polen.

Så på trods af at USA’s præsident og efterfølgende Pentagon benægtede, at det var et russisk missil, bragte medierne stadig overskrifter, endog om morgenen onsdag, hvor der blev rapporteret om sagen. Zelenskyj og Kuleba insisterede naturligvis hele dagen på, at det uden tvivl var et russisk missil, og da det blev tydeligt fastslået, at det ikke drejede sig om et russisk missil, sagde Kuleba, at det var en “konspirationsteori” at påstå dette.

Det er utroligt, men det er på en måde forståeligt – Ukraine er én ting. Men så fremturede nogle vestlige politikere, f.eks. fra det tyske liberale parti, FDP, [Marie Agnes] Strack-Zimmermann, formanden for forsvarsudvalget, og Lamsdorff, de påpegede alle sammen, at der ikke var nogen tvivl om, at det var et russisk missil. Så det som disse mennesker talte om, var muligheden for en militær konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland i denne ekstremt anspændte situation. Det viser, at de ikke spekulerede på, om vi havde beviser, om de var blevet verificeret. Ved vi det?” De anmodede ikke om en undersøgelse, men de hoppede blot til konklusionen og gav Rusland skylden.

Jeg mener dette må analyseres, for det viser simpelthen, at i tider med utilsigtede hændelser eller forhold, kan det gå galt, hvis vi ikke bevæger os i en anden retning og udvikler en sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor en sådan potentiel udslettelse af menneskeheden kan forhindres; Dette bør virkelig udgøre et varselssignal for alle, der ikke er fuldstændige idioter, om at vi helt klart skal gå i den retning, som Schiller Instituttet har påpeget siden april i år, nemlig at vi har brug for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som tager hensyn til alle verdens landes interesser, baseret på principperne i den Westfalske Fred.

Der er i kølvandet på sagen naturligvis krav om en grundig undersøgelse. Nu er der ligefrem røster, der taler om, at det måske var en provokation. Der er endda politikere i Polen, som udtaler, at Warszawa er nødt til fuldstændigt at genoverveje sin strategi i forhold til Ukraine. Så jeg er ikke i stand til at besvare disse spørgsmål nu, for det er naturligvis af største vigtighed, og man skal være ekstremt grundig for at finde ud af præcis, hvad der skete.

Nu var det sandsynligvis, som alle tegn vidner om, et sovjetisk produceret russisk missil, som Ukraine bruger, men hvem der affyrede dette missil, og var det et uheld, eller var det en provokation, det er endnu uvist. Jeg finder politikernes opførsel absolut skandaløs, og de medier der løj, på trods af at det fra USA’s præsident allerede var blevet afkræftet; jeg synes, at folk egentlig burde smide disse aviser væk og i virkeligheden indse, hvor farlige de er som et redskab til geopolitisk krigsførelse.

SCHLANGER: Da det først blev klart, at det ikke var et russisk affyret missil, er det interessant, hvordan diskussionen fortsatte: Stoltenberg sagde, at det fortsat er Ruslands skyld. Der var denne skøre Anne Applebaum fra Atlantic Council, der sagde, at det er ligegyldigt, hvad der skete: Det er Ruslands skyld. Der fulgte et yderligere skift til dette argument om, at vi nu er nødt til at spendere flere penge på Ukraine, de har brug for et bedre luftforsvarssystem. Helga, du har en Schiller Institut-konference på vej den 22. november, som virkelig får større betydning nu som følge af denne hændelse, ikke sandt? [“Stop faren for atomkrig”: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jo, for det viser ganske enkelt, at vi, som vi drøftede på den sidste Schiller-konference den 5. november, hvor denne ekstremt vigtige korte video blev fremvist, virkelig er ved at finde ud af, hvad der rent faktisk ville ske under atomare krigsforhold: Når denne tingest først er udløst, har man højst 10 minutter, eller absolut maksimalt 10 til 15 minutter, før et angreb meddeles, og i bund og grund er atomvåbenarsenalet ramt; 2 minutter til at identificere det, 30 sekunder til at den amerikanske præsident kan beslutte, hvad han skal gøre – nogle få minutter – hvis vi kommer ind i denne form for dynamik, så burde folk have søvnløse nætter, indtil vi har afklaret sagen.

Næste tirsdag, den 22. november, afholder vi den tredje Schiller-konference, som er et resultat af initiativet fra latinamerikanske kongresmedlemmer. Det startede i oktober, og derefter havde vi meget hurtigt endnu en konference, og nu har vi den tredje, men i mellemtiden har disse kongresmedlemmer, især to fra Mexico, udsendt en international opfordring til alle valgte embedsmænd på internationalt plan og deres vælgere om at etablere en ny fredsbevægelse af verdensborgere. [“Hastesag: Stop faren for atomkrig!” https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/16/letter-to-current-and-former-legislators-of-the-world/] Det faktum, at hvis man udkæmper en atomkrig, er det et anliggende for hele menneskeheden, fordi det kan føre til den fuldstændige ødelæggelse af hele civilisationen, og det gør automatisk enhver borger til en verdensborger, der har ret til at rejse sig og erklære, at “dette må stoppe, så vi har brug for en anden politik”.

Således vil vi have adskillige parlamentarikere fra Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brasilien og også nogle folk fra Europa med; også nogle af de mennesker, der lige nu demonstrerer for en afslutning på denne krig og indledende fredsforhandlinger. Det bliver virkelig et meget betydningsfuldt møde med to paneler, for det udvikler sig meget hurtigt, og vi er nødsaget til at have to paneler. Jeg vil virkelig opfordre alle jer, der er bekymrede over faren for atomkrig, til at deltage i denne konference, for vi er nødt til at lægge et meget virkningsfuldt alternativ på bordet, hvilket er præcis hvad jeg tidligere omtalte: Vi er nødt til at tvinge verdens regeringer til at udarbejde en ny international sikkerhedsarkitektur, som ikke udelukker noget land. For hvis man udelukker nogen, selv om det er en såkaldt autokratisk stat (hvilket man også kan sige meget om), skal der tages hensyn til alle, ellers fungerer det ikke!

Det er den store lære fra den Westfalske Fred, hvor folk erkendte, at man er nødt til at tage hensyn til alle landes interesser, hvis en fred skal være varig. Når man ikke gør det, som det skete med Versailles-traktaten, fører det til den næste krig: Det var den store forskel mellem den Westfalske Fred og Versailles-traktaten, at den ene fred etablerede international ret som et fungerende organ af lovmæssighed, mens Versailles-traktaten netop var kimen til den næste store verdenskrig, der skulle opstå.

Vi vil diskutere dette, og vi vil også præsentere brugbare foranstaltninger, der kan iværksættes for at afholde en sådan traktatkonference. Så I burde virkelig deltage.

SCHLANGER: Man kan tilmelde sig på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122); der er en boks og en tilmeldingsformular, som I kan udfylde.

Resten er på engelsk:

Now, you were mentioning the importance of the motion from Ibero-America, from especially the Global South: It’s interesting that this incident in Poland occurred during the G20 conference, where there were clearly tensions between the Global South and these so-called G7 nations. What’s your sense of what came from there, because there were a number of meetings between leaders—Xi Jinping was very active. How do you think that conference went overall?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it showed several things. First of all, the developing countries, but especially the host country Indonesia, they were very concerned that the so-called Western countries would not just come and complain, and harass and attack. But they wanted to have a constructive approach, focussing on the real challenges which are a threat to humanity, which is naturally, the world food crisis. Beasley, from the World Food Program, said this is the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II, what we’re experiencing right now. So they succeeded to a very large extent.

There was still an effort to condemn Russia and so forth, but it did not really function, because I think it has dawned on at least the more intelligent people, that there is no way how you can go back to the unipolar world. The multipolarity has become a reality; the Global South is playing a much bigger role, they want to overcome colonialism in its new form. And I think that that is a completely new dynamic. That does not mean that everybody in the Western establishment immediately will adapt to that, because they’re arrogant, and if you listen to [EU foreign policy chief] Josep Borrell, who thinks only Europe is a “garden” and the rest is a “jungle,” naturally your ears are so full of flowers and whatever your garden is growing that you can’t hear what people are saying!

But the reality is that there is a new reality, a new realignment, where 130, 140 countries have allied with the Belt and Road Initiative. They’re forming new systems with the BRICS countries, many more countries are applying to become members of the BRICS—Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey—so there is a lot of motion to actually build a completely new system based on sovereignty, the five principles of coexistence, the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement, and that is really the new dynamic.

Other than that, I think quite important was the first physical meeting between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, at least since Biden has been President, and according to Foreign Minister Wang Yi, this meeting was a breakthrough. We have to see; I’m always of the opinion, let the deeds follow the words. But I think the fact that these two people met for more than three hours is very important, and one can only hope that this will constitute a lasting shift toward cooperation and an ending to this extreme confrontation which was going on.

Xi Jinping also met with about a dozen or more leaders, with Macron, with Albanese from Australia, with Rutte from Holland, and many others. And especially the meeting between Xi Jinping and Macron reestablished the intention that the two countries should work together. Then you had the Scholz visit to China earlier.

So there are clear motions that there is a recognition that you don’t get around China, because China is the locomotive of the world economy. And all the other Asian countries, as well! The only place where there is growth is Asia—it’s not Europe, it’s not the United States.

It was quite interesting that the Indonesian President Joko Widodo proudly announced the opening of the Jakarta-Bandung High-Speed Railway at the occasion of Indonesia being the host country of the G20. I think this is important, because the developing countries look for cooperation with those countries that bring them real development. They don’t want to have just “democracy” and Sunday sermons, they want to have development, and they go to the countries that bring them that.

In that sense, it would be the best, and that is the whole aim of the Schiller Institute, we want the United States and European nations to cooperate with the Global South. There has to be an equal footing, and the demands from the developing sector that they want to overcome their poverty, that’s legitimate! And if Germany and France and Japan, and other so-called “industrial” countries, that are almost formerly industrialized countries by now, they have to listen and they have to come down from their high horse, and they should not think they are so superior to everybody else—and that, in any case, will not be accepted any longer.

So, I think with all caution, and the Polish missile event shows you that caution is adequate, nevertheless, I think this G20 meeting did reflect a change in the realities of the world, and that’s a little step in the right direction.

SCHLANGER: The final communiqué, in which the G7 nations wanted it to be a condemnation of Russia, and it was obviously a compromise. The final communiqué said, “Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine…” not even condemning Russia. And it mentioned that “There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions.” [http://static.kremlin.ru/media/events/files/en/u82esHnvQFdHOjV25AJg73rnLGEe8cK6.pdf] So, clearly if there was an attempt behind the scenes to bully, it didn’t work.

Helga, going into this conference, you had a role to play: You were able to bring to full consciousness the whole question of the Non-Aligned Movement, the anti-colonial movement. Why don’t you give us a little sense of what you did?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I participated in a very interesting conference celebrating the 66 year commemoration of the Bandung-Belgrade-Havana conferences, and celebrating a revival of the Spirit of Bandung. This was a very interesting week-long conference: It started in Jakarta; it went to Bandung, it went to Surabaya, and then from there to Bali. I unfortunately only participated online, but nevertheless, it was really expressing the absolute desire of the developing countries to end colonialism, and that spirit was very, very strong.

Now, some people also expressed that they think the West is hopeless, that you have to have a unilateral agreement, just don’t bother about the West any more. Now, I have argued many times that I don’t think that is realistic, because if you do not integrate at least the United States and hopefully many European countries, at least the continental European countries, it will not work! First of all, I don’t think the West would collapse as peacefully as the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991. And we can’t have a bloc-building either: You can’t have a Global South plus Russia and China, and a West, which decouples—I don’t think that that will work. And I find it quite interesting, I just read an article by Andrey Kortunov from the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), who basically said the same thing. He thinks that to construct any kind of world order without the United States will not function, and unfortunately, that’s what it is—or not “unfortunately.” [https://www.rt.com/news/566635-andrey-kortunov-american-attempts/ ]

But we have to getting the United States, despite what Ray McGovern calls the MICIMATT, Wall Street, the big banks, BlackRock, the whole conglomerate of economic-financial interests and the military-industrial complex conglomerate, that is one reality, but that is not the entire United States: We have farmers, we have people who are the real people and they have obviously had a voice in the recent period, in the campaign for Senate of Diane Sare in New York.

But I think just the last word on the G20, the Non-Aligned Movement, I think the momentum is in Asia. I was also able to give several interviews, Chinese TV, commenting on all these things. So my overall impression of all of that is, the Westerners, so-called, would be really advised to stop being so arrogant and just start to cooperate with the countries that clearly have the historic momentum. If they don’t it will be at their own expense, and in the worst case, Europe will go to the sidelines of history and become a relic of one of these civilizations that didn’t make it.

That’s not what we should aim for, so I’m more for a revival of the spirit of Leibniz, that Europe and China should work together, and develop all the countries in between: So that’s my view.

SCHLANGER: Things are not so good in Josep Borrell’s “garden.” The latest report from the European Central Bank shows that there is an extreme period of crisis coming with the economy. The idiocy of the Green partners in the German coalition government, Baerbock and Habeck, are pointing toward accelerated deindustrialization. What does it look like in Europe right now?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: We are going into a real hard fall and winter: The prices of food and energy are already skyrocketing. Fuest, who is the head of the Ifo economic institute in Munich just said that in the medium term this is risking Germany as an industrial location; the Mittelstand will be wiped out if the policies of these Green ideologues, these absolutely anti-human, anti-growth people, [Foreign Minister] Baerbock and [Economic Minister] Habeck, if that is not quickly replaced, Germany will cease to be an industrial nation.

And the ECB just put out a report saying that they’re between a rock and a hard place, between quantitative tightening, threatening collapses and bankruptcies; and quantitative easing, which threatens hyperinflation. There is no solution within that system. This is why we are saying, we absolutely need to have a new credit system, Glass-Steagall, national bank, going back to the principles as the Bretton Woods system was intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, and unfortunately never implemented because when FDR died, Truman and Churchill who then finally designed the Bretton Woods. This is why many developing countries don’t even like the word “Bretton Woods.”

But as Roosevelt intended it, to overcome the poverty and increase the living standard of the entire world population, that has to be put on the agenda, but naturally, I don’t think it will function with this present leadership of the EU, because von der Leyen and ECB President Lagarde, and these people, they are really the hard-core neoliberal—they’re like the Honeckers of the neoliberal system. So, with them it will not function. We need some other motion.

SCHLANGER: Especially given the context of the war danger, as well as the hunger crisis that David Beasley talked about, maybe you want to say something more about that; but clearly, the question of a failing architecture, which as you say, is not going to fail peacefully, but could drag the world into war, does raise the question of what your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, dedicated the last 50 years of his life to, which is the creation of a new paradigm. And I think it’d be worthwhile just discussing finally how this would work to further the so-called “advanced sector”: the bankruptcy reorganization, the credit system—this is something that’s not even discussed. We just had an election in the United States, and none of this was discussed!

Maybe you want to say something about the lack of a “red wave” in the United States, in this context?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the expectation that the Republicans would take over with a sweeping victory did not come true. Then Trump’s candidates didn’t win in many places. Now the big talk is about Florida Governor DeSantis, who is really linked to the neoliberal Austrian school of economics.

Right now, I think the United States, it really shows that what my late husband had said about the party system, that it does not function—he actually called it the “potty system.” And, of course, George Washington at the end of his term, warned against the parties, saying they tend not to be in the interest of the nation, but in the lobby interests, the specialist groups. There is really no fundamental difference, because if you now look at what Bannon as an adviser to Trump is now doing in Mexico, lining up with the extreme rightwing forces of Latin American continent.

I think we need, really, a revival of the American tradition, and the only thing one could see in this recent election campaign was the fantastic campaign of Diane Sare, who, however, was completely defrauded of her vote! That should also be noted: There’s this big story, you can’t say there was vote fraud in 2020. Well, there was vote fraud for sure against Diane Sare. We have screen shots where she had at a certain point over 50,000 votes, and then a few hours later, the screen shot shows she had only 29,000 votes. She had collected more than 66,000 signatures to even be on the ballot! So they didn’t even give her a third of those votes, which is completely hilarious! She had all these groups that were supporting her.

In any case, what that signifies is that there is a huge divide between the population and the governments, and that is becoming very clear in Europe as well, where you have more and more large demonstrations: People taking to the streets because they don’t feel represented by the government, or the parties like the Free Democratic Party, which really showed its colors in the missile crisis. Who wants to be in the hands of people like this German MP Strack-Zimmermann? This is a Halloween kind of an idea.

What is really required is a completely different system, whereby the common good is again on the agenda, and more and more people from the so-called “normal people” have to take responsibility and qualify themselves to know what should be the economic policy, the foreign policy, the security policy, education. And that requires exactly what we are trying to do to create a movement of world citizens who basically say: We will not allow our fate to be ruined by those few billionaires who are controlling all the corporations; you know, BlackRock is just one example, Vanguard, these things are like vultures that are trying to suck the juice out of the economy, at the expense of the people. That has come to a breaking point, and we need, really, a mass movement of true state citizens. And one occasion where that will be discussed is this coming week at the next Schiller conference. So again, I invite you to participate.

SCHLANGER: Those people who want to know how there’s no contradiction between being a patriot of your nation and a world citizen, should register for the conference. It’s Nov. 22, and registration is available at the Schiller Institute website: https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20221122

Helga we’ve run out of time, so thank you very much for joining us today, and we’ll see you hopefully again next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.

Den 15. november 2022 (EIRNS) – Som et eksempel på den type af hændelser, der utilsigtet kan føre til en optrapning imod global atomar udslettelse, ramte et missil en korntørrer i den polske by Przewodów, ikke langt fra grænsen til Ukraine. Hændelsen, som angiveligt har kostet to mennesker livet, fandt sted den 15. november i forbindelse med Ruslands omfattende missilangreb på Ukraine. De første medierapporter, bl.a. fra AP, oplyste, at eksplosionen var forårsaget af et russisk “vildfarent missil”.

Disse rapporter var ikke blevet bekræftet af den polske regering, som forinden havde indkaldt til et hastemøde for at drøfte hændelsen. Regeringens talsmand, Piotr Mueller, opfordrede ifølge RT medierne og offentligheden til “ikke at offentliggøre ubekræftede oplysninger”.

Som modtræk til rapporterne om, at det var et russisk vildfarent missil, der ramte korntørreriet i Polen, offentliggjorde Telegram-siden “Mash” billeder taget af den polske regering, og hævdede at fragmenterne stammer fra S-300 luftforsvarssystemer fra sovjettiden, som i øjeblikket er i drift af Ukraine. Ukraines udenrigsminister Dmytro Kuleba reagerede med et tweet ved at kalde påstanden for en “konspirationsteori”. Det polske udenrigsministerium meddelte herefter, at det havde bekræftet, at missilet var fremstillet i Rusland (i Sovjettiden?) og indkaldte den russiske ambassadør “med krav om en øjeblikkelig detaljeret redegørelse”, fremgår det af en erklæring.

I mellemtiden forsøgte Ukraines præsident Volodymyr Zelenskyj at optrappe situationen med sin uovertrufne dramatiske facon ved at påstå, at “dette er et russisk missilangreb på den kollektive sikkerhed”, og at “NATO er nødt til at handle”, hvilket gav anledning til et væld af diskussioner på de sociale medier om, hvorvidt NATO’s artikel 5 ville blive påberåbt. Formanden for Senatets udenrigsudvalg i USA, Bob Menendez (D-NJ), gav sig derefter i kast med forestillingen og udtalte i et interview, at hvis Moskva forsætligt ramte territorium i Polen, kunne det føre til, at artikel 5 blev påberåbt.

Ruslands udenrigsministerium reagerede på striden ved at tweete: “Russisk udstyr udførte INTET angreb i området”. Og flere røster stemte i til fordel for nedtrapning. “Vi kan for nuværende ikke bekræfte rapporterne eller nogen af detaljerne. Vi vil fastslå, hvad der er sket, og hvad de passende efterfølgende foranstaltninger vil være,” sagde talskvinde for USA’s nationale sikkerhedsråd, Adrienne Watson, i en erklæring.

Hændelsen blev derefter bragt på bane ved et pressemøde i Pentagon, hvor Pentagons talsmand, Air Force Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder, forklarede journalisterne, at forsvarsministeriet ikke havde beviser, der kunne bekræfte russisk ansvar. Da journalisterne pressede Ryder på en tidligere AP-rapport, der citerede en unavngiven amerikansk embedsmand i efterretningstjenesten for at hævde, at det var russiske missiler, der havde ramt Polen, insisterede Ryder endnu en gang på, at Pentagon ikke har “nogen oplysninger, der kan bekræfte” sådanne rapporter, men at man ” undersøger sagen”.

Selv den polske præsident Andrzej Duda sagde: “Vi har på nuværende tidspunkt ikke afgørende beviser for, hvem der affyrede missilet” – med det forbehold, at missilet “sandsynligvis” blev fremstillet i Rusland. Ikke desto mindre overvejer Polen angiveligt at påberåbe sig NATO’s diskussions- og undersøgelsesproces i henhold til den mildere artikel 4, men har i skrivende stund ikke truffet nogen beslutning.

Og endelig har endog Joe Biden fra et sted på Bali, ifølge et udskrift fra Det Hvide Hus, blandet sig i beskyldningerne om, at det var et russisk missil: Der er foreløbige oplysninger, som bestrider dette. Jeg vil ikke sige det, før vi har undersøgt det fuldstændigt. Men … det er usandsynligt, i betragtning af banen, at det blev affyret fra Rusland. Men vi får se.”

Centrale spørgsmål er stadig tilbage, herunder hvad hedder den “højtstående amerikanske embedsmand i efterretningstjenesten”, der forsøger at udløse tredje verdenskrig?

Hvis Polen ikke var medlem af NATO, ville konsekvenserne af en sådan hændelse ikke nødvendigvis udløse en diskussion om Harmagedon, Ragnarok. Hvis Polen imidlertid ikke var blevet medlem af alliancen, da den udvidede sig til Ruslands grænse, og hvis NATO ikke havde overvejet Ukraines medlemskab af alliancen, ville der sandsynligvis ikke være nogen missiler, som flyver nogen steder i Europa.

Følgende er fra dr.dk:

Ubekræftet: Missilet kan være fra ukrainsk forsvar

Amerikanske embedsmænd antyder, at det missil, der i går ramte Polen, kan komme fra det ukrainske forsvar. Det skriver journalist Seung Min Kim fra nyhedsbureauet AP, skriver Ritzau.

Ifølge hendes kilder tyder de indledende undersøgelser på, at det muligvis blev affyret fra de ukrainske styrker mod et indgående russisk missil.

Foto: Alexander Ermakov , Pexels

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 – Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), den førende tænketank med tilknytning til udenrigsministeriet, afholdt et fysisk seminar såvel som et online-seminar om “NATO’s nye strategiske koncept i praksis”. NATO’s nye strategiske koncept blev vedtaget på NATO-topmødet i Madrid i juni på baggrund af krigen i Ukraine. Der var fire akademiske forsvarseksperter som indlægsholdere.

Nogle af hovedpunkterne: Det sidste strategiske koncept var fra 2010, hvor Rusland blev betegnet som en strategisk partner, og hvor Kina ikke blev nævnt. Denne gang må NATO være forberedt på en tofrontskrig imod Rusland og Kina. Forsvar og afspænding er ændret til forsvar og afskrækkelse. NATO skal bejle diplomatisk til det Globale Syd, som ikke er indforstået med det vestlige verdensbillede.  

Schiller Instituttets organisator fik mulighed for at stille et af de tre spørgsmål: Den vigtigste strategiske trussel er atomkrig. Formanden for Schiller Instituttet har sammenlignet det med to atomtog, der kører mod hinanden. Hvad skal der til for skridt for skridt at undgå den optrapning, som vi har set fortsætte, og som kan medføre en atomkrig? Hvad skal der til for at overgå til forhandlinger for at stoppe krigen i Ukraine? Derefter annoncerede hun konferencen “Stop atomkrig” den 22. november.  

Prof. Jamie Shea, formand for “Centre for War Studies” ved Syddansk Universitet og med 40 års erfaring fra NATO’s internationale stab, svarede: “Jeg er helt enig. Jeg mener, at dette udgør en reel bekymring.” Han henviste til Jake Sullivan, der ringede til sine russiske modparter, og at der er signaler bag kulisserne, som vi ikke er bekendt med. Vesten har en strategi, hvis Rusland bruger et atomvåben. NATO har også gennemført atomøvelser. Han nævnte, at Rusland kunne bruge en beskidt bombe ved at bombe et atomkraftværk.

Prof. WSR Olivier Schmitt fra samme universitet svarede, at en hindring af en atomar optrapning er noget andet end at standse krigen i Ukraine. Med hensyn til det første, er det et problem, at den tekniske ekspertise vedrørende afskrækkelse er blevet undermineret. Folk forstår ikke signalering af atomvåben, men vi har været der før og bør genoplive ekspertisen vedrørende afskrækkelse. Hvad angår det andet punkt, vil kampene ikke stoppe, så længe begge parter ser sandsynlige veje til sejr. Putin forventer, at de vestlige lande holder op med at støtte Ukraine, og Ukraine ser sin militære kapacitet stige.

Organisatoren havde talrige drøftelser med talere og deltagere før og efter seminaret, og samtlige deltagere fik en invitation til konferencen den 22. november. Et par af deltagerne, herunder en militæranalytiker, udtalte, da de blev konfronteret med, at NATO er ansvarlig for krigen i Ukraine: “Der skal to til at danse tango”. En svensk professor var bekymret for, hvad Sveriges NATO-medlemskab kunne medføre. Der blev oprettet kontakter.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er netop blevet fyret som underviser på Folkeuniversitetet i København, angiveligt af politiske årsager. Jens Jørgen Nielsen talte på det dansk/svenske Schiller Instituts konference om en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur den 25. maj, og blev efterfølgende sat på Ukraines sortliste som nummer 3.

For nylig fratrådte tre andre undervisere, fordi de nægtede at undervise, hvis han fortsatte, og det blev omtalt i pressen. Kristeligt Dagblad skrev i sin dækning af kontroversen, at Jens Jørgen Nielsen var blevet sat på den ukrainske sortliste.

For tre dage siden besluttede den nye bestyrelse på Folkeuniversitetet, at Jens Jørgens kontrakt ikke skal forlænges næste år, fordi enkelte har kritiseret ham for “at politisere i undervisningen til fordel for den russiske forståelse af krigen i Ukraine”. Han underviser i øjeblikket på et kursus om Krims historie, som han får lov til at afslutte, men næste års kurser om “Russisk konservatisme” og “Ukraines historie” er blevet aflyst.

Hverken bestyrelsen eller andre af hans akademiske kritikere har nogensinde overværet et af hans kurser, og bestyrelsen har ikke engang talt med ham eller nogen af de deltagende om sagen, før de fyrede ham. Bestyrelsen har blot lyttet til nogle af hans kritikere og læst en af hans debatbøger, “Ukraine i spændingsfeltet”. Bestyrelsen kritiserede ham bl.a. for at skrive i bogen, at Krim ikke blev “annekteret” af Rusland, hvilket ville have krævet et militært angreb, men at det var en beslutning truffet af parlamentet på Krim.

I et radiointerview efter bortvisningen understregede Jens Jørgen Nielsen, at han holder sine personlige politiske holdninger, som han giver offentligt udtryk for i danske og internationale medier, ude af undervisningen og udelukkende præsenterer forskellige synspunkter om de historiske emner i sin undervisning, så eleverne kan reflektere over dem. Samtlige elevvurderinger, der er foretaget i de 8 år, han har undervist, har været overvejende positive, og ingen har kritiseret ham for at politisere.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen har sagt, at han ikke har politiseret til fordel for Ruslands militære angreb på Ukraine i undervisningen. Selv i medierne har han ikke legitimeret Ruslands handlinger, og sagt at det var en fejltagelse, men han har derimod sagt, at det er vigtigt at finde ud af, hvordan vi er havnet her, og dernæst hvordan vi kan nå frem til en fredelig løsning. Burde det ikke være tilladt, spørger han? Han siger, at han skrev bogen om Ukraine på grund af den ensidige mediedækning.

En af de undervisere, der sagde op, angreb ham i radioprogrammet for at være blevet interviewet på russisk stats-tv, men læreren vidste imidlertid intet om indholdet af interviewet.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen konkluderer, at Folkeuniversitetet har valgt den nemme, men også principløse løsning på det pres, de blev påført af den furore, der opstod, da de andre lærere sagde op. Det vides ikke, hvilken rolle Jens Jørgen Nielsens optræden på Ukraine-listen har spillet, da den blev omtalt bredt i pressen.

Den 8. november 2022 (EIRNS) – De i USA, der i dag har det privilegium og mulighed for at stemme på de uafhængige kandidater Diane Sare (USA’s Senat i New York) og Joel De Jean (U.S. Congress 38th CD,Texas), eller på dem, der har arbejdet sammen med dem på trods af politiske forskelle, såsom Geoff Young (6th CD,Kentucky), genopliver det, som mange amerikanere ikke engang er klar over er blevet stjålet – ikke “amerikanske valg”, men selve den amerikanske valgproces. Dagens valgproces er kun vigtig, fordi den indgår i den globale kamp for at føre verden tilbage fra randen af en atomkrig og til en holdbar ny strategisk og økonomisk arkitektur baseret på en tilbagevenden til det nyligt forsømte ideal og den praksis, som den Westfalske Fred i 1648 indebar.

Det princip, der ligger til grund for denne fredstraktat, er, at hver part i en konflikt skal forhandle om fred ud fra et synspunkt om at prioritere “den andens fordel” frem for sine egne misforhold eller fordele. Den Westfalske Fred, også kendt som Münster-traktaten, som Tysklands grønne udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock, en “dum og dummere” udgave af Tony Blair, har angrebet ( samt angrebet sin egen kansler Olaf Scholz for hans rejse til Kina), foranledigede hende til i mødesalen i Münster, hvor traktaten blev underskrevet, og hvor G7-udenrigsministermødet fandt sted, tilsyneladende endog at få fjernet det kristne kors, der hænger der….

I dag henleder vi opmærksomheden på to anliggender, som måske ikke ville få den rette opmærksomhed, hvis de blev beskrevet fra andre kilder. For det første havde Dmitry Polyanskij, Ruslands første stedfortrædende faste repræsentant ved De Forenede Nationer, et budskab til amerikanerne, som han formidlede torsdag aften, den 3. november, i Terra Reades “Politics of Survival”-show. Han erklærede bl.a., at “ingen i Rusland ønsker en atomkrig, uanset om det er en “begrænset” atomkrig eller en “ikke-begrænset” atomkrig. Vi forstår, hvor det kan føre hen. Vi har ingen illusioner med hensyn til, at det ville være ødelæggende for alle. Så hvis nogen starter det, vil det ikke være Rusland. Men hvis nogen starter en sådan krig mod Rusland, vil vi naturligvis i henhold til vores atomdoktrin være nødt til at gengælde…. Men igen, hvad er der på spil? Jeg mener, at det er vores fælles fremtid, der står på spil. USA’s fremtid er også på spil. Ingen ønsker, at USA skal smuldre, ingen ønsker, at USA skal forsvinde….”

For det andet er der gennembruddet med beretninger i den brede tyske presse om eksistensen af det ukrainske Center for bekæmpelse af Desinformations “kill list”, herunder navnet på en allieret af den tyske kansler Olaf Scholz, Rolf Mützenich, formand for de tyske socialdemokraters (SPD) parlamentsgruppe. Selv om man har vidst, at dræberlisten har eksisteret siden juli, blev den ikke omtalt, bl.a. fordi den indeholdt navnet på Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og leder, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, et navn som NATO-styrker har forbudt at udtale uden bagvaskelse i langt over 40 år i Tyskland. Den tyske hjemmeside NachDenkSeiten tog dette skridt i august og dækkede senere Executive Intelligence Reviews pressekonference, der afslørede drabslisten i september.

Det tyske gennembrud kommer på et tidspunkt, hvor nogle, bl.a. i USA og London, truer med at føre krig mod Tyskland, hvis det skulle overveje at trække sig bare et skridt tilbage fra det selvmord, der er planlagt for landet i form af dets forestående afindustrialisering, som Morgenthau og andre engang ønskede. Det vil nu blive gennemført under påskud af den store grønne omstilling. De tyske industrifolk, landmænd og dem der mener, at de er frie borgere, som ikke er underlagt den angloamerikanske besættelse, er uenige.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger i en China Plus “World Today”-podcast, fredag den 4. november – at man ikke behøver at se Kina som en systemisk rival; at 150 lande ikke ser det på den måde, men snarere ser Kina som en partner til at overvinde kolonialismen; og at hvis de tyske medier ville rapportere om de faktiske enorme fremskridt, der er sket i Kina, ville folk have et helt andet syn på landet – afspejler det løsningskoncept, som Schiller Instituttet atter vil præsentere på den kommende konference, “Stop faren for atomkrig nu”. Konferencen finder sted tirsdag den 22. november, som er 59-årsdagen for mordet på præsident John F. Kennedy.

Som i USA’s aktuelle historie er mord blevet brugt i Tyskland til at hjælpe med at gennemføre den politik, som NATO’s første generalsekretær (1952), Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, Winston Churchills øverste militære assistent, engang udtrykte som NATO’s formål – “at holde russerne ude, amerikanerne inde og tyskerne nede”. Der var mordene på Jürgen Ponto og Hanns Martin Schleyer i 1977. (Lyndon LaRouche var nr. 2 på den samme “drabsliste”.) Der var mordene på Alfred Herrhausen (november 1989) og Detlev Rohwedder (april 1991) efter Berlin-murens fald. Og man må ikke glemme virkningen af mordet på den tyske udenrigsminister Walter Rathenau for 100 år siden i 1922 i kølvandet på underskrivelsen af Rapallo-traktaten med Sovjetunionen, et mord, hvis egentlige planlæggere og gerningsmænd fik Tyskland til at tage en anden retning, som manifesterede sig i en ølhal i München et år senere.

Men denne anglofile imperialistiske ordens dage er hastigt ved at være forbi. I går sagde Zhao Lijian, talsmand for det kinesiske udenrigsministerium: “Vi opfordrer G7-landene til at opgive koldkrigsmentaliteten og ideologiske fordomme, ophøre med at blande sig i andre landes indenrigspolitik, gentage usandheder og fremprovokere regionale konflikter.” Det er trods alt i Tysklands og dets befolknings interesse, især dets kvalificerede arbejdsstyrke, at forsikre Kina om, at Tyskland ikke blot vil overholde stående kontrakter, men at det fortsat vil fortsætte med at forfølge og forbedre et forhold til Kina, selv om det er blevet helt klart, at anglosfæren er i færd med at erklære krig mod Kina, uanset hvad det vil koste dets egen befolkning. Tyske industrifolk og kansleren rejste til Kina mod anglosfærens ønske.

Dette er i strid med den uskrevne “Rule of Law”, som allerede har besluttet sig for krig mod Kina, og som vil skabe et påskud for at retfærdiggøre denne krig, hvilket analytikeren Ray McGovern antydede i sine bemærkninger på EIR’s pressemøde i lørdags.

Søndag den 6. november udfordrede arrangørerne for Diane Sares kampagne til det amerikanske senat præsident Joe Biden til at reagere på Ruslands nylige gentagelse af deres “no first use”-politik for atomvåben. Dette skete på en valgforsamling på Sarah Lawrence College. (Præsident Biden reagerede ikke.) Arrangørerne henviste til pavens forslag om, at Vatikanet kunne være mødested for øjeblikkelige fredsforhandlinger for at få krigen i Ukraine bragt til ophør. Pave Frans havde rammende sammenlignet den nuværende krig med krigene i 1914-1918 og 1939-1945, idet han sagde, at den nuværende krig, ligesom disse krige, er en verdenskrig. (https://twitter.com/JosBtrigga/status/1589488558716616704)

Paven har ret; dette er allerede en verdenskrig. Der hersker et vanvid blandt nogle af de nuværende misdædere i den transatlantiske verden, der insisterer på, at dette ikke er tilfældet. Andre sammenligner USA’s placering af “trænere” og “inspektører” i Ukraine, der måske er tusind eller flere, med den måde hvorpå USA “pludselig blev inddraget” i et dødsdømt regime i Sydvietnam, et regime, hvis ledere den anglo-amerikanske efterretningstjeneste også myrdede, da det blev belejligt….

Den samme tåbelighed er undervejs i dag… [som] Prompt Global Strikes “vi kan vinde en atomkrig”-galskab, der så effektivt blev modbevist af Steven Starr og Scott Ritter på  konferencen i lørdags: “A Nuclear War Cannot Be Won and Must Never Be Fought” (En atomkrig kan ikke vindes og må aldrig udkæmpes). (https://schillerinstitute.com/blog/2022/11/03/press-conference-a-nuclear-war-cannot-be-won-and-must-never-be-fought/) ….

De kulturelle aksiomer, de gamle, onde drømme om kolonialisme, som i realiteten ligger til grund for den “New Malthusian” “Save The Planet, Kill The People”-globalistiske bevægelse, vil flyve ind i Sharm el-Sheikh af egen kraft, sandsynligvis uden brug af fly. Måske vil Bandungs ånd, som i Francisco Goyas berømte tavler 79 og 80, der afslutter hans serie Krigens katastrofer – Sandheden er død/ Vil hun leve igen – være der for at konfrontere dem. Hvem der vinder denne kamp, vil blive afgjort af, hvad vi og dem vi rekrutterer, trods forskelligheder, gør i den nærmeste fremtid. (https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/truth-has-died/8c3b0257-606f-4d0b-af9e-73f05de59697 ; https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/disaster-80-will-she-live-again/b6ce7420-7ce6-4f74-a199-9d024bf19083?searchid=8f7e6842-90a1-adf6-ebb0-7516135050e9 )

Foto: Ben Mack, Pexels