Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche-bevægelsens leder i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og Tom Gillesberg på en tidligere konference.

Den 4. februar 2020 organiserede det franske Schiller Institut et meget vellykket seminar i Paris med titlen: “Dialog mellem Kulturerne eller Handelskrig: Frankrig ved en skillevej.” Tæt ved hundrede personer – kontakter, diplomater, foreninger, iværksættere og Kinaeksperter – fyldte lokalet på rådhuset i Paris’ 5. arrondissement. Såvel Schiller Instituttets internationale grundlægger og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche som formand for det danske Schiller Institut, Tom Gillesberg, sendte varme hilsner samt meddelelser til begivenheden.

Meddelelse fra Tom Gillesberg, formand for det Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:

Jeg er ked af, at jeg på grund af sygdom ikke kan være med jer i dag, men her er nogle tanker jeg gerne vil dele med jer.

I Danmark, og i resten af Skandinavien, har vi gennem de sidste par år set en voksende kampagne i medierne – og med støtte fra efterretningstjenester og regeringsinstitutioner – for at dæmonisere Kina, i lighed med, hvad der igennem nogen tid har været tilfældet for Rusland. Presset kommer fra USA og deres kontrollanter i Storbritannien, og udøves ofte gennem “soft power” ved at sprede historier om Kina såvel som Rusland der skal vise, at de er diktaturer, som man virkelig ikke kan stole på. På det seneste er dette set i den massive kampagne imod at lade det kinesiske firma Huawei, verdens førende leverandør af G5-teknologi, levere udstyret til det nye G5-netværk i Danmark og på Færøerne. Nogle prøver endda at bruge udbruddet af en ny form for koronavirus i Wuhan som et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og dets indflydelse verden over bringer os alle i fare.

Derfor besluttede Schiller Instituttet i Danmark i 2017 at imødegå denne voksende fjendtliggørelse med et projekt for en “Dialog mellem Kulturerne”. Sammen med venner, der var aktive i det dansk-russiske samfund, arrangerede vi en koncert, hvor vi havde klassisk musik og dans fra Rusland, Kina, Afrika, Indonesien og mange europæiske lande, for at vise, hvor berigede vi alle bliver ved at få adgang til alle disse andre nationers kultur. Kinas Kulturinstitut i København var også medsponsor, og arrangementet blev afholdt i det russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur.

Koncerten var en stor succes. Vi havde en fuldt pakket sal, og på trods af at vi fik ekstra stole bragt ind, var vi nødt til at afvise mange der kom. Publikum blev imponeret og bevæget af mangfoldigheden og skønheden af bidragene ved koncerten. Især afsyngningen af en kinesisk folkesang af en kinesisk studerende sammen med Feride Istogu Gillesberg, vicepræsident for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og hovedorganisator af begivenheden, betog publikum. Hvordan er det muligt, at en europæer kan synge på kinesisk og skabe så bevægende og smuk musik?

Siden dengang har vi haft yderligere to meget succesfulde koncerter, med fremtrædende og smuk deltagelse fra både russiske og kinesiske musikere, og musikere af høj kvalitet fra mange andre lande. Vi er blevet lovet, at den årlige koncert i 2020 kan finde sted i Kinas kulturcenters nyistandsatte faciliteter i København, som snart åbner.

Samtidigt har vi forsøgt at få information om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet ud til offentligheden på enhver måde, vi kan. I København afholdt Schiller Instituttet et seminar sammen med ‘Confucian Business Institute’ ved CBS, og i Sverige har Schiller Instituttet samarbejdet om stiftelsen af BRIX, Bælte- og Vej-Instituttet i Sverige. BRIX har afholdt en række seminarer med pæn deltagelse fra akademikere og industrifolk, der er blevet adresseret i fællesskab af den kinesiske ambassadør og ledende medlemmer af BRIX og Schiller Instituttet. På samme tid har vi interveneret i mange møder og diskussioner om Kina, der finder sted  i Danmark og Sverige, for at sikre, at den rigtige historie om Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet – og nødvendigheden af at de vestlige landes aktivt deltager i dette store foretagende for menneskeheden – kommer ud, så de løgne og falske bagtalelser om det i ‘mainstream’ medierne bliver modsagt.

Som det ses med udbruddet af det nye koronavirus i Wuhan er der mange udfordringer, når man søger at løfte 1,4 milliarder mennesker ud af dyb fattigdom og at blive en moderne nation. På trods af fremragende nationalt lederskab, kan lokal inkompetence skabe store problemer. Men jeg er sikker på, at Kina vokser med udfordringen, og vi ser nu, at den kinesiske regering intet sparer for at besejre denne trussel imod menneskeheden bestående af sygdom og død.

Da den nationale regering først blev opmærksom på epidemien, handlede den hurtigt for at besejre den. Oplysninger om koronavirus blev hurtigt sendt ud over hele verden, og resten af verden kunne forsvare sig mod sygdommen på en måde, som den lokale regering i Wuhan undlod at gøre. Og forhåbentligt vil samarbejdet mellem Kina og medicinske forskningscentre i resten af verden snart føre til behandling og en vaccine. I mellemtiden yder Kina enorme menneskelige og økonomiske ofre for at få epidemien under kontrol, og udgør menneskehedens bolværk imod en verdensomspændende pandemi.

Forhåbentligt vil de enorme ressourcer, som nu indsættes i Kina, og med hjælp fra verdenssamfundet, bære frugt, og besejre den nye koronavirus. Og forhåbentlig bliver det et eksempel på, hvordan Kina og verden kan arbejde sammen om en endnu farligere dræber: fattigdom. Kina har vist, hvordan det har været muligt at løfte 850 millioner kinesere ud af dyb fattigdom. Og med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet har de igangsat det største udviklingsprojekt, som menneskeheden nogensinde har set. Vi behøver fuldt internationalt samarbejde for at sikre sejr over fattigdom overalt i verden, ved at anvende videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt til først at etablere den nødvendige infrastruktur, og derefter den nødvendige industrielle udvikling, til at løfte hele menneskeheden ud af fattigdom.

Men hvis Danmark og andre vestlige lande skal deltage i disse, for menneskeheden nødvendige tiltag, må vi først besejre det mentale angreb, der finder sted imod befolkningens sindelag. Kina og Rusland er ikke vores fjender, men er vores vigtige samarbejdspartnere i sikringen af den bedst mulige fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Lad os derfor erstatte den kunstigt skabte frygt og splittelse med en dialog mellem kulturerne, og lad os alle deltage i Bælte- og Ve-Initiativet. Så vil vi se en verdensomspændende renæssance af de bedste bidrag fra alle de forskellige kulturer, og vi vil se en eksplosion af menneskelig kreativitet og udvikling, der ikke alene forvandler livet på Jorden, men også vores solsystem, og det der ligger derudover, når vi får ubegrænset billig energi på Jorden ved at høste helium-3 på Månen og bruge det til fusionsenergi, som kineserne har tænkt sig at gøre.

Se på ‘Verdens-Landbroen’. Dette er det levende billede af de smukke ord, som vi hører i Beethovens 9. symfoni:

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!
Brüder! über’m Sternenzelt
muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Vær omfavnede, millioner!
Dette kys til hele verden!
Brødre, over stjerneteltet
må der bo en kærlig far.

Og den kærlige far bliver realiseret gennem vores handlinger; mænds og kvinders handlinger for at forandre verden til det bedre.

Tid: kl. 19

Sted: Russisk Center for Videnskab og Kultur, Vester Voldgade 11 (ved Københavns Rådhus)

Gratis adgang.

Schiller Instituttet, Russisk-Dansk Dialog, Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter præsenterer vores anden koncert for fremme af forståelse mellem kulturer. Der vil være en skøn dialog mellem klassisk europæisk musik og traditionel musik fra Kina, Rusland og andre steder.

En hovedattraktion vil være The National Folk Music Troupe of the Heilongjiang Song and Dance Theater Folk Orchestra, et ensemble af fire kinesiske musikere, der spiller traditionelle instrumenter, og som kommer direkte fra Kina specielt for vores koncert!

Hele koncertprogrammet kommer senere på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside: www.schillerinstitut.dk

Sidste års koncert var en bragende succes, og vi forventer, at dette års koncert bliver lige så vellykket. Kom og nyd musik fra hele verden, og tage gerne venner og bekendte med.

Koncerten fra 2017 kan høres her. 

Tom Gillesberg: … Hvis Schiller var her i dag, hvad mener du så, han ville bidrage med, og hvad kan vi bruge Schiller til i dag?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at Schiller ville være meget glad, for grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet hedder Schiller Instituttet …  jeg har altid ment, at Friedrich Schillers menneskebillede var det mest ædle: Ideen om, at alle mennesker kan blive skønne sjæle.

Leder,  Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche PAC, 11. nov., 2017 – Følgende er et svar, Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav på et spørgsmål, stillet af formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, under diskussionen, der fulgte efter Helgas briefing til Schiller Instituttets Venners valgarrangement i København, 10. nov.

Hendes svar udgør hendes lykønskningsbudskab til festlighederne 11. nov. i anledning af Schillers fødselsdag.

Tom Gillesberg: Da vi begyndte mødet, Helga, kommenterede jeg det faktum, at det i dag er Friedrich Schillers fødselsdag [10. nov. 1759 – 9. maj 1805]. Så jeg mener, det er meget passende at tænke over dette. Og jeg vil gerne spørge dig, Helga: Hvis Schiller var her i dag, hvad mener du så, han ville bidrage med, og hvad kan vi bruge Schiller til i dag?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at Schiller ville være meget glad, for grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet hedder Schiller Instituttet – jeg kunne have en indsats for at etablere en bedre relation mellem relationer; jeg kunne have fundet en anden tænker: Leibniz, Cusanus, der er mange, der har gjort utrolige ting. Men jeg har altid ment, at Friedrich Schillers menneskebillede var det mest ædle: Ideen om, at alle mennesker kan blive skønne sjæle.

Som jeg for nylig skitserede i en tale, jeg holdt i New York, så er ligheden mellem konfutsiansk æstetisk opdragelse og Friedrich Schillers æstetiske opdragelse, forbløffende stor. Konfutse, der trods alt levede for 2.500 år siden, og Friedrich Schiller, der levede for over 200 år siden, kom imidlertid begge på den samme idé. Nemlig, at ethvert menneske har potentialet til ubegrænset selv-fuldkommengørelse; til at blive et geni. Og Schillers definition af geni var en skøn sjæl. Hermed mente Schiller, at man finder frihed i nødvendighed, og man gør sin pligt med passion. Ikke som én, der følger Kant, og som siger, »jeg må gøre min pligt« og ser rasende ud, og man er moralsk, men man hader det. Men derimod, at man glæder sig over at gøre det gode.

Jeg finder, at Xi Jinping er i besiddelse af denne egenskab. Jeg har studeret ham, studeret hans taler, hans bog med taler, The Governance of China, som I bør læse, som er udgivet dér; men man kan også finde alle hans taler på Google. Jeg kom til den konklusion, at han er en filosof; at han er et konfutsiansk renæssancemenneske. Og jeg mener, at Schiller ville have været utrolig glad over, at et sådant menneske er statsoverhoved, og at han har strømlinet hele det kinesiske samfund i overensstemmelse med disse ideer.

Jeg er meget optimistisk med hensyn til dette. Jeg mener, den vestlige propaganda er selvfølgelig flippet ud som bare pokker. De siger, »Åh! Xi Jinping er en ny Mao Zedong, endda en ny Stalin. Han koncentrerer al denne magt i sine egne hænder.«

Men undersøger man dette, ser man, at det ikke er tilfældet. Vist er det et meget centraliseret system, men det er et meritokrati; det er helliget folkets almene velfærd, og ikke kun det kinesiske folks, men udtrykkeligt også alle de deltagene landes [i Bælte & Vej]. Så jeg mener, Schiller ville genkende denne idé med at have en vision om en bedre verden, for, når man læser hans Æstetiske Breve, siger han: Man må give sine samtidige mennesker det, de har brug for, og ikke det, de begærer.[1] Man må være en tjener for sit århundrede, men ikke dets slave. Og andre, lignende begreber. Jeg mener, man må have en vision for, hvor man ønsker, menneskeheden skal være i fremtiden.

Det er ideen om, at den menneskelige art har muligheden for at blive forædlet, og dette var en udbredt idé hos Konfutse, og det var ligeledes absolut Friedrich Schillers idé.

Jeg mener, at dette er to meget gode udgangspunkter for at starte en debat om, hvad der er galt med den nuværende liberalistiske kultur, hvor »alt er tilladt«. [i modsætning til] ideen om, at kunst må være skøn. For kun, hvis kunst er skøn, kan den bevæge hjertet og forædle mennesket. Jeg mener, vi har et presserende behov for dette, for, ser man på vore samtidige mennesker, så har de et presserende behov for en æstetisk opdragelse. Og jeg mener, at det er, hvad Schiller Instituttet forsøger at gøre, og man kan ikke nægte, at det, vi hørte i begyndelsen, denne arie, der blev sunget [af Lena Malkki], er skønnere end det, man kan høre af Madonna. Hun er faktisk det modsatte af det, hendes navn siger; men det vil jeg overlade til jeres bedømmelse.

[1] Se også: »Vi behøver Schillers Æstetiske Breve i dag«, af Feride Istogu Gillesberg.

Helga Zepp LaRouche Addresses Copenhagen Campaign Event of
‘Friends of the Schiller Institute,’ Nov. 10, 2017

– The Legacy of Friedrich Schiller and the Schiller Institute –
– In the Confucian Concept of Xi’s New Silk Road Today –

        Schiller Institute Chairwoman and founder Helga
Zepp-LaRouche was introduced by Schiller Institute in Denmark
Chairman Tom Gillesberg, who is running for mayor of Copenhagen
on the Friends of the Schiller Institute slate.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I’m very happy to be here by Hangout
video, because there are a lot very important things happening
which the Western media are absolutely hiding from the
population.  As a matter of fact, since you referred to the
founding of the Schiller Institute in 1984, I was just reflecting
that the purpose why I created the Schiller Institute in the
first place, was because I saw the world very much in need of a
different idea of relations among nations.
And that was the main reason why this institute was created,
because I realized, in 1983, the relationship between Germany and
the United States, Europe and the United States, the so-called
“advanced sector” and the developing countries, all of these
foreign relations were terrible.  For slightly different reasons
in each case, but I basically said, “this is not the way nations
should organized themselves, and that is not how they should
relate to each other.”
So I came up with the idea to create an institute devoted to
the development of a just new world economic order, whereby every
person on the planet would eventually have a decent life, that
was explicitly the idea; and that this new world economic order
would only function if it would be combined with the idea of a
dialogue of cultures on the highest level, where one country
would not refer to the worst tradition of the other, but to the
best, and vice versa.  And that all of this would be accompanied
by a lot of Classical culture, a lot of emphasis on science, on
science and technology as the motor for such a development.
Now, I don’t want to go through the long history of the
Schiller Institute, which has done an enormous amount of work on
five continents since its existence, but I’m very happy to say
that if you look at the world today, especially in the last
several days, a lot of what the Schiller Institute was meant to
be, is coming into being.
People really have to realize that the summit which just
took place between President Xi Jinping and President Trump, was
an absolutely historic breakthrough.  Now, if you listen to the
Western media, you would think the opposite; you would think, if
you read the New York Times you would say, “Trump sold out to
the Chinese, because Xi Jinping is much more powerful than
Trump.”  If you listen to second channel of German TV, their
comment yesterday was that, yes, this was all a big show, but
Trump is so irrational and changing so quickly that in two weeks
he will not even remember what happened.  Or, the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung this morning, I had to laugh when I was
reading this. On the front page, they said if Deng Xiaoping were
still alive, he would have wept tears of joy when he saw that Xi
Jinping and Trump were meeting, seeing eye-to-eye, treating each
other as equals.
So the Western media are just completely beside themselves,
they’re cynical, they’re absolutely geopolitically blinded in
such a way that they can’t even look at what is going on.
Now, let me tell you what really happened:  First of all, on
Wednesday [Nov. 8], the Chinese government did something which
has never happened, giving an honor to Trump which they have
never given to any other foreign head of state.  They closed down
for an entire day the Forbidden City; this is the largest complex
of palaces in the world.  Since the 17th century, it was the seat
of the emperors, and it is just one large complex of palaces, one
after the other:  it has opera houses, it has living quarters,
it’s just an unbelievable environment.
They closed this down, and they performed for President
Trump and his wife Melania, excerpts from three Beijing operas,
and they showed ancient handicrafts in restoration; and really
steeped the Presidential couple in Chinese culture.  Which
everybody who knows it, knows it’s extremely beautiful and
extremely impressive.  And they called this a “State Visit-Plus.”
A commentator from the think tank CASS [Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences] said this has never happened in the history of China,
either; they have never given a head of state such a high-level
visit, so it was a highest honor ever given to a foreign
President.
Now, the Western press is not reflecting why this is the
case, but President Xi said that the this is the beginning of a
new start of relations between the United States and China, and
it will do very important, good things not only for the two
people, but for the entire world.  And Trump, on his side, said,
what could be more important than the two largest economic
countries finding a good cooperation; and he also said that he
looks ahead to many years of friendship and collaboration between
the two countries, accomplishing incredible things.
Obviously, not unimportant was the fact that there were
trade deal deals signed for, altogether $253 billion, ranging
from energy, agricultural products, airplanes were being bought,
infrastructure.  And in a certain sense, this is important, and
designed to grow — it’s not the end of it.  Trump made several
speeches where he said — there was an incredible trade gap up to
now, but he doesn’t blame the Chinese for it, he blames the
former U.S. administrations for allowing this to happen.
So obviously, there are many positive things in this trade
relation, as such, but I think more importantly the spirit which
comes from the New Silk Road, which is the policy which has been
put on the agenda by Xi Jinping since 2013, and which in the four
years since, has grown to be the largest economic infrastructure
project ever in history: Already something like 70 countries are
collaborating.  They are building infrastructure corridors, six
major corridors, almost 40 cargo trains and connecting between
China and Europe, now, every week.  The development is spreading
with absolute excitement into Latin America, into Africa, into
even European countries.
The biggest change, in my view, has happened in Africa,
because China has invested in a rail line from Djibouti to Addis
Ababa; now from Kenya; another line is being built to Rwanda.
Many hydropower dams, projects for hydropower, irrigation,
industrial parks.  And all of this has led to a completely
different attitude of the Africans, who, for the first time, see
the perspective of overcoming their underdevelopment.
The philosophy behind all of this is the idea that only if
you have harmonious development of all nations on this planet,
can you have a peaceful development in China.  And this is based
on the Confucian idea that only with the maximum development of
the individual, who should become a wide person, is spread
throughout the entire family and all the families develop
harmoniously, can you have peace in the nation, and obviously in
the world, among the nations.
This is not understood by the West at all. They are
absolutely convinced — and I think some of these political
forces are so geopolitically entrenched that they really believe
this, that they cannot mention that a country can actually be
devoted to the common good of its people.  And that China is
doing that is without any debate, because, as Tom just mentioned,
I was in China in 1971, during the Cultural Revolution, and I saw
the country in distress.  And I went back in ’96, and I saw the
absolutely incredible change for the better in these 25 years.
And what has happened in the last 30 years is just the
biggest economic miracle of any country on the planet.  China has
lifted 700 million people out of poverty, and what happened at
the just-concluded 19th Party Congress of the CPC, was that Xi
Jinping announced that by the year 2020, China will have
eradicated all poverty.  There are only 42 million people left
who are poor, in rural areas, and they now are using modern
technology to overcome that, by providing the means for
e-commerce to the farmers in the rural areas of poor regions, so
they can market their products via the internet, and that way
they are starting to develop more income and more wealth, so that
they will no longer be poor by the year 2020. I have no reason to
believe that they will not succeed in doing that, because, when
you see the vector of development of the last 30 to 40 years,
they are going to accomplish that.
By the year 2035, China wants to be a modern socialist
country, and Xi Jinping has developed a plan up to the year 2050,
for China to be a strong, modern, harmonious, democratic, happy
people.
Now, in this speech, at this party convention, Xi Jinping
mentioned I think it was 15 times or so, that the purpose of the
political work of the Communist Party is that people should have
a better and happier life.  And what China is doing is obviously
a model which is much more devoted to the common good, than you
find it in the West, where, if you compare it to the poverty
level in the European Union, for example, where you have 120
million people who are poor; or you compare it to the economic
situation in the United States, where for the first time in an
industrial nation, you have a lowering of the life-expectancy!
Now, if there’s any parameter for the productivity and the
well-being of an economy, it is the life expectancy of its
people.  And if you an industrial country with the collapse of
the life span, then you know that there is something absolutely
wrong.  And this is the result of what happened with the
neo-liberal system, especially since the United States with the
neo-cons decided to become the leader of a unipolar world, which
went along with the neo-liberal system, where the rich became so
rich that it is unreasonable, and the poor become poorer.
And you have right now, I think something like 95 million
people in the United States who are no longer counted as being in
the labor force, because they have given up looking for work, or
they are sick, or they are in prison, or they are somehow
misplaced in some other form.
So, I think that what is happening right now is that Xi
Jinping has put on the agenda a model of economic cooperation
which needs to be studied.  I think it’s a big mistake that the
Europeans are just dismissing it.  Like, for example, the French
Economic and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire just went to Berlin
yesterday, and there he addressed a German-French economic forum,
where he said, now Europe must stop being naïve, we must be
united to stand up against China, against Russia, against the
United States.  And then the German Foreign Minister Sigmar
Gabriel yesterday on a TV show basically said the same thing —
he said, now, Europe must stand united against the aggressive
powers of Russia and China, where human rights mean nothing.
I mean, this is such an arrogance!  You know, talking about
“democracy,” why don’t you just look for a second at what
happened with Hillary Clinton’s campaign?  Now the big scandal in
the United States is that the Democratic Party leadership, one
year before the party convention was to supposedly decide on the
candidate for the 2016 Presidential election, has decided it
would be Hillary. And then they channeled illegal money,
violating FEC rules up and down, right and left, intriguing
against Bernie Sanders. And then, concocting “intelligence”
against Trump with the help of British intelligence, played back
into the United States.  I mean, this is a joke! There is no
democracy, not in this present system.
And I think that to accuse Russia and China of being
“aggressive” is just absolutely wrong!  The whole question of
what was the Ukraine crisis:  [Former German Chancellor] Helmut
Schmidt said it very clearly: The reason why the Ukraine crisis
happened, and where it started was in the Maastricht conference
in 1992, because that was when the EU decided to have the
Eastward expansion without limit. And that is the same thing as
what the NATO expansion to the East was, breaking all promises
made to Gorbachev at the time, that NATO would never expand to
the borders of the Soviet Union, or Russia for that matter.
So we are in a real crisis.  And rather than being so
arrogant and saying there are no human rights in China and
Russia, and these countries are “aggressive” — which they are
not — we should rather reflect on what should the future be?
China happens to be the only country which has presented a
strategic model of international relations based on a win-win
cooperation of respect for the sovereignty of the other country,
of non-interference, of accepting the other social model of the
other system; and this is a strategy for peace.  This is the idea
of overcoming geopolitics.  And we should not forget that it was
geopolitics which was not only the cause for many wars in
history, but especially two world wars in the 20th century.
And the idea to have an inclusive, win-win cooperation among
all countries on the planet, what should be against that?  Why
can Europe not, why can’t Denmark, and Germany, and France, and
Italy, just say:  When the relationship between the United States
and China is already now on such a new historical basis, where
the strategic partnership between China and Russia is also very,
very strong, and Putin and Xi Jinping have both said that the
relationship between these two countries are on the best level
ever.  And now China and the United States are saying the same
thing about their two countries.  Now, what could be better, than
to have the United States, China and Russia working together for
a new paradigm of relations among nations?  Why can the European
nations not just say, “Well, that is very good, because if the
biggest nuclear powers can cooperate in a peaceful way, then the
danger of a thermonuclear war is obviously diminished and could
be eliminated in a short period of time; and we cooperate.”
I mean, we have so many tasks which are urgent:  The
reconstruction of Southwest Asia, of the Middle East, of
countries which have been completely destroyed by wars which are
the outgrowth of regime change, of the unipolar world, on wars
based on lies, which have cost {millions} of people their lives
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen.  These countries have been
absolutely destroyed and they need to be reconstructed.
There is already a  discussion  that the only way you can do
that, is by extending the New Silk Road into the Middle East.
And I have said for a very long time, that the only way how you
can have peace in the Middle East, is if all the major neighbors
— Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, hopefully the United
States, and hopefully European nations, are all working together,
and then you can eliminate the present tensions and frictions and
ongoing fights, which have almost been eliminated in Syria and
Iraq.
And look at Africa:  Don’t you think it’s time that we join
hands with China in the development of Africa?  Do you really
think that the underdevelopment of Africa is a natural condition?
No!  It is the result of hundreds of years of colonialism, of
decades of IMF conditionalities, which insisted, that countries
should pay their debt and not pay for infrastructure and not pay
for social expenditures.  And the reason why Africa has been in
such a terrible condition is because it was the policy of the
West {not} to develop the African continent.
And now China has come, and said, “no,” we have the idea to
eliminate poverty in every corner of the planet, and they have
started the industrialization of Africa, and Xi Jinping has
offered to Europe, to the United States, to join hands and have
joint projects in all of these countries.
Don’t you think it’s time that we become adult as a human
species?  I think it should be clear to everybody that in the age
of thermonuclear weapons, war cannot be a way of resolving
conflicts. And I think also, the idea that the human species
should be able to come up with an idea of self-governance of one
human species; that it’s not a natural condition that you always
will have one nation against another nation, or a group of
nations against another group of nations.
In reflecting about what happened in the recent period,
especially with the 19th Party Congress of the CPC, where Xi
Jinping developed a perspective between now and 2050, it is very
clear that if you look at the long arc of human civilization,
sometime the idea that we would be the one humanity, the
“community for a shared future for mankind” — which is the
formulation Xi Jinping always uses — had to come!  And that it
comes from China should not be a reason not to be up on the idea.
It has to do with the 5,000 year history of China, the 2,500
years of Confucian tradition that this idea was made by China,
but it is a universal idea, it’s not something limited to one
culture or one nation.
So I think we are at a very exciting moment of history.  I
feel very much vindicated that the work, not only of the Schiller
Institute, but the organization associated with the name of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche, is now being implemented.  This goes
back all to the early ’70s, where my husband developed the
proposal for an International Development Bank, the IDB. This was
picked up by the Non-Aligned Movement in ’76, in their final
resolution in Colombo, Sri Lanka; and it was the idea that a new
credit institution should be created, replacing the IMF, which
would provide — at that time, the idea was 400 billion
deutschemarks, or $200 billion approximately, per year, for
technology transfer to the developing countries.
And that’s what China is now doing.  That’s what they’re
doing with the AIIB, with the New Development Bank, with the
different Chinese banks, focusing on the real economy.
Then, if you look at all the development plans we have been
working on:  The first development plan for Africa, we published
in 1976.  We had a plan for the development of Latin America,
working with [then Mexican President] López Portillo.  We had a
40-year development plan for India, on which we worked together
with Indira Gandhi.  We had a 50-year development plan for the
Pacific Ocean Basin in the early ’80s.
Then, in ’89, we had the Productive Triangle for the
development of East and West Europe.  And in ’91, when the Soviet
Union disintegrated, we proposed a peace plan for the 21st
century, starting with Eurasian Land-Bridge, which we already
called the New Silk Road, at that time.
So I feel very much that our lives’ work has absolutely come
into reality. And what we have to do now, is we have to get
European nations to understand that the crisis not that China is
making these proposals, and the crisis is not that Trump is
rejecting the neoliberal model, at least as it was represented by
Bush and Obama and Hillary.  The real crisis is that people in
Europe are still absolutely somehow in chains to their own
ideological thinking that they, first of all, are very
Euro-centric; they think Europe is the navel of the world; while
in reality, the power center is shifting to Asia, since they have
better principles than we have right now.
And just to illustrate the point, the Bundeswehr, the German
army, put out this study already in February of this year, where
they have basically six scenarios by the year 2040.  It has all
options, where the worst option is Europe will completely
collapse, many European countries will leave the EU and join with
the Russia bloc; and Europe will just lose all importance.  If
you look at these six scenarios, what you see there is an
absolutely wrong method of thinking:  It’s the projection of the
status quo, of geopolitical thinking, and naturally in a changing
world, there is no way how such thinking can survive, therefore,
if they keep thinking that way, this is probably what happens in
Europe.
Now, look at what China is doing, instead.  They just
created the largest, highest-level regulatory body, which is even
more important and has higher ranking than all the ministries,
for the case of a new financial crisis.  And it has absolutely
nothing to do with the Chinese debt, because the Chinese debt
has, as a counterforce, real assets — investments in
infrastructure, in industries and so forth, so if there would be
a blowout, these assets will be there. While the monetarist
system of the trans-Atlantic sector, people have learned
absolutely nothing after the crisis of 2008.  That is the real
danger, and obviously China is looking at that, and Xi Jinping
has said this in many speeches since the G20 summit last year in
Hangzhou, that the causes of the 2008 crisis have not been
eliminated, and therefore the danger of a new crisis is
absolutely there.
So what we have to do, is we have to absolutely reflect,
what is wrong with the European thinking.  The problem is not
that other countries are rising and we are stagnating.  The
problem is that Europe has turned away from its highest
traditions.
We have now a pretty decadent culture.  If you look at the
youth culture, pop music, many of these so-called pop singers are
outright Satanic: They are ugly, they promote an image of man
which is a beast, it’s full of violence, it’s pornographic, and
it’s just “everything goes.”  There is no more limit, there is no
morality, everything is allowed:  You don’t have two sexes, you
have in Germany now officially three sexes, you have 49 genders,
it’s just becoming absolutely Sodom and Gomorrah, or very much
parallel to the end-phase of the Roman Empire, where you had
similar phenomena.
So, I think that the problem is not China rising.  The
problem is that Europe has moved away.  We have a beautiful
tradition.  We have a Classical period, the Renaissance of Italy,
we have the Andalusian Renaissance, the École Polytechnique in
France.  We have a German Classical period which has produced
some of the most outstanding thinkers, composers, poets, you
know, the rich tradition linking the Classical period of Germany
with that of Denmark.  I mean, Danish people saved the life of
Friedrich Schiller.
So there are enough points where we can say, “Let’s just go
back to our best traditions, and then we will find out that the
Classical periods of Europe, and the Confucian tradition of
China, and the Classical periods of other nations, are indeed
creating the basis for a new Renaissance.”
I think we are at an incredible moment of history, and we
should just remind ourselves of the words of Friedrich Schiller,
who said, “A great moment should not find a little people.”  So
let’s try to elevate our people, to think big, think beautiful,
become beautiful souls, create the basis that all children have a
chance to become geniuses.  And if that is in our willpower to
do, and this is why the election campaign of Trump and the other
members of the Schiller Institute are so absolutely important,
and that is why we should all be happy that the Schiller
organization exists in Denmark and creates an option for all
Danish people to join this incredible historical moment and make
a better world for all of us. [applause]

Lige fra begyndelsen havde Schiller
Instituttet den idé, at vi måtte have en
retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden;
men at det aldrig ville fungere, hvis det ikke
blev forbundet med en renæssance af
klassisk kultur. 

Det, jeg vil tale om, er ideen om den højeste menneskehed, det fælles filosofiske grundlag for vestlig og asiatisk kultur … Præsident Xi Jinpings håbefulde vision for det, han altid kalder et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid … er blevet vedtaget som en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. … Med dette koncept er et strategisk initiativ, som kan erstatte den krigsskabende geopolitik med idealet om en forenet menneskehed, sat på dagordenen

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Vi må bruge det bedste fra alle kulturer og skabe en virkelig universel renæssance!

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er 28. april, 2017; jeg er Matthew Ogden; velkommen til vores LPAC webcast fredag aften, her på larouchepac.com. Med os i studiet i dag har vi en særlig gæst, Mike Billington fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), som vi har inviteret i dag pga. af den aktuelle, strategiske situations ekstraordinære natur.

Vi står naturligvis blot to uger fra det meget betydningsfulde Bælt & Vej-topmøde, der finder sted i Beijing, Kina, den 14. og 15. maj; og det er altså præcis to uger fra i morgen. Flere dusin statsoverhoveder fra lande i hele verden har bekræftet deres deltagelse. Som vi har rapporteret, så er den russiske præsident Putin inviteret som æresgæst til at deltage i Bælt & Vej-topmødet. Vi fortsætter vores kampagne for at opfordre præsident Donald Trump til at deltage i dette topmøde, som særlig gæst; og for at bruge det som hans mulighed for at gengælde præsident Xi Jinpings tilbud om, at USA kan gå med i det nye paradigme for udvikling og fred, som repræsenteres af Bælt & Vej, eller den Nye Silkevej.

Vi befinder os midt i en kamp for USA’s sjæl, for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Vi ser denne kamp blive mere intens over spørgsmålet, »Hvorhen, USA?«, med den titel, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav den nylige Schiller Institut-konference i New York City – »Hvorhen, USA: Ny Silkevej, eller Atomkrig?«. Der er i løbet af den seneste måned, siden det meget ukloge angreb, som Trump-administrationen beordrede mod Syrien, sket det, at det er kommet offentligt frem, at der rent faktisk finder et britiskanført kup sted i USA imod Trump-administrationen. Indholdet er de løgne, de fabrikerede efterretninger, der er kommet fra britisk efterretning og er blevet bulldozet hen over præsident Trump; meget på samme måde, som Tony Blair brugte løgnene om maseødelæggelsesvåben i 2003 for at bringe USA ind i Irakkrigen.

Men dette var ikke et enestående tilfælde for Irak i 2003, eller for Syrien i 2017. Dette er den måde, hvorpå briterne har spillet deres imperiespil i det ene årti efter det andet; de har brugt USA som deres dumme kæmpe, med det formål, fortsat at holde verden opdelt. Denne del-og-hersk-strategi har været en britisk imperiestrategi i århundreder, og tiden er inde til, at USA bliver intelligent og siger, »Det er slut! Vi vil ikke lade os bruge på denne måde; og vi vil tage imod det Nye Paradigme med ’win-win’-samarbejde«. Briterne og deres rejsekammerater i USA har sandelig været meget ligefremme i deres forsøg på at destabilisere og vælte Trump-administrationen, fordi de var meget bange for, at han ville gennemføre, hvad han har sagt. Ikke flere regimeskift; ikke flere imperialistiske krige, og vi vil samarbejde med Rusland og med Kina. Det sidste var lidt mere komplekst, men det om Rusland var meget klart. Men som vi ved, så har præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping fra Kina, siden topmødet med præsident Xi, haft meget tætte, personlige relationer og har regelmæssigt haft samtaler. Denne kommunikationskanal er afgørende, især med det brændpunkt, som nu er vokset frem direkte på Kinas grænse, i tilfældet Nordkorea.

Vi vil bruge tilfældet Nordkorea som en case study, men i sammenhæng med denne meget bredere opfattelse af opgøret over, hvilket system, der i fremtiden vil styre verden: det imperialistiske del-og-hersk, eller et nyt ’win-win’-paradigme for fred og udvikling. I denne sammenhæng har vores gæst her i dag, Mike Billington, netop udgivet en ny artikel, som er en meget vigtig artikel, I bør læse . Den er meget klar. Den har den provokerende titel og stiller spørgsmålet, »Hvorfor er Korea ikke allerede genforenet?«.

(Artiklen findes i EIR’s seneste nummer, men er kun tilgængelig for abonnenter. Andre artikler kan læses gratis – se knappen EIR på vores hjemmeside. Du kan henvende dig til vores kontor mht. at tegne abonnement på EIR, tlf. 35 43 00 33 – red.) 

Hermed giver jeg ordet til Mike og lader ham gennemgå lidt af indholdet, de aktuelle udviklinger, og så spørgsmålet, som han fremlægger i sin artikel:

(engelsk):

MICHAEL BILLINGTON:  Thank you, Matt.  In fact, the purpose
of this article was to show that the answer to that question is
that there is {no} legitimate reason that Korea is not peaceful
and at least on the way to reunification already.  I’ll review
some of that material here.  But let me start.  There were some
extraordinary developments today; so let me give a short update
on the crisis.  It has to be noted that this is a very serious
crisis, in the sense that were something like what happened with
Syria, where Trump was — as Matthew said — lied to coerced into
carrying out an attack against Syria for absolutely no reason; on
totally false intelligence.  Were that to happen in Korea, this
would not be like an attack on an airbase in Syria.  This would
lead to a total disaster throughout all of East Asia and perhaps
even global nuclear war.  Whether or not they could take out
North Korea’s nuclear capacities, North Korea — as I’m sure
people know, because it’s all over the press — they have massive
conventional capacity.  Their armaments lie a total of 30 miles
from the capital [of South Korea] Seoul, this beautiful,
developed, advanced city; which could be just absolutely wiped
out if there were a war.  And they could possibly attack even
Japan, let alone US bases within South Korea; so this would be a
move of insanity.  The Japanese and the South Koreans know this
very well.  I should point out that our friends in South Korea
note that there is no panic in South Korea; because they’ve been
through these kinds of things before, and they simply assume that
nobody is crazy enough to launch a preemptive attack on North
Korea.
But, because of what happened in Syria, a lot of people —
including all of us — were very concerned that the British might
pull off another stunt and get Trump to go with this.  What
happened today is extremely important.  Trump himself did an
interview with Reuters, in which he said on North Korea, “We’d
love to solve things diplomatically, but it’s very difficult.
But Xi Jinping is playing a crucial role in this.  I believe he’s
trying very hard.  I know he would like to be able to do
something.  Perhaps it’s possible that he can’t, but I think he’d
like to be able to do something.”  Then, most extraordinarily, he
said about Kim Jung-Un, the leader in North Korea and grandson of
the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, he said, “He’s 27 years
old.  His father dies; he took over a regime.  So, say what you
want, that’s not easy; especially at that age.  Now I’m not
giving him credit, or not giving him credit.  I’m just saying
it’s a very hard thing to do.  As to whether or not he’s
rational, I have no opinion, but I hope he’s rational.”  So, this
is useful.  He then returned again to the fact that he has very
good personal relations with Xi Jinping: “I feel that he’s doing
everything in his power to help us with a big situation.  I
wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him; and I
certainly would want to speak to him first before taking any
action.”  Very useful.
Then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who chaired a meeting
at the UN Security Council this morning of ministers, taking the
place of that wacky lady we have in there right now speaking for
the US too often.  But Tillerson was not wacky; not at all.  He
was very clear in his presentation to the UN Security Council.
He said, “For too long, the international community has been
reactive in addressing North Korea.  Those days must come to an
end.  Failing to act now on the most pressing security issue in
the world may bring catastrophic consequences.”  Now, what does
he mean to act now?  The press headlines all over the world are
“Trump and Tillerson Are Threatening War on North Korea; They
Want To Act Now.  It’s the End of Strategic Patience”, which was
the policy of Obama.  But keep in mind, “strategic patience” was
not being patient; it was saying “We will not talk to North
Korea.  We refuse to talk to North Korea; we simply sit back and
constantly increase the sanctions, increase the military build-up
around their border until they do what we say.”  Which, of
course, they won’t do as long as they’re being threatened.
So, the question is, what does it mean to act now?  Does it
not mean, let’s get back to talks, let’s negotiate.  What the
President said about Kim Jung-Un is a very serious comment.
Here’s somebody who’s in a difficult position.
Then, Tillerson said the following: “Our goal is not regime
change.  Nor do we desire to threaten the North Korean people, or
destabilize the Asia-Pacific region.  Since 1995, the US has
provided $1.3 billion in aid to North Korea; and we look forward
to resuming our contributions once the country dismantles its
weapons program.”  Now that 1995 is a reference to something
called the Agreed Framework, which I’m going to mention when I go
through some of the history on this.
Even more powerful, Tillerson — in an interview with NPR
before he went into the UN Security Council — said the
following:  “You know, if you listen to the North Koreans, their
reason for having nuclear weapons is that they believe it is
their only pathway to secure the ongoing existence of their
regime.  We hope to convince them that you do not these weapons
to secure the existence of your regime.  We do not seek a
collapse of the regime.  We do seek an accelerated reunification
of the peninsula; we seek a de-nuclearized peninsula, and China
shares this goal with us.”
Now these are very positive steps; and they refute the
British headlines and the {Washington Post} and {New York Times}
headlines that say “Get ready. We’re going to have a war in
Korea.”  So, this I think is extremely important.  Let me go
through a bit, some of the history of this; because even in my
reviewing to write this article, I was a bit astonished at how
close we were, twice before, to having a peaceful relationship in
the Korean peninsula and potentially even being reunified or
being on the course to reunification.
The key point, I think, is that the British assets in the
White House over the last 16 years — Bush and Cheney, and then
Obama, who served the British purpose of keeping the world
divided East and West, as Matthew was pointing out.  The key to
doing that was making sure the US did not have good relations
with Russia, and making sure the US did not have good relations
with China.  They used the South China Sea, they used Ukraine,
they used Syria; all of these really had nothing to do with the
South China Sea or Ukraine or Syria.  They had to do with
preventing any potential for the US and Russia to work together,
and the US and China to work together.  This is empire; that’s
the way empire works to keep the world divided, especially the
East-West divide.
Let’s go back to what Tillerson was referring to in 1995.
What happened was that the North Koreans were part of the UN
Non-Proliferation Treaty and non-nuclear development agreements;
that they wouldn’t develop nuclear weapons.  Then in the early
’90s, the IAEA — the International Atomic Energy Agency —
believed that they were using small test reactor at Yongbyon.  It
was a graphite-moderated reactor which produces plutonium as a
side-product of producing energy.  So, they believed that they
were hiding the plutonium being produced at the Yongbyon plant
and using it produce weapons.  This led to a very serious crisis.
The Clinton administration and their Defense Secretary at the
time, William Perry — and I’ll mention Perry a couple of times
here — were very seriously considering a strategic take-out of
the Yongbyon plant.  Would that have been as serious as now?  I
don’t think so, but it would have been very serious.  What
happened is quite interesting.  Former President Jimmy Carter
went to North Korea — supposedly on his own; I’m sure this was
very carefully worked out with President Clinton.  But he went on
his own; he met with Kim Il-Sung who was still alive at that
time, the original head of North Korea.  Out of that meeting,
[they] came to an agreement that they would, through
negotiations, come up with an agreement to solve the crisis;
which they did.  It was called the Agreed Framework of 1994.
This was quite extraordinary.  The North Koreans agreed to
dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear plant and to stop construction on
two other plants that also were graphite and could produce
plutonium.  In exchange, the US built a nuclear plant for North
Korea.  The US and the South Koreans were, and they began — they
didn’t get very far — to build a large 1000-megawatt nuclear
plant; but it was going to be a light water reactor that didn’t
produce fuel for nuclear weapons.  It was a safer form of a
nuclear plant.  In the meantime, they did provide oil, until they
got the nuclear plant going, for heating.
They agreed to start negotiations toward a peace agreement.
The US and North Korea are officially still at war.  After the
Korean War, there was not a peace agreement, but just an
armistice to stop the fighting.  Officially, there is no peace
agreement; we do not have normal relations with North Korea.
We’re actually in a state of war with North Korea.  Clearly, the
North Koreans want to have a normal relationship with the US, not
to be constantly threatened.  It was agreed that that would
happen.  This was moving forward quite well; it was slow, there
were problems.  The US didn’t live up to all its agreements; but
it was moving forward.
Then, extremely importantly, in 1998, Kim Dae-jung was
elected President of South Korea.  Kim Dae-jung was a very
interesting character; he had been a very strong opponent of the
military regimes in South Korea.  He had been thrown in jail
several times, and there was a point where he was about to be
executed; the US intervened and saved his life at that time.  By
1998 things had changed; there was more of a move towards getting
away from military regimes.  They weren’t exactly dictatorships;
they were elected, but they were military regimes.  Kim Dae-jung
was elected.  He immediately began to not only democratize
domestic policies, but he set up something called the Sunshine
Policy, which was we will work with North Korea on development;
on opening up economic collaboration as the basis over the long
term to establish peace between us and long-term reunification.
So, Kim Dae-jung was in power.  William Perry, the Defense
Secretary — he had left being Defense Secretary by that time —
but in a recent article on his history in all of this, said that
towards the end of the Clinton administration, they were working
to take that agreement even further.  To have the North basically
swear that they were giving up all weapons programs, in exchange
for having a peace agreement and setting up normal relations
between the two countries.  It was so close that they had
actually planned a Presidential visit to North Korea; that
Clinton would visit North Korea.
Unfortunately, as William Perry points out, the Clinton
administration ran out; and Bush and Cheney came in.  You may
remember that the Defense Secretary under Bush and Cheney was
Colin Powell, a general; a fairly wise gentleman.  He, in his
first press conference, said we intend to engage with North
Korea, and pick up where Clinton left off.  Very important.  The
{next day}, Bush — with Cheney behind him and Paul Wolfowitz
around — said “There will be no engagement with North Korea.
They’re a dictatorship.”  Sounds familiar, right?  Dictators.
“We will not talk to them.  There will be no engagement.”  And
Colin Powell was basically put in his place, and the whole
process began to fall apart; at least in terms of the US working,
collaborating, and playing a key role in collaboration with North
and South Korea, and Russia and China and Japan.
In any case, Kim Dae-jung and the others — Russia, China,
Japan, North Korea, South Korea — continued the process.  They
basically said OK, that’s what Bush and Cheney are saying; but
this is the future lives of our country and really of the world.
They moved forward.  Kim Dae-jung, by 2002, was successful in
setting up an extraordinary process.  I should mention here that
Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas through that period — 2000-2002 — were
all over South Korea.  One of our members, Kathy Wolfe, was going
back and forth; she was meeting with people in the government,
around the government, cultural people in South Korea.  You may
remember that 1992 was when Lyndon LaRouche first came up with
the idea at the time of the fall of Soviet Union, that we should
build a New Silk Road; we should have a Silk Road which would
bridge Europe, Russia, China, and bring them together around a
development process by building the New Silk Road — what the
Chinese called the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
So, Kim Dae-jung, the South Korean President, built a
process he called the Iron Silk Road.  I can assure you there was
an influence there; that term didn’t come out of nowhere.
LaRouche had always said that the New Silk Road should go from
Busan to Rotterdam.  Busan is at the southern tip of South Korea.
In other words, it had to go through North Korea, through Russia,
and also through China into Europe.  So, this idea of the Iron
Silk Road was taking shape.  It was taking shape so much — put
that first map on [Fig. 1].  This is the map.  The plan was to
reconstruct two rail lines from South Korea into North Korea,
which of course had been shut down.  There was an armed
Demilitarized Zone [DMZ] with fences on either side; and a no
man’s land in between.  The idea was to build rail connections as
you can see on the map.  One of them going through the West, that
would go up through Pyongyang and then into China.  One that
would head out towards the West and go up towards Russia into
Vladivostok and hit the trans-Siberian railway in both
directions, actually.
Indeed, they began this process.  Kim Dae-jung went to the
North and met with Kim Jong-Il, who was the son of Kim Il-Sung;
who was in power.  Kim Il-Sung literally died the year they
signed the Agreed Framework; but his son continued it.  They made
this process; they built this process up.  By 2002, they
literally opened up the Demilitarized Zone fences in both of
those spots.  Both the North-South and the [inaud; 21:43]; they
cut the DMZ fences.  Soldiers from both the North and South went
into the DMZ and began clearing the mines that were all over the
place in the DMZ.  They reconstructed the rail line between the
two countries.  In 2002 [Fig. 2] you had the extraordinary event
of a railroad going across the DMZ; going from South Korea into
North Korea.  Symbolic, because there had to be a lot of
construction on the rail lines to make them connect all the way
through.  But as you can see here, they had a big banner in the
front; the Reunification of the Koreas.  This was an
extraordinary event, which we reported in {EIR} at some length;
these pictures were in those articles back in 2002.
It wasn’t just the railroads.  At the same time, Kim
Dae-jung began an industrial park in North Korea — the Kaesong
Industrial Park.  This was across the border in North Korea with
South Korean companies setting up factories in the North with
North Korean labor.  This grew to the point where recently there
were 123 South Korean companies working in the North.  This was
obviously in the direction of setting up collaboration between
the South Korean industry and the skilled but very poor workforce
in the North.  So, this was proceeding forward.
They also set up six party talks.  You’ve probably heard of
the Six Party Talks.  This was where Russia, China, Japan, North
and South Korea, and the United States began a series of talks to
try to regroup from the failure, the collapse, the shutdown by
Bush and Cheney of the Agreed Framework.  These meetings began.
I won’t go through the details of what happened; it’s tedious,
because every opportunity that Bush and Cheney had to say that
the North Koreans were cheating, the North Koreans are lying; you
can’t trust these vicious dictators.  Every opportunity they had
to sabotage forward direction; there were some positive
agreements made.  If you read the history of it from the US
press, it’ll say the North Koreans reneged.  Well, it wasn’t that
way.  It was sabotage by Bush and Cheney every chance they got.
It went into the Obama administration and Obama continued
sabotaging it every chance he got.
So eventually, these fell apart under Obama.  Obama then
began this so-called “strategic patience”; which meant no talks,
build up your military, impose sanctions.  They might have said
that the purpose was that they expected the North Korean regime
to collapse; but that wasn’t it at all.  Bush and Cheney and
Obama {wanted} North Korea to build nuclear weapons.  Now why
would somebody be so insane as to want North Korea to have
nuclear weapons?  First of all, they knew that they wouldn’t use
them, or they’d be blown off the face of the map.   William
Perry, in his recent article, said the North Korean regime is
reckless, but they’re not crazy; they’re not suicidal.  If they
were to use a nuclear weapon preemptively, they know that the
country would be obliterated overnight and their leadership
entirely killed.  They’re not crazy.  But why would the West want
them to have nuclear weapons?  Because the target is not North
Korea; it’s China.  As long as you have this bugaboo of North
Korea threatening the world with their nuclear weapons, you can
go ahead and build up a massive force around China, the way they
were in Europe where they’re building anti-ballistic missiles and
moving NATO right up to the Russian border.  Sending troops,
tanks, planes right up to the Russian border.  And in Asia doing
the same thing, supposedly to counter North Korea.
Most people have read about what’s going on with these THAAD
missiles.  Literally just a couple of days ago, they actually set
up the THAAD missiles in South Korea; claiming that these are
needed for the defense of South Korea against the North.  THAAD
— this is Terminal High Altitude missiles.  North Korea is 30
miles from Seoul; they don’t need to send 8 ICBMs up into space
and back down onto Seoul.  The THAAD is useless against North
Korea; it may be useless in general.  But it’s a threat to China
and to Russia, because with that you have the X-band radar, which
sees deep into Chinese territory and Russian Far East territory.
Which thereby gives them an advantage in a potential first
strike, where they could take out — they fantasize — they could
take out the counterstrike capacity of China.  The Chinese and
Russians are saying this destroys the balance; we’re going to
have to put something together to counter this.
The other thing to point out is the obvious fact that North
Korea sees very clearly what happened to Iraq; what happened to
Libya.  Two countries that voluntarily gave up their nuclear
weapons program with all kinds of praise and promises from the
West, although they lied about Iraq.  But as soon as they did,
their nation was bombed back to the Stone Age, their leaders
killed, and their country turned over to warring terrorist
forces.
So, the North Koreans are not crazy!  And they’re aware
that, were they to give up their nuclear weapons program
preemptively, they’d probably get the same regime change
statement.  Which is why it’s so important Tillerson is saying we
are not going for regime change; which is what Trump had said
throughout the campaign — that they weren’t going to have regime
change.  They also see that the targetting of China, they’re
aware of this, is part and parcel of this operation.  You should
point out that the Obama administration had this TPP — this
Trans-Pacific Partnership — which was also a part of the attempt
to isolate China.  It didn’t work; largely because the countries
there recognized that this was an attack on China, and they
absolutely depend upon and appreciate the infrastructure
development coming from China through the New Silk Road the New
Maritime Silk Road.
That’s where this stood.  And the last thing I’ll bring up
here is that the last administration in South Korea — Park
Geun-hye; I’m sure that everybody has seen that she was recently
impeached and thrown out of office.  The impeachment was upheld
by the Constitutional Court, and there’s now an election which is
taking place in less than two weeks on May 9; which makes it all
the more absurd that the US deployed this THAAD missile system,
literally few days before an election in which the candidates are
both against the THAAD missile system.  They rushed this in, in
order to make it — hopefully, they think — make it impossible
to be reversed.  But we’ll see.  It was a foolish move by the US
to ram this through.
But in any case, Park Geun-hye started her administration —
this is the daughter of Park Chung-hee, who was the brilliant
leader who brought Korea out from being one of the poorest
nations on Earth to being one of the great industrial, nuclear
power producing and exporting countries in the world.  His
daughter, Park Geun-hye, was elected President.  But
unfortunately, she was elected mostly on her name.  However, she
began her administration with what she called the Eurasian
Vision.  This was, in fact, part of the New Silk Road process.
She saw working with Russia, China, and Japan, that Korea
belonged to Eurasia; which obviously meant that it had to work
through North Korea.  Officially, the regime in the South under
her and her predecessor were not allowed to have relations with
North Korea, except for the Kaesong Industrial Park.  But, Park
Geun-hye allowed three major South Korean companies — Hyundai
Merchant Marine, which is their biggest ship company; KoRail,
which is their state rail company; and POSCO, a huge steel
company — to have a consortium with Russia and North Korea.
Literally, a consortium; a business agreement where the Russians
rebuilt a port in the north of North Korea; rebuilt the railroad
from Vladivostok down to that port.  They were shipping Russian
coal into North Korea, where it was picked up by a South Korean
Hyundai ship; shipped to the South, put on South Korean rail and
shipped to a South Korean steel mills.  This was, again like the
Kaesong, it was a model for the kind of collaboration which could
lead towards long-term economic progress and development and
trust; and lead towards a reunification.
Then, without going into details, the North Koreans tested I
think it was the fourth of their nuclear tests.  Everybody knew
it was going to happen for the reasons I said.  They’re not going
to give this up unless they can get an honest pledge that there’s
not going to be a war, a regime change against them.  They did;
and unfortunately, Park Geun-hye who was weak, capitulated
entirely to Obama.  She shut everything down; shut down even the
Kaesong Industrial Plant which had been up for 15 years, which
killed their own industries.  Shut down the [inaud; 31:25]
process of the rail, and basically cut off all ties to the North
all together on behalf of Obama, on behalf of a war against
China.  Despite the fact that in 2015, she had gone to Beijing on
the 70th anniversary of World War II’s victory against the
Japanese and the Germans.  She’d gone there and stood on the
podium with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin; the three of them
standing together, honoring the war victory.  Then she comes back
and basically pulls the plug on the whole thing.
She wasn’t impeached because of that; she was impeached
because of a corruption case within South Korea.  But I’m certain
to this led to the loss of any trust in her; that she’d
undermined her own industries; that she’d capitulated to an
American policy, that she was going ahead with this THAAD
deployment.  She lost the industry, she lost the left factions
that were about to win the election, the more liberal side.  So,
this was a real disaster for South Korea, and potentially for the
world.
Now, we have Trump; we have Xi Jinping; we have Abe in Japan
working very closely with Putin.  And we’re going to have a new
regime in South Korea.  I won’t go into exactly who these guys
are; but in general, both the leading candidates want to work
with Russia and China and want to open up better relations with
the North.  So, you have the geometry.  If Trump goes with the
Silk Road process, you have a geometry which is going to end this
last British outpost of destabilization and instability — this
North Korea monster.  The monster issue; it’s not that North
Korea is a monster.  But this has served the British imperial
purpose of keeping the US at a point of conflict with Russia and
China.  If we can solve that, then all of Asia is now unified,
except for the North Korea issue.  With the election in the
Philippines of Duterte, his rejection of the war policy in the
South China Sea, it basically united all the Southeast Asian
countries; all ten of them are now united around working with
China.  Not cutting off ties to the US, but working with China.
So, you have tremendous potential; and it’s all really
coming down to the next very short period.  Weeks, months at
most.  A lot of this is going to be determined in the very near
term.  As LaRouche has always insisted, to look at any particular
crisis — like the North Korean crisis — you have to look at it
in the context of the entire world; and certainly in the context
of the Eurasian potential of the New Silk Road.  I think there’s
every reason to be confident that some sort of talks are being
discussed privately; not just threats.  That this is going to
move forward in the context of the Silk Road.  As Matthew
mentioned, if Trump were to go to this meeting on May 14 and 15,
Abe would probably then go from Japan; and there’s no question
that we would have a peace process that would be almost
unstoppable, no matter what the British claim they’re going to
unleash.
So, this is a very great moment in history.  A dangerous,
but potentially great optimism is in hand.

OGDEN:  And you can tell that the British are definitely
very anxious of what could be lurking around the corner for the
future of their divide and conquer strategy.  I know we were
talking before the show, Mike, about the very appropriate and
incisive statements that were made by the Russian representative
at that meeting at the United Nations Security Council.  Here’s
the quote.  This is the Russian Deputy Permanent Representative
to the UN, Vladimir Safronkov, and he turned to Matthew Rycroft,
who is the British Permanent Representative at the United Nations
Security Council, and he said the following:  “The essence is,
and everyone in the United Nations knows this very well, is that
you are afraid.  You have been losing sleep over the fact that we
might be working together with the United States; cooperating
with the United States.  That is your fear.  You are doing
everything to make sure that this kind of cooperation be
undermined.”

BILLINGTON:  This has had a tremendous impact, because
people know that LaRouche has argued all the last 50 years, that
the problem is the British Empire.  Almost nobody of stature has
ever acknowledged that continuing role of the British Empire
until this, really.
I learned today that Ambassador Rycroft, who was a close
ally and advisor to Tony Blair, and was one of the authors of the
“dodgy dossier” which started the Iraq War in the first place.  I
learned today from our friends in England, that Rycroft was
meeting today with the head of the White Helmets; the terrorist
so-called “humanitarian” group that works with al-Qaeda and
al-Nusra, and who provided the fake evidence of Assad carrying
out a chemical weapons attack.  So, this is confirmation that
this open collaboration with a terrorist organization funded by
the British, and functioning to try to start a war in Syria for
which we can and must prevent that in league with this overall
fight to bring about the New Silk Road, not a new war.

OGDEN:  Let me end with this, and I’ll let you respond to
it.  I think as everybody knows, a very significant personality
in Korea and that area of the world, was the great US General
Douglas MacArthur.  In the aftermath of the original Korean War,
Douglas MacArthur came back to the United States, and he reported
back to Congress.  This is a quote from MacArthur’s speech to a
Joint Session of Congress in 1951.  I think it gets directly at
the much broader point that Helga and Lyndon LaRouche have been
making at the present time about what is really at stake, and
what is necessary if we’re going to move civilization into a new
paradigm of survival.  This is what Douglas MacArthur said:
“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations,
all in turn fail; leaving the only path to be by way of the
crucible of war.  The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out
this alternative.  We have had our last chance.  If we will not
devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be
at our door.  The problem, basically, is theological and involves
a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that
will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science,
art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of
the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save
the flesh.”
So Mike, you were one of the speakers at the conference the
Schiller Institute sponsored in New York City two weeks ago.  The
subject of that conference was not only the diplomatic and
strategic cooperation which is necessary between the United
States and China right now, the United States joining the New
Silk Road and the Belt and Road Initiative.  It was also a
dialogue of civilizations; a dialogue of the greatest parts of
these two great cultures — European culture and Chinese culture.
In a form where Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in a really profound way,
stretching across generations, across centuries, across millennia
really put the great German poet, the revolutionary poet and
philosopher Friedrich Schiller in dialogue with the poet and
philosopher who really is the basis of all of modern Chinese
civilization — Confucius.  That dialogue she set up between
Friedrich Schiller and Confucius, speaking to each other across
the span of millennia and across literally two sides of the
world, created the kind of image of mankind, the possibility of a
mankind which could emerge if we were to finally put an end to
this imperial system of dividing the East and the West and
bringing these two great cultures into a dialogue with each
other.
So, you presented at that conference, and maybe just in that
context

BILLINGTON:  Those are available now.  The new {EIR} that
came out today has Helga’s speech and a speech by Patrick Ho, who
is a very good friend of ours from China, from Hong Kong, who is
campaigning all over the world for the New Silk Road.  It’s three
conferences now that we’ve done together.  He gave a presentation
then on Confucian thought and Western thought; but in that
presentation, he showed a very serious problem which I had
addressed over my long years of sabbatical leave in prison, where
I studied extensively the Chinese culture and the relationship
between Confucian culture and the Western Christian Renaissance.
Patrick didn’t take up that challenge for this speech; so he gave
a speech which fell prey to exactly what I then spoke about.
That speech is also in the {EIR} this week; or you can watch it
on the Schiller Institute website.  It’s very important, because
what I learned in studying this, is what the British set about —
as they do in every colony that they took over — in profiling
the backward tendencies within that culture and then grasping
those backwards tendencies that want to stay primitive, stay
backwards; and defining those to be the natural ideology of that
country.
In the case of China, they recognized that Confucianism was
a very great threat to their ability to control and keep China
backwards; because it’s a vision like Platonism in the West.  And
as Helga had brilliantly shown, like the Renaissance thinking in
Europe that professed progress.  It valued the mind of the
individual as that which made him human; it’s the creative power
of the human mind.  Against that, the British said no, no,
Confucianism is keeping you backwards because it’s formal and
it’s structured.  You have to go back to the roots of Taoism,
which basically tells the peasant that he’s a happy peasant; he’s
happy not knowing about science and technology.  Stay backwards.
Or the so-called “legalist” ideology which was punishment and
reward; you treat people like animals.  You punish or reward them
like you do a dog, to make them do what you want them to do.
The unfortunate reality is that the British deployed their
top guns — especially Bertrand Russell — into China; especially
when Sun Yat-sen came along promoting the American System.  They
sent Bertrand Russell in to poison that system; to denounce
Confucianism; to promote the happy peasant and the Taoist
ideology.  Unfortunately, this was deeply ingrained into the
Chinese culture, so that even today, Xi Jinping, who is fighting
to bring that country forward, is faced with this kind of thought
in China.  And, what they presented to the Chinese as “Western
thought” so-called, was not Leibniz and Schiller and Nicholas of
Cusa; the people who gave us the Renaissance, who gave rise to
modern science.  But rather, they said, “We, the British,
defeated you because we have wealth and power.  How do we have
wealth and power?  It’s that we believe in Darwinism, social
Darwinism; that the strong must crush the weak.  That’s the way
you get strong.  So, if you want to be strong, then you should be
like us and believe that Western thought — i.e., British
empirical anti-human thought — is what you should aspire to.
I won’t go into more details, but I encourage you to read
it; because these are fundamental debates.  This question of how
can we create a renaissance, which crosses every great culture;
because every great culture has great moments and bad moments,
bad tendencies.  Weak tendencies, and strong tendencies which
honor the human creative power; the other which tries to keep
people enslaved as master and slave.  We have to pull out the
best of every culture throughout the world.  Islam; Judaism;
Christianity; Confucianism; the Muslim tradition of the Baghdad
Caliphate.  All of these are there — the Indian Gupta period.
We can pull these together and have a Renaissance which is not
this part of the world as opposed to that part of the world; but
is truly universal.  Of man with a common aim for mankind as
Helga likes to say.
This is within our grasp; this could truly be the end of war
for all mankind.  People say, “Oh, that’s naïve; because human
nature is war-like.”  Well, {human nature} is not; human nature
is creative.  It’s the bestial imposition of this backward
ideology on peoples which leads to wars.  If we had a true,
global renaissance based on science and technology, great culture
and great music, there’s no reason to think we could not end the
scourge of war once and for all; as that beautiful quote from
Douglas MacArthur — which I’d never heard — clearly indicates.
These are philosophic and theological issues; but they’re in our
grasp today.  This is what the LaRouche Movement has been about
since its inception; and it’s now literally within our grasp.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Mike.  This material is
available; Mike’s article is going to be published.  This is in
the {Executive Intelligence Review}, and it will be made
available through LaRouche PAC as well.  As Mike said, all of the
proceedings of that Schiller Institute conference in New York are
also available.  LaRouche PAC also made a video a couple of years
ago on the question of the reunification of Korea and some of
these initiatives from the 1990s and these reunification efforts.
So, we’ll make that video also available; it will be linked in
the description of this video.  But I think that’s a wonderful
discussion; and it’s extraordinarily valuable for people to have
this view, this depth of background.  But also this vision of
what is possible.  Douglas MacArthur’s point that in essence this
is a spiritual, this is a theological question.  Will mankind
come to know himself as a creative species?  Will we change the
way that man views himself, which is what is necessary if we are
to survive?  The vehicle for doing that is this type of “win-win”
development projects; that’s the true name of peace.  So, I think
we have a wonderful microcosm in what we just used as a case
study in Korea; but this type of thinking is what is so urgently
necessary for the entire world.  That’s absolutely the value of
what the LaRouche Movement has done over the last several
decades, and continues to represent on this planet today.
So thank you, Mike.  And thank you all for tuning in, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Vi mener, at dette er en tid, hvor alle må tænke på, hvordan de kan bidrage til at opbygge disse globale alliancer, til at opbygge denne politik for menneskehedens fælles skæbne, og formålet med denne koncert er således at gøre dette inden for et meget vigtigt område, der undertiden overlades lidt til sidelinjen; og det er det kulturelle område. For, ingen stor opdagelse, ingen stor videnskab, ingen udvikling kan finde sted, hvis der ikke er uddannede mennesker, der i sig har et billede af mennesket, der fortæller dem, at menneskeheden kan blive til noget langt bedre, end den i øjeblikket er. De har gennem kultur uddannet deres intellekt, deres humane følelser, så de har kunnet blive forskere, kunnet erobre rummet, som vi netop nu ser det; kunnet konfrontere de store udfordringer, menneskeheden står overfor.

Deres excellencer, medlemmer af diplomatiet; mine Damer og Herrer: Jeg er Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, og jeg er, sammen med Jelena Nielsen fra Russisk-Dansk Dialog, vært for i aften.

Koncerten er arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet; Russisk-Dansk Dialog; Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter. Vi vil gerne takke medsponsorerne og Det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur for velvilligst at stille deres hus til rådighed for aftenens koncert, samt de mange kunstnere, der frivilligt har stillet deres indsats til rådighed for at gøre denne aften til en rig dialog mellem kulturer.

To praktiske meddelelser: efter det første nummer kommer der ekstra stole, nogle af jer kan sidde på; det andet er, at jeg gerne vil have, at alle slukker for deres mobiltelefoner.

Vi lever i øjeblikket i virkeligt interessante tider; Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, hustru til Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, sagde for nylig, at det globale, strategiske billede er meget dynamisk, flydende, lovende og farligt, alt sammen på én gang. På den ene side har vi stadig denne uhæmmede konfrontation, med deployering af tropper mod de russiske grænser og andre konfrontationspolitikker, der stadig finder sted og stadig ikke har forandret sig. Vi har ligeledes et globalt finanssystem, der, hvornår, det skal være, vil bryde sammen i den næste, store krise, der sandsynligvis vil blive langt større end det, vi så i 2008. Men samtidig har vi fået en ny præsident i USA, Donald Trump, der både i sin kampagne og i det, vi hidtil har set, har annonceret, at der vil komme forandring i USA’s politik, og at, med ham som præsident, ønsker USA at genoprette normale bånd til Rusland, til Kina og til andre nationer i verden, baseret på en politik for genopbygning af USA, men at dette ikke står i modsætning til en genopbygning af hele verden.

Samtidig har vi et momentum, der er blevet opbygget i en rum tid, med især den kinesiske drivkraft med Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, og som i øjeblikket er engageret i mindst 70 nationer i hele verden, i en politik, som vi for årtier siden lancerede under navnet ’Fred gennem udvikling’. At, samtidig med, at man har økonomisk udvikling, så har man også grundlaget for samarbejde og varig fred.

Vi befinder os altså i en tid, hvor alt kan ske. En masse mennesker er flippet ud over dette; de ved ikke, hvad dagen i morgen vil bringe. Men vi ser dette som en stor mulighed for forandring, og vi kunne meget vel stå ved et punkt, hvor vi kan få USA til at tilslutte sig indsatsen fra så mange andre nationer, som Kina, som Rusland, som Indien og mange andre nationer med dem, der samarbejder om hele menneskehedens fælles skæbne; og hvis USA tilslutter sig denne indsats – samt naturligvis også Danmark og de europæiske nationer tilligemed – så står vi pludselig i noget, der uden enhver tvivl vil blive den største epoke i menneskehedens historie. For vi vil pludselig blive i stand til at få en verdensomspændende renæssance, der omfatter hele planeten på samme tid – noget, der aldrig tidligere har fundet sted i menneskehedens historie.

Vi mener, at dette er en tid, hvor alle må tænke på, hvordan de kan bidrage til at opbygge disse globale alliancer, til at opbygge denne politik for menneskehedens fælles skæbne, og formålet med denne koncert er således at gøre dette inden for et meget vigtigt område, der undertiden overlades lidt til sidelinjen; og det er det kulturelle område. For, ingen stor opdagelse, ingen stor videnskab, ingen udvikling kan finde sted, hvis der ikke er uddannede mennesker, der i sig har et billede af mennesket, der fortæller dem, at menneskeheden kan blive til noget langt bedre, end den i øjeblikket er. De har gennem kultur uddannet deres intellekt, deres humane følelser, så de har kunnet blive forskere, kunnet erobre rummet, som vi netop nu ser det; kunnet konfrontere de store udfordringer, menneskeheden står overfor.

Vi mener således, at det er yderst passende, at vi har en dialog mellem kulturer; at vi, i stedet for at se andre kulturer, andre nationer og andre folkeslag som en trussel, ser det som en utrolig berigelse. Og at alle nationer fremdrager den bedste kultur, de bedste højdepunkter, de bedste bidrag, som de har at skænke menneskeheden, og gør dette tilgængeligt for verdens øvrige nationer samtidig med, at de modtager de bedste af alle disse kulturers skabelser retur. Og når det sker, så, som mange af jer ved, var dette i vid udstrækning, hvad den Gamle Silkevej drejede sig om; jo, der var handel, men der var også kulturel og videnskabelig interaktion, som i realiteten fik langt større konsekvenser end selve handelen. Det er præcist, hvad der nu må ske med dette store projekt, Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, som resten af verden nu er ved at tilslutte sig.

Jeg håber således, at I vil nyde aftenens koncert, og jeg håber, at I vil se det som et bidrag til at få denne dialog mellem kulturer i gang, og at det er noget, vi vil komme til at se meget mere af på alle niveauer.

Se videoen her.

Video med danske undertekster:

Video with English subtitles:

Dansk: Klik her for en video, hvor sopran Gitta-Maria Sjöberg synger Rusalkas sang til Månen i en anden koncert (med en anden pianist)

English: Click here for a video where soprano Gitta-Maria Sjöberg sings Rusalka’s Song to the Moon during another concert (with another pianist).

17. februar, 2017 – De kom fra hele verden. De bragte gaver. Ikke gaver, man kunne røre med hænderne. Men gaver, der rørte sjælen. Gaver, i form af skøn musik og skøn dans.

Og folk kom for at høre dem. De blev ved med at komme, indtil der ikke var flere af de 120 pladser tilbage. Og da der ikke var plads til ekstra stole, stod de i gangene, og de stod i forhallen, og de sad bag gardinerne. De var danskere, og de var diplomater, og de var andre mennesker fra mange nationer, måske 180-200 i alt. Værtinden sagde, at der aldrig før havde været så mange i salen.

Dialogen mellem kulturer, mellem selve sponsorerne, førte til den store succes – Schiller Instituttet, organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog, det Russiske Hus i København og det Kinesiske Kulturcenter (som står for snarlig åbning, og som også leverede mad i pausen). Koncerten afholdtes i det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur, som repræsenterer den Russiske Føderations myndighed for forbindelse til Fællesskabet af Uafhængige Stater (fra det tidligere Sovjetunionen), russere i udlændighed og det internationale humanistiske samarbejde (Rossotrudnichestvo).

Aftenens første punkt var Schiller Instituttets danske formand, Tom Gillesberg, der fortalte, at vi står ved et historisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, hvor muligheden er til stede for, at USA tilslutter sig det nye paradigme med økonomisk udvikling, som nu fejer hen over verden.

Dernæst fortalte talskvinde for Russisk-Dansk Dialog, Jelena Nielsen, at en dialog mellem kulturer kan føre til fred i verden. Tom og Jelena skiftedes til at annoncere kunstnerne aftenen igennem.

Og som det tredje punkt i indledningen til aftenen bød direktør for det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur, Artem Alexandrovich Markaryan (ses i billedet ovenover), velkommen til publikum.

Dernæst begyndte processionen af gave-giverne.

Fra Rusland kom børn, der spillede russiske folkemelodier på balalajkaer, ensemblet »Svetit Mesjac« (Den skinnende Måne) fra Det russiske Hus, med Igor Panich som dirigent, og som inkluderede ’Katjusha’ med barytonsolist Valerij Likhachev, der har optrådt på 200 scener. Senere fremførte han også Leperellos »Listearie« fra operaen »Don Juan« af Mozart, og Mefistofeles’ couplet fra Gounods opera »Faust« sammen med sin pianist, Semjon Bolshem.

Fra Kinas Indre Mongolia region kom en meget musikalsk ung videnskabsstuderende, Kai Guo, som spillede på mange fløjter, og Kai Guo og Feride Istogu Gillesberg fra Schiller Instituttet sang i charmerende duet, den kinesiske kærlighedssang »Kangding«.

Fra Indonesien kom en traditionel danser, Sarah Noor Komarudin, der fyldte rummet med sin yndefulde Jaipong-dans.

Fra Ghana kom to unge mænd, Isaac Kwaku og Fred Kwaku, der sang og spillede en religiøs sang og en sang, der handlede om, at, når vi arbejder sammen, er vi stærkere, end når vi står alene.

Og fra Danmark og Sverige kom tre fantastiske, kvindelige operasangere, hvis toner og dramatiske intensitet bevægede publikum dybt. Deres gaver var sange og arier af Schubert, Verdi, Dvořák og Sibelius. Gitta-Maria Sjöberg, en international, lysende sopranstjerne, der for nylig trak sig tilbage fra den Kongelige Danske Opera, sang Rusalkas »Sangen til Månen« af Dvořák. Idil Alpsoy, en fremragende mezzosopran med rødder i Ungarn og Tyrkiet, og som også er medlem af Mellemøstligt Fredsorkester, sang sange fra Sibelius’ Op. 37 og 88. Og en sopran, som vi i årenes løb har hørt blomstre og blive en virkelig brillant kunstner, Leena Malkki, sang Schuberts »Gretchen am Spinnrade« (Gretchen ved spinderokken), samt Desdemones bøn »Ave Maria«, fra Verdis opera »Othello«. De to første blev akkompagneret af Christine Raft, en særdeles talentfuld, ung dansk pianistinde, og sidstnævnte akkompagneredes af Schiller Instituttets egen Benjamin Telmányi Lylloff. Han spillede sammen med sin mor Anika en gribende Romance for violin og piano af Beethoven, og fortsatte således det eftermæle, som de har fået i arv fra deres forfader fra Ungarn, violinsolisten Emil Telmányi Lylloff.

I aftenens finale sang alle sangerne (for nær én), og med yderligere deltagelse af fire medlemmer af Schiller Instituttets fremtidige kor, det hebraiske slavekors sang »Va pensiero«, hvor slaverne længes efter frihed, fra Verdis opera »Nabucco«.

(Se program nedenfor eller på:  www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17637)

Og folk blev opløftet dels af den enkelte fremførelse, og dels af de successive musikstykker og danseoptrædener, det ene efter det andet, det ene land efter det andet, med traditionel musik i dialog med klassisk musik, der vævede en gobelin af lyd, syn og fryd, der ikke (kun) nåede sanserne, men sjælen.

Folk blev bedt om at holde kontakt med os og overveje at gå med i Schiller Instituttets kor, og nogle af dem skrev, at det ville de gerne.

Da de gik, gav de alle udtryk for den mest sublime glæde og taknemmelighed for at have fået det privilegium at modtage alle disse kostelige gaver, som de tog med sig hjem som et minde i deres sind, og som de kan åbne igen og igen.

Et musikalsk vidnesbyrd om det paradoksale mellem menneskehedens enhed og flerhed, udtrykt gennem menneskelig kreativitet, og et magtfuldt udtryk for dialogen mellem kulturer, blev proklameret.

Vi vil fortsætte med denne proklamation i form af professionelle video- og audiooptagelser, så dens ringe kan spredes i hele verden. 

Kontakt venligst Schiller Instituttet, hvis du overvejer at gå med i vores kor i København. Michelle tel.: 53 57 00 51; Feride tel.: 25 12 50 33

Koncertprogram:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

English:

The following article was published in Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 44, No. 8, on February 24, 2017. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Corrections to the above article:

The China Culture Center in Denmark is independent of the Chinese Embassy.

Picture caption and text: Chinese musician Kai Guo is from China’s Inner Mongolia region.

The correct name for Anika and Benjamin’s ancestor is Emil Telmányi.

The picture of Leena Malkki is a video grab.)

Wonderful Musical Dialogue of Culture Concert Breakthrough in Copenhagen

by Michelle Rasmussen

COPENHAGEN, Feb. 17, 2017 (EIRNS) — They came from around the world. They came bearing gifts. Not gifts you could touch with your hands. But gifts that touched your soul. Gifts of beautiful music, and beautiful dance.

And the people came to hear them. And they kept coming, and they kept coming till none of the 120 seats were left. And after there was no more room for extra chairs, they stood in the aisles, and they stood in the lobby, and they sat behind the curtains. They were Danes, and they were diplomats, and other people, from many nations, maybe 180-200 in total. The hostess said that there had never been so many there before.

The dialogue of cultures between the sponsors of the concert, itself, led to the great success – The Schiller Institute, The Russian-Danish Dialogue organization, The Russian House in Copenhagen, and the China Culture Center of the Chinese Embassy (about to open, which also provided intermission food). And the concert was held in The Russian Center for Science and Culture, representing the Russian Federal agency for the Commonwealth of the Independent states (of the former Soviet Union), compatriots living abroad, and the international humanistic cooperation (Rossotrudnichestvo).

Firstly, the people were told by Schiller Institute chairman Tom Gillesberg that we have a unique moment in world history, where the potential is there for the U.S. to join the new paradigm of economic development sweeping the world. Secondly, they were told by the spokeswoman for Russian-Danish Dialogue, Jelena Nielsen, that a dialogue of culture can lead to peace in the world. They were also the interchanging hosts for the evening. Thirdly, the director of The Russian Center for Science and Culture, Artem Alexandrovich Markaryan, welcomed the people.

Then the procession of gift-givers began.

From Russia came children playing Russian folk songs on balalaikas, (the “Svetit Mesjac” (The Moon is Shining) ensemble from The Russian House, conducted by Igor Panich), including Katjusha, with soloist Valerij Likhachev, baritone, who has sung on 200 stages. He also later performed Leperello’s list aria, from the opera Don Giovanni by Mozart, and Mephistopheles’ couplets, from Gounod’s opera Faust, together with his pianist Semjon Bolshem.

From China’s Inner Mongolia region came a very musical young science student, Kai Guo, who played many flutes, and he and Feride Istogu Gillesberg from The Schiller Institute charmingly sang the Kangding Chinese love song, as a duet.

From Indonesia came a traditional dancer, Sarah Noor Komarudin, who filled the room with her graceful Jaipong dance.

From Ghana came two young men, Isaac Kwaku and Fred Kwaku, who sang and played a religious song, and a song about when we work together, we are stronger than when we stand alone.

And from Denmark and Sweden came three outstanding female opera singers, whose tones, and dramatic intensity, moved the audience profoundly. Their offerings were songs and arias from Schubert, Verdi, Dvořák and Sibelius. Gitta-Maria Sjöberg, an international bright star of a soprano, who recently retired from The Royal Danish Opera, sang Rusalka’s Song to the Moon by Dvořák. Idil Alpsoy, a fantastic mezzo soprano with roots in Hungary and Turkey, who is also a member of the Middle East Peace Orchestra, sang songs from Sibelius’ Op.37 and 88. And a soprano, Leena Malkki, we have heard for many years blossoming into a truly magnificent artist, sang Schubert’s Gretchen am Spinnrade (spinning wheel), and Desdemona’s prayer Ave Maria, from Verdi’s opera Othello. The first two were accompanied by Christine Raft, an extremely talented young Danish pianist, and the later by The Schiller Institute’s own Benjamin Telmányi Lylloff.

He, and his mother Anika, poignantly played Beethoven’s Romance for violin and piano, continuing the legacy bequeathed by their ancestor from Hungary, the violin soloist Emil Telmányi.

For the finale, all the singers (but one), sang Verdi’s chorus of the Hebrew slaves longing for freedom, Va, pensiero, with the addition of four members of The Schiller Institute’s future chorus. See the program at: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17965

And the people were uplifted, with each presentation by itself, and with the succession of one piece of music, or dance, after the other, one country after another, traditional music in dialogue with classical music, weaving a tapestry of sound, sight and delight, not reaching their senses, but their soul.

And the people were asked to be in contact with us, and to consider joining The Schiller Institute’s chorus, some of whom wrote that they would.

As they left, they all expressed the most sublime joy and thankfulness for having had the privilege to have received all of these precious gifts, which they took home in the memory of their minds, to be opened again, and again.

A musical testament to the paradox of the unity and diversity of mankind, expressed by human creativity, and a powerful statement of the dialogue of cultures was declaimed.

We will go forth with this statement, in the form of professional video and audio recordings, to spread its ripples throughout the world.

(Hopefully ready this week.)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. februar, 2017 – Alle medlemmer bør i dag lytte til vores nationale aktivistbriefing (pr. telefon), så vel som også til Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på Manhattan-konferencen lørdag, og især hendes kommentarer efter dr. Patrick Hos tale, hvor hun foreslår en international konference for i dybden at adressere de historiske misforståelser i Kina og Vesten omkring den anden parts sande, storslåede kulturer. Lige såvel som briterne løj vildt om arten af den konfucianske kultur til den vestlige verden, så arbejdede de samtidig flittigt for at inducere kineserne til at tro, at den degenererede, britiske imperieideologi var den vestlige tankegangs karakteristiske ideologi.[1]   

I søndags understregede Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, at den afskyelige »farvede revolution«, der føres imod den nye Trump-regering, både i USA og i Europa, må afsløres som de britiske/Obama-ondskab, som den er, men at man ikke behøver blive dér, og slet ikke blive trukket med ind i de fabrikerede, splittende debatter, der faldbydes i pressen. Befolkningen har fået en brat opvågning – det, Renée Sigerson kaldte en »optøning« fra 16 års intellektuel dybfrysning – både gennem det økonomiske og kulturelle sammenbruds virkelighed, men også gennem valget af en person, der afviser krig – både krige for regimeskifte og global krig med Rusland – så vel som også den perverse »offentlige mening«, der repræsenteres af mainstream-medierne, og det ’grønne’ vanvid, der bruges til at retfærdiggøre globalisering (læs: Det britiske Imperium) og sammenbruddet af industri i indland og udland.

Dette er et historisk øjeblik for revolutionært, kreativt lederskab

– det øjeblik, for hvilket Lyndon LaRouche opbyggede denne organisation. Der er ingen tid til frygt eller forkrøblende bekymring over, hvad »de« kunne gøre. Som Lyndon LaRouche i dag sagde: »Ikke bekymring, bekymring, bekymring, men win, win, win.«

 [1] Se: »The British Role in the Creation of Maoism«, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1992/eirv19n36-19920911/eirv19n36-19920911_048-the_british_role_in_the_creation.pdf

Denne tradition i europæisk filosofi, som vi kalder humanisme, er fuldstædig i opposition til liberalisme, og den er langt, langt mere i overensstemmelse med konfucianisme, end det generelt antages.

Problemet med vestlige bøger og vestlig universitetsuddannelse er, at det i meget lang tid har været optaget af de mennesker, der vandt krigene, af oligarkiet; af de mennesker, der forsøger at undertrykke denne kreativitet i befolkningen. Jeg mener, vi ville gøre den Anden Renæssance en meget stor tjeneste ved at arrangere et symposium, der skulle udarbejde disse paralleller i langt højere grad. Jeg mener, at dette faktisk er afgørende for forståelsen af folk fra de forskellige kulturer.

(Her følger først en opsummering af dr. Patrick Hos præsentation på konferencen, som efterfølges af Helga Zepp-LaRouches respons, inkl. et spændende forslag.)

Patrick Ho er leder af China Energy Fund, der er anerkendt i FN, og han har været en fremtrædende person i at bringe Bælt-og-Vej-politikken til FN, men også til den amerikanske befolkning. Dette er anden gang, han taler for Schiller Instituttets i løbet af den seneste to en halv måned. Første gang pointerede han, at han var glad for at tale for et publikum med forskellige slags amerikanere. Denne gang fokuserede han mere på de kulturelle aspekter; han sagde, at han ønskede at kommunikere, hvad det vil sige at være kineser … »kinesisk-hed« …; dens mere end 5000 år gamle historie. Han mente, at det, der definerede landet, var folkets kulturelle sammenhæng; fælles sprog; civilisationens kontinuitet. Han dækkede en meget lang periode, men fokuserede især på de tre ’bank på døren’; da Kina bankede på Vestens dør, og de reaktioner, de fik, gode og knap så gode; de tre perioder med Silkevejen – den ene i det andet århundrede f. Kr., da Zhang Qian rejste til Vesten; dernæst foretog admiral Zheng He rejser, hvor han nåede østkysten af Afrika og den arabiske verden i det 14. århundrede og bragte aspekter af vestlig kultur med tilbage (inkl. giraffer, som gjorde et stort indtryk!). Dette blev lukket ned. Dernæst, efter Det britiske Imperiums angreb i det 19. århundrede med to opiumkrige, besluttede kineserne at gå i gang med en vis modernisering, så de kunne bevare en nation. Han gennemgik hurtigt Sun Yat-sen; revolutionen i 1911; Nixons møde med Mao i 1972; Deng Xiopings »Socialisme med kinesisk karakter« i 1979; og Xi Jinpings Ét Bælte, én vej-initiativ.

I en anden del diskuterede han især relationen til Vesten gennem nogle jesuitermissionærers forsøg på at bringe kristendommen til Kina; igen gik det godt på et bestemt tidspunkt, men brød så sammen. Disse missionærer var i kontakt med Leibniz. I Ching havde en stor virkning på Leibniz: det binære system, som er basis for computersystemerne i moderne tid, og også DNA-koden.

Han satte kinesiske værdier i disse perioder op i kontrast til vestlige synspunkter. For eksempel: vægt på det individuelle i Vesten som vigtige værdier, men som gav diverse problemer. Hvorimod vægten i Kina ligger på familie, sociale relationer, kultur.

Der var en hel del mere, det ikke giver mening at forsøge at opsummere, men det var del af en dialog mellem dr. Ho og Helga Zepp-LaRouche og publikum.

(Efter dr. Hos powerpoint-præsentation gav fr. Zepp-LaRouche et svar, der omfattede et vigtigt forslag.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Dette er et meget spændende perspektiv, men jeg vil faktisk foreslå, Patrick, at vi arrangerer en stor begivenhed, måske en international konference, for jeg mener, at kendskab til kinesisk kultur, men også til vestlig kultur, faktisk ikke er tilstrækkelig kendt af den anden part.

Jeg var f.eks. en gang i Kina, og jeg søgte efter lærde (akademikere), der kendte Nicolaus Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues), som er den vigtigste lærde person og store tænker fra det 15. århundredes Europa.[1] Jeg fandt en enkelt professor, der var bekendt med Nicolaus Cusanus. Dette er typisk, for det, du sagde om forskellen mellem vestlige værdier og kinesiske værdier, for jeg mener, at, på grund af den britiske indflydelse i universiteterne – i hele verden, men, mener jeg, også i Kina på et tidspunkt – så, mange gange, tager folk fejl af humanisme og liberalisme. Og det er virkelig ikke sandt.

Vi taler ikke om Aristoteles-traditionen. Vi taler ikke om visse traditioner i Europa, som dernæst førte til visse former for Oplysningstiden, den franske oplysningstid, den engelske oplysningstid, der, som du rigtigt sagde, er stærkt centreret om individets rolle og liberalisme og så fremdeles.

Men det er netop den tradition, der blev afvist af det, vi anser for at være den positive, præ-sokratiske tradition; Platon; Augustin; Cusanus; Kepler; Leibniz; Schiller; og inden for videnskab, Riemann; Einstein og ligesindede tænkere. Så der har foregået en langt større kamp i den europæiske traditions civilisation, end de fleste mennesker faktisk ved. Hele fremskridtet inden for videnskab, kultur og klassisk kultur kommer som følge af afvisningen af den liberalistiske tradition. Oligarkiet har benyttet sig af en bevidst krigsførelse i forsøg på at få folk væk fra ideen om menneskelig kreativitet.

Jeg og også nogle andre i Schiller Instituttet sammenlignede ideerne hos Konfucius og Mencius med visse ideer og filosoffer i vesten, og dér finder man langt større enhed. For eksempel har denne Nicolaus Cusanus, som jeg nævnte, ideer, der absolut stemmer overens med Li og ideen om Ren hos Confucius[2]; såsom, han har denne idé – hvis Li er »at gøre det rette på rette tid og rette sted [som dr. Ho tidligere havde nævnt], så har Nicolaus Cusanus denne idé om, at hvert mikrokosmiske element, hvert menneske, kun fuldt ud kan udvikles, hvis man bidrager til harmonien i det makrokosmiske element gennem at udvikle alle de andre mikrokosmiske elementer, og vice versa. Dette er præcis [ideen om] »win-win-samarbejde« blandt mennesker. Det er ideen, der lå til grund for den Westfalske Fred: denne fred er kun mulig, hvis man respekterer den andens interesse.

Og Leibniz var jo så lydhør over for kinesisk filosofi, fordi han selv var fortsættelsen af denne Nicolaus Cusanus, og Leibniz havde denne idé om, at hvert menneske er en monade (enhed); hvert menneske indeholder sit eget, skabende intellekt i universets helhed, og overensstemmelse er kun mulig, hvis der er en harmonisk udvikling af alle disse evner; og dette førte til [USA’s] Uafhængighedserklæringen og ’stræben efter lykke’, som ikke er »lykke« i betydningen held, men som netop er opfyldelsen, udviklingen, af alle potentialer, der er indlejret i det menneskelige væsen. Så dette er altså indlejret i mennesket.[3]

Denne tradition i europæisk filosofi, som vi kalder humanisme, er fuldstædig i opposition til liberalisme, og den er langt, langt mere i overensstemmelse med konfucianisme, end det generelt antages.

Problemet med vestlige bøger og vestlig universitetsuddannelse er, at det i meget lang tid har været optaget af de mennesker, der vandt krigene, af oligarkiet; af de mennesker, der forsøger at undertrykke denne kreativitet i befolkningen. Jeg mener, vi ville gøre den Anden Renæssance en meget stor tjeneste ved at arrangere et symposium, der skulle udarbejde disse paralleller i langt højere grad. Jeg mener, at dette faktisk er afgørende for forståelsen af folk fra de forskellige kulturer.

Nicolaus Cusanus sagde, at, den eneste grund til, at folk fra forskellige kulturer kan forstå hinanden, er, at de hver frembringer videnskabsfolk og kunstnere, der udvikler universelle principper, som man kan videreformidle. Det er grunden til, at musikere fra forskellige nationer kan være i samme orkester; eller grunden til, at videnskabsfolk kommer til de samme konklusioner i en videnskabelig opdagelse, præcis, som man udviklede det binære system. Jeg mener, at der er langt flere skatte at finde både for Vesten ved at lære fra Kina, så vel som også, at det kinesiske folk forstår, ikke den liberale undervisning af historie og idéfilosofi, men ved virkelig at gå til de originale kilder, som de var, og som de var drivkraften bag Vestens fokus. Så dette er meget spændende, og jeg håber, vi kan arrangere noget langs disse retningslinjer. [applaus]

​(Video og engelsk udskrift af Helgas hovedtale vil snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden).

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Kinas kyst, »Den Eurasiske Landbros Terminal Øst«, 1996. 

I en tid, hvor der er alt for meget politisk splid i verden, og verdens lande i stedet burde arbejde sammen om menneskehedens fælles mål, er det ekstra vigtigt, at vi på alle måder bygger bro mellem verdens nationer og de mange forskelligartede kulturer. Når vi oplever det skønne i andre kulturer, skaber det gensidig forståelse og et grundlag for samarbejde og fred. Klassisk kunst er derfor en vigtig nøgle til en sådan dialog mellem kulturer, og det er grunden til, at vi afholder denne koncert!

Fredag den 17. februar, 2017, kl.19.

Gratis adgang.

Sted: Russisk Center for Videnskab og Kultur, Vester Voldgade 11, København.

Kinesiske forfriskninger i pausen.

Invitér også din familie, venner og kollegaer, og hæng gerne plakaten op forskellige steder.

Information: 25 12 50 33 

Program

Download (PDF, Unknown)

… med win-win-samarbejdet omkring den Nye Silkevej, så har man muligheden for at få en dialog mellem kulturer på højeste niveau. Dette er præcis, hvad Schiller Instituttet promoverer med konferencer som denne. Den grundlæggende idé er, at, hvis alle mennesker blot kendte de skønneste udtryk for den anden kulturs højkulturelle epoker, ville de elske denne anden kultur, fordi de ville føle sig så beriget og erkende, at det er en skønhed, at vi har så mange kulturer. Det ville være ekstremt kedeligt med kun én kultur; og især er den vestlige, liberale kultur ikke ligefrem attraktiv. Hvis man derfor ser på Konfucius-traditionen i Kina, på Mencius, på literati-maleri; eller man ser på de vediske skrifter, eller Gupta-periodens sanskrit-dramatradition i Indien. Den indiske renæssance med Tagore, Sri Aurobindo; eller man ser på den Italienske Renæssance, man ser på den Tyske Klassik inden for musik og litteratur – især med musik fra Bach til Beethoven og til Brahms. Dette er bidrag til universalhistorien, som, når alle nationer først kender de bedste udtryk for den anden kultur, jeg er helt sikker på, vil få alle konflikter til absolut at forsvinde; og vi vil få en rig, universel kultur, der består af mange, nationale udtryk og traditioner. Men som stadig er forenet af universelle principper for kunst og videnskab.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

18. jan., 2017 – Præsident Xi Jinping holdt i dag en hovedtale i FN-bygningen i Genève efter et møde tidligere på dagen med dr. Margaret Chan, direktør for Verdenssundhedsorganisationen, og med chefen for den Internationale Olympiske Komite. Man afventer et udskrift.

Xis præsentation skitserede de højeste mål for verden af nationer, på en måde, der var rig på metaforer. Han sluttede med at fastslå sine fem, vigtige prioriteter.

Blandt de understregede ideer var nødvendigheden af at opgive krig og gå ind i en diplomatisk og politisk dialog for at løse problemer. Han fik spontan applaus, da han sagde, ’Selv den tykkeste is kan brydes’.

Da han sagde fra over for nejsigernes idé om, at visse problemer er for umedgørlige, og at et forsøg på at løse dem blot medfører ballade, sagde han, at kinesernes overbevisning er den, at »man skal ikke opgive at spise, fordi man tror, man måske får maden galt i halsen … «

I en smuk behandling af verdens forskellige kulturer og religioner, citerede han igen et gammelt, kinesisk ord, der siger, ’den rigeste suppe er lavet af det højeste indhold af forskellige ingredienser’ …

Før Xi afsluttede med sine fem punkter, udtrykte han sin egen metafor for at fokusere på, hvordan man skal tænke på økosystemet, når der med sikkerhed vil opstå problemer, selvfølgelig, med forurening og andre lignende ting i takt med, at menneskeheden gør fremskridt med nye teknologier. Xi sagde, at han husker, da han fik sin første schweizerkniv, og hvordan den kunne gøre så mange forunderlige ting. Han sagde, »Ville det ikke være vidunderligt, hvis vi havde en schweizerkniv, og når der opstår et problem, så tager vi bare kniven frem og fikser det …«

Xi blev varmt introduceret af FN’s generalsekretær Antonio Guterres og af generalforsamlingspræsident Peter Thomson.

Foto: Xi Jinping taler i FN, 18. jan., 2017. (Hele talen kan, med engelsk speak, høres her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voSm7E7UP0o)