Den 16. maj 2022 (EIRNS)–NBC’s “Meet the Press” har netop offentliggjort et skræmmende indslag med et krigsspil udført af “Center for a New American Security” (CNAS), der simulerede en direkte amerikansk varm krig imod Kina. “Året er 2027”, indledes showets teaser. “Kina er parat til at angribe Taiwan. Hvilken side ville sejre? Ville Kina angribe det amerikanske fastland? Kunne en atomkrig bryde ud?”

CNAS er finansieret af Pentagon og førende militær leverandører som Northrop Grumman, Raytheon og Lockheed Martin samt Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office. CNAS’ medstifter Michèle Flournoy, der nu er formand for CNAS’ bestyrelse, argumenterede i 2020 for, at USA skulle udvikle “kapacitet til, på en troværdig måde, at true med at sænke alle Kinas militære fartøjer, ubåde og handelsskibe i det Sydkinesiske Hav indenfor 72 timer”, rapporterer Caitlin Johnstone. (https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/pentagon-funded-think-tank-simulates)

Direktøren for CNAS, Richard Fontaine, har med begejstring fortalt om, hvordan en langvarig konflikt i Ukraine ville tjene langsigtede interesser over for Kina: “Krigen i Ukraine kan ende med at være dårlig for omdrejningspunktet [mod Asien] på kort sigt, men fordelagtig på lang sigt”, sagde han. “Hvis Rusland kommer ud af denne konflikt som en svækket udgave af sig selv, og Tyskland opfylder sine løfter om forsvarsudgifter, kan begge tendenser gøre det muligt for USA at fokusere mere på Indo-Stillehavsområdet på lang sigt.”

Det krigsspil, som NBC viste, omfatter “Red Team” (Kina), der følger op på taiwanesiske øer og selveste Taipei med angreb på amerikanske styrker i Japan, Guam og de nordlige Mariana Øer. Det amerikanske “Blue Team” forestillede sig, at amerikanske styrker fra Filippinerne skulle indgå i en luftkamp med kinesiske fly fra det kinesiske flyvevåben.

Et medieselskab har indgået et samarbejde med en Pentagon-finansieret tænketank for at normalisere tanken om en direkte militær konflikt mellem USA og Kina.

“Dette er på vej i en meget, meget dårlig retning”, konkluderer Johnstone i sin dækning af tv-programmet. “Forhåbentlig vågner menneskeheden op i tide til at stoppe disse galninge fra at jage os ud over en afgrund, hvorfra der ikke er nogen vej tilbage.”

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

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

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

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

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

Hovedtalen til ungdomsmøde, lørdag den 7. maj 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Den 7. maj 2022 (EIRNS) – I et tiltag, der har til hensigt at slå “mange fluer med ét smæk”, har den kinesiske regering udgivet et ”Faktapapir om National Endowment for Democracy’’. “Faktapapiret” beskriver, hvordan CIA’s operationer for at underminere udenlandske regeringer under Den kolde Krig blev omdannet til denne offentlige-private mekanisme, der betegnes som en “NGO”, med henblik på at blande sig i andre landes interne anliggender og forme disse landes politik, for at bringe dem på linje med USA’s geopolitiske mål.

Derefter gennemgås land efter land for at dokumentere NED’s operationer, med henblik på at opildne til farverevolutioner og vælte folkevalgte regeringer, der ikke var i samklang med USA. Der er bl.a. en gennemgang af NED’s operationer i Polen (Solidarnosc), Georgien, Rusland, Ukraine, Hviderusland, Kirgisistan, Serbien og Mongoliet samt lande i Latinamerika, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela og Afrika, Libyen, Uganda og Sudan, samt Thailand i Sydøstasien.

Faktapapiret gennemgår også de omfattende operationer, som NED har gennemført mod Kina, herunder deres kampagner for Hongkongs uafhængighed, Tibets uafhængighed og “folkemord” og “menneskerettighedskrav” i Xinjiang. Det beskriver også NED’s operationer sammen med Taiwan. I stedet for at behandle disse spørgsmål enkeltvis, baggrunden for situationen i Ukraine eller arten af operationerne i Xinjiang og Hongkong, fokuserer “Faktapapiret” snarere på den modus operandi (fremgangsmåde), der er karakteristisk for USA’s politik for at forsøge at vælte regeringer, der udgør en trussel mod USA’s herredømme.

Offentliggørelsen af faktapapiret kan også være et forebyggende angreb på den ”Kina-politiske Evaluering”, “China Policy Review”, som skulle have været bekendtgjort i denne uge af udenrigsminister Blinken, men som er blevet forsinket, efter at han er blevet smittet med COVID. 

Link til rapporten

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202205/t20220507_10683090.html 

Den 28. april 2022 (EIRNS) – Den multinationale militære sammenkomst den 26. april på den amerikanske Ramstein Air Base i Tyskland og dens opfølgning rækker langt ud over det globale NATO. Det er et direkte Globalt Imperium af de selvudnævnte, “regelbaserede”, vordende verdensherrer. Vært var den amerikanske forsvarsminister Lloyd Austin, med det angivelige formål at koordinere militære våben til Ukraine mod Rusland, og deltagerne kom fra de fleste af de 40 inviterede nationer, herunder fra Afrika og Sydvestasien, foruden NATO- og ikke-NATO-medlemmer fra Europa [herunder Danmark – red.] Sådanne møder skal nu afholdes hver måned, og der blev således allerede i marts oprettet et ledelsesorgan i den amerikanske hærs faciliteter i Stuttgart, kaldet ECCU – European Control Center Ukraine.

Ramstein som sådan, der længe har været et center for logistik og drone-opstilling, er nu yderligere udbygget. Det optager et område på 1.400 hektar (næsten 5,5 kvadratkilometer) og tjener som hovedkvarter for de amerikanske luftvåben i Europa, Afrika og NATO’s allierede kommando. Der er et medicinsk center med 4.400 sengepladser og et omfattende traume- og kirurgisk personale, som kan anvendes i krigssituationer. I Stuttgart, i hovedkvarteret for den amerikanske europæiske kommando, er ECCU-personalet blevet øget med personale fra 15 nationer.

Tyskland er en besat nation. I dag ratificerede Forbundsdagen den nye beslutning om, at Tyskland nu vil sende tunge våben til Ukraine, en forpligtelse, som den tyske regering havde nægtet at påtage sig. Efter et voldsomt pres på kansler Olaf Sholz gav han dog sit samtykke i denne uge. Canada meddelte også i denne uge, at landet nu vil sende tunge våben til Ukraine.

I USA bebudede præsident Biden i dag en vidtrækkende forpligtelse til at levere våben, og opfordrede til en megapakke på 33 milliarder dollars (over fem måneder) til støtte for Ukraine: 20 milliarder dollars i militær bistand, 8,5 milliarder dollars i økonomisk støtte og 3 milliarder dollars i humanitær bistand.

Den britiske udenrigsminister, Liz Truss, satte ord på hele denne militære fremturen, The Return of Geopolitics, titlen på en tale hun holdt den 27. april ved Londons overborgmesters påskebanket. Hun sagde, at der skal være en ny “sikkerhedsarkitektur” til erstatning for FN, og hun leverede en vild svada om bl.a. nødvendigheden af et “frihedens netværk”, der involverer AUKUS – Australiens, Storbritanniens og USA’s forsvarsblok – Indo-Stillehavets QUAD (USA, Australien, Japan, og Indien,) og et G7 omdannet til et “Økonomisk NATO”.  Med hensyn til Kina sagde hun, at de der siger, at vi skal affinde os med “Kinas fremgang”, tager fejl i alle henseender. Kinas fremgang er ikke uafvendelig!…

Præsident Putin advarede: “Lad mig endnu en gang understrege: Hvis nogen har til hensigt at gribe ind udefra og skabe en strategisk trussel mod Rusland, som er uacceptabel for os, skal de vide, at vores gengældelsesangreb vil være lynhurtige.” Han udtrykte sig i en tale i Sankt Petersborg til et lovgivende råd på den nationale parlamentsdag.

Denne uges optrapning af konfrontationen markerer et nyt niveau af risiko. Det gør også Schiller Instituttets betydning for at fremme aktivering af dialog og handling, i retning af en ny arkitektur for fred og udvikling endnu vigtigere.

Der er imidlertid nye fornuftige stemmer, som bryder igennem krigskampagnen,. I Sverige og Finland lyder der modstand mod at tiltræde NATO. I dag sagde lederen af Venstrepartiet i svensk radio “nej” til at tilslutte sig NATO og nævnte truslen om et atomopgør. Hun sagde, at der må være en folkeafstemning. I Italien har præsident Sergio Mattarella opfordret til en ny Helsinki-konference i samme ånd som det oprindelige møde i 1975, hvor man drøftede fælles grundlag for fred og sikkerhed i hele Europa.

Tåbelig orden

Lige så ond som den militære geopolitik er, lige så forfærdelige er illusionerne om økonomien. Økonomierne i det transatlantiske område er ved at forfalde under en ” tåbelig orden”. Selv de officielle regeringsstatistikker, der udkommer i dag, rapporterer, at USA’s økonomi faldt med 1,4 % i løbet af de 12 uger fra januar-marts, på årsbasis af BNP. Der skete dog en bemærkelsesværdig vækst i den amerikanske import. Se på det fysiske sammenbrud! De amerikanske jernbaner er f.eks. så dårligt fungerende, at de ikke længere kan transportere varer efter planen. Siden 2016 er 45.000 job inden for jernbanesektoren blevet nedlagt, såvel som lokomotiver, rangerbanegårde osv., for midlertidigt at støtte Wall Street-aktionærernes værdier. Som følge heraf vil f.eks. gødning, selv om der er gødning på centrallageret, ikke nå frem til landmændene i tide til den nuværende afgrødesæson.

I Europa er der hysteri med krav om at stoppe importen af brændstof fra Rusland, selv om det vil få den konsekvens, at industrien, landbruget og alle vitale sektorer vil blive lukket ned. EU drøfter nu en sjette runde af sanktioner mod Rusland, da de fem andre ikke har virket, og en olie- og gasembargo er blandt forslagene.

Alt imens har verden desperat brug for foranstaltninger til at engagere al mulig og potentiel produktivitet til nødproduktion, så fødevarekrisen, behovet for sundhedspleje i forbindelse med en pandemi og meget andet kan imødegås.

Vejen ud af dette vanvid er beskrevet i Schiller Instituttets igangværende internationale underskriftsindsamling og i Schiller Instituttets politiske forslag af 28. marts, “LaRouche-planen for en ny international økonomisk arkitektur”. Især vil de involverede principper blive diskuteret på en international dialog for unge den 7. maj, i erkendelse af at, som det hedder i invitationen, “verden desperat har brug for en ny generations politiske og moralske lederskab for at udstikke en ny kurs for menneskeheden”. Kom i kontakt med os. Bliv i kontakt. Bliv aktiv.

23. april 2022 (Neue Solidarität) — Hele ti dage efter Schiller Instituttets banebrydende konference, som fokuserede på opbygningen af en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, fremlagde Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i sin åbningstale til dette års Boao Forum et forslag til et globalt sikkerhedsinitiativ, som udtrykte nøjagtig den samme opfattelse: at der kun kan være tale om omfattende sikkerhed, som gælder for hele verdenssamfundet, og som bygger på FN-pagten og de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og fælles udvikling. Mens de nationer, der er enige i dette synspunkt, samler sig om Kina, er Vesten samtidig i færd med at lægge den verdensorden, der udviklede sig efter Anden Verdenskrig og igen på ny efter Sovjetunionens ophør, i ruiner. Vi har et presserende behov for en reel offentlig diskussion i Tyskland om, hvordan vi skal forholde os til disse ændringer, hvad vores egne interesser er, og hvordan vi kan forsvare dem.

I den informationskrig, der har raset i medierne og blandt politikerne i et stykke tid, men især siden krigens udbrud i Ukraine, er det naturligvis kun Putin, der er pariaen, hvilket Jen Psaki, talsmand for Det Hvide Hus, aldrig bliver træt af at påpege. Enhver, der vover at tale om, at krigsudbruddet har en forhistorie, bliver øjeblikkeligt diskvalificeret som Putin-agent og får af hensyn til demokratiets og ytringsfrihedens alt for store gode blokeret sine konti på de sociale medier, selv kendte journalister som Pepe Escobar. Alligevel er det tydeligvis det blinde raseri mod Putin og Rusland, der i øjeblikket tordner som en murbrækkerkugle mod verdensordenens institutioner. Dette skete for nylig på G20-finansministrenes møde, som fandt sted inden for rammerne af halvårsmødet i IMF og Verdensbanken i Washington. Ifølge Deutsche Presse-Agentur forlod den amerikanske finansminister Janet Yellen og hendes britiske kollega Rishi Sunak, Christine Lagarde, Jerome Powell og flere andre demonstrativt rummet, da den russiske finansminister Anton Siluanov sluttede sig til dem via video og truede derved eksistensen af G20-institutionen, som netop blev oprettet for at de vigtigste stater kunne løse problemerne i fællesskab.

Derfor nægter Indonesien, som i øjeblikket har G20-formandskabet, at give efter for presset fra USA og Det Forenede Kongerige om at udelukke Putin fra at deltage i det kommende G20-topmøde på Bali i november. Hvis stormagterne ikke kunne sætte sig til bords i lyset af de dramatiske problemer i verden, og hvis ikke alle statsoverhovederne kom til topmødet, ville det slet ikke være nødvendigt at afholde det, kommenterede Rizal Sukma, der er seniormedlem af den indonesiske tænketank Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Det betyder, at stormagterne er ligeglade med situationen for folk i vækst- og udviklingslandene.”

Dette er netop den underliggende følelse blandt en lang række udviklingslande, som ikke er villige til at følge strategien om isolation af Rusland og nægter at blive trukket ind i en konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland. Rusland er langt fra isoleret, men omfatter også de folkerige BRICS-lande (Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina, Sydafrika), SCO (Kina, Indien, Kasakhstan, Kirgisistan, Pakistan, Rusland, Tadsjikistan, Usbekistan) samt Indonesien, Mexico, Saudi-Arabien, Nigeria, Tyrkiet, Sydkorea og andre. Mere end halvdelen af de afrikanske stater ønsker også at forblive neutrale. Det er takket være de hårde sanktioner mod Rusland – der udtrykkeligt har til formål at “ødelægge Rusland”, som bl.a. den franske finansminister Le Maire udtrykte det – at Rusland nu forhandler med mange af disse lande om de nærmere bestemmelser for et nyt finanssystem. Dette varsler begyndelsen til enden på dollarens dominans som verdens reservevaluta.

Den mest vidtrækkende strategiske omlægning siden Anden Verdenskrig finder i øjeblikket sted, og den narrede seer af alle de særlige særudsendelser om Ukraine bemærker absolut intet og skal naturligvis heller ikke bemærke noget som helst. I modsætning til den officielt tilladte fortolkning er der ikke tale om en konfrontation “mellem demokratier og autokratiske regimer”, men mellem de tidligere kolonimagter og de lande, der var deres ofre. Og sidstnævnte, hvor næsten en milliard mennesker allerede var ramt af hungersnød før krigens udbrud og nu 1,7 milliarder som følge af sanktionerne mod Rusland og Belarus, tænker mere på de handlinger, der vil sikre deres overlevelse end på tomme ord som demokrati og menneskerettigheder der ikke mætter, og hvis praktiske anvendelse i øjeblikket kan ses i Afghanistan, hvor 24 millioner mennesker risikerer at dø af sult efter NATO’s tilbagetrækning.

I stedet har præsident Xi Jinping nu gjort global fødevaresikkerhed til en topprioritet og mobiliserer alle ressourcer til at øge Kinas landbrugsareal og fremme videnskabelige gennembrud inden for frøudvikling. Allerede ved udgangen af 2021 havde Kina iværksat over 1 500 teknologioverførsler på verdensplan inden for kornproduktion, husdyrbrug, vandforvaltning af landbrugsjord og fødevareforarbejdning. Rusland har nu øget sin gødningseksport til Indien, verdens næststørste producent af ris og korn, så Indien kan øge sin eksport til 22 mio. tons ris og 16 mio. tons korn.

Forlængelse af krigen

Nato og USA har konsekvent afslået at reagere på Putins gentagne og igen den 17. december fremsatte, afgørende krav om retsligt bindende sikkerhedsgarantier. Som den schweiziske militære ekspert Jacques Baud rapporterede, begyndte den ukrainske militæroperation i Donbass natten mellem den 16. og 17. februar med en 30-dobling af beskydningen, hvilket OSCE’s overvågningsgruppe også rapporterede på det tidspunkt. Som følge heraf vedtog Dumaen, det russiske parlament, en resolution til præsident Putin, hvori han opfordredes til at anerkende de to selvudråbte folkerepublikkers uafhængighed. Den 21. februar underskrev Putin en venskabs- og bistandsaftale med de to republikker, som giver dem mulighed for at anmode om assistance i tilfælde af et angreb. Så det var slet ikke tilfældet, at Putin startede en aggressionskrig mod Ukraine ud af det blå.

Det spørgsmål, der bør undersøges indgående, er Figaro-journalisten Malbrunots vurdering efter sin rejse til Ukraine, at det er USA, der bestemmer i krigen i Ukraine. “Jeg så det med mine egne øjne,” sagde Malbrunot.

Nu har udenrigsministeren i Tyrkiet  –  som trods alt er medlem af NATO – Mevlüt Cavosoglu beskyldt visse NATO-lande for at ville forlænge krigen i Ukraine for at svække Rusland. Den tidligere chef for det italienske luftvåben, general Leonardo Tricarico, udtrykte det endnu skarpere og sagde til italiensk tv, at præsident Biden, Blinken, Stoltenberg og Boris Johnson ikke engang havde sagt ordet “forhandlinger”. “Jeg ved, hvad jeg siger: Biden ønsker ikke fred,” sagde Tricarico.

Et resultat af hele udviklingen er, at forholdet mellem Tyskland og Rusland er fuldstændig ødelagt. Måske er det værd at huske på den amerikanske geopolitiske ekspert George Friedmans udtalelse i en tale i 2015 til Chicago Council of Global Affairs: For USA, sagde han, var det den oprindelige frygt for, at tysk kapital og teknologi ville blive kombineret med russiske råstoffer og arbejdskraft, fordi denne kombination var den eneste magt, der kunne true USA. USA’s strategi er derfor at skabe et antirussisk bælte gennem et intermarium (landene fra Polen til Bulgarien), som afskærer Tyskland og Rusland fra hinanden. Det var netop i denne ånd, at fru Baerbock for nylig rejste til de baltiske lande, hvor hun besøgte mindesmærket for kommunismens ofre, men fandt det ikke i overensstemmelse med tidens ånd at mindes nationalsocialismens ofre.

Det er denne geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede. Derfor er det globale sikkerhedsinitiativ, som Xi Jinping netop har foreslået, og som skal omfatte alle stater i vid udstrækning, af største strategiske betydning. Han understregede ikke blot, at de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og ånden fra Bandung-konferencen er mere relevante i dag end nogensinde før, men han gav også udtryk for netop den optimisme, der er så hårdt tiltrængt i dag:

“Et kig på historien lærer os, at jo vanskeligere tingene bliver, jo vigtigere er det at bevare tilliden. Problemer skal man ikke frygte, for det har været det ene problem efter det andet, der har været drivkraften bag det menneskelige samfunds fremskridt. Ingen vanskeligheder kan nogensinde stoppe historiens hjul. Stillet over for mange udfordringer må vi ikke miste tilliden, vakle eller trække os tilbage. I stedet skal vi styrke vores selvtillid og gå videre mod alle odds.”

Det fremgår af disse sætninger, at Xi Jinping er en ven af Leibniz’ tanker, hvis idé om “den bedste af alle verdener” netop er, at alt ondt i verden kan skabe et endnu større gode, og at den enkeltes modige indsats for at overvinde problemer øger frihedsgraden i universet.

Hvis vi i Tyskland ønsker at finde en vej ud af den yderst farlige situation, hvor geopolitiske eventyrere med deres krav om flere og flere offensive våben til Ukraine, så krigen kan fortsætte “til den sidste ukrainer”, i sidste ende øger faren for atomkrig, så må vi tage Xi Jinpings initiativ alvorligt. Hvis vi insisterer på dette helt nye paradigme, vil vi også gøre USA en større tjeneste end at ende i en atomvinter på grund af en misforstået alliancetilhørsforhold. Kun hvis USA, Rusland, Kina og Europa deltager i en fælles sikkerhedsarkitektur, kan vi permanent undgå denne fare.

zepp-larouche@eir.de

Billede: www.fmprc.gov.cn

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Resumé:
Mødet på den amerikanske luftbase i Ramstein, Tyskland, hvor Morten Bødskov deltog, var NATO ++. Ud over NATO-medlemmer og Ukraine var også Israel, Japan, Sydkorea og andre af USA’s partnere til stede for at aftale massiv militær støtte til Ukraine og fortsat udvidet militært samarbejde. Tysklands kansler Scholz gav efter for presset til at levere tanks og tunge våben til Ukraine. NATO er i total krig mod Rusland via sin proxy Ukraine. Ukraines præsident Zelenskij er blot en skuespiller, der læser de manuskripter op, der er skrevet i London og Washington.

USA, NATO og EU lyver om at lave sanktioner for at stoppe krigen. Man har på intet tidspunkt forsøgt at stoppe krigen i Ukraine, men har tværtimod skabt den for at bruge den til at ødelægge Rusland, som en uafhængig magt. Se analysen fra den amerikanske tidligere militærmand og senator Richard Black og læs de rystende fakta fra den schweiziske tidligere FN og NATO-militærrådgiver Jaques Baud. Det var ikke Rusland der startede krigen den 24. februar. De reagerede blot på den igangværende planlagte militære operation, som Vesten har haft i gang i Ukraine siden kuppet i Kiev i 2014. Der har aldrig været en massiv russisk militær overlegenhed. 130.000 russiske kombatanter har stået over for 250.000 på den ukrainske side. Rusland havde aldrig opbygget den 3-1 fordel, en angriber gerne skal have, for det var aldrig Rusland, der ønskede krigen. Man handlede i desperation for at imødegå det planlagte vestligt støttede ukrainske angreb imod Donbas og Krim.

Der er masser af krigsforbrydelser i krigen, men i modsætning til den ukrainske (britisk iscenesatte) ukrainske propaganda er det ikke russerne, der er unødigt brutale, men de ukrainske ideologiserede specialstyrker. Se interviewet med Richard Black. Var der nogen der troede på, at videoen med nyvaskede smilende blonde børn virkelig var indspillet efter to måneders mareridt i jorden under stålværket i Mariupol? Eller var det blot endnu en iscenesat propagandafilm. Er der 50 franske militærmænd gemt i værkets underjordiske gange, der var ansvarlige for sænkningen af Ruslands flagskib Moskva?

I lighed med Tyskland og de andre europæiske vasalstater har Danmark opgivet sin suverænitet og parerer blot ordrer fra USA (EU) og NATO. Stem nej til ophævelsen af forsvarsforbeholdet, men det er ikke nok til at stoppe krig. Der skal også være et massivt nej til fortsættelsen af verdenskrigen imod Rusland og andre (som f.eks. Kina), der nægter at opgive sin suverænitet. Ellers får vi atomkrig.

Den fortsatte krig i Ukraine og sanktionerne imod Rusland vil medføre global fødevaremangel der kan true over en milliard mennesker på livet, men hvem hører stemmer i Vesten bekymre sig om det? Kun Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre ikke-vestlige nationer har iværksat tiltag for at undgå det. Vil Indien indgå i en alliance sammen med Rusland og Kina for at opretholde sin suverænitet? Ruslands lukning af gassen for Polen og Bulgarien er blot et skud over boven. Tyskland og Italien er langt mere afhængige af russisk gas, der ikke kan erstattes med andet i løbet af flere år. Hvis EU fortsætter konfrontationen vil man påføre Tysklands og Europas økonomi og levestandard ubodelig skade.

Det vestligt ledede globale finanssystem er allerede i nedsmeltning pga. kæmpe gæld, stigende inflation og eksploderende renter. De vedvarende paniske aktioner for at skade Rusland og andre, der ikke makker ret, trækker tæppet væk under det vestlige system og den vestlige globale magt. Vil Vesten forstå sin fejltagelse inden alt forsvinder i atomkrig?

Det er ikke Rusland imod verden men Vesten imod det meste af Verden. Schiller Instituttets konference fra den 9. april om en ny global sikkerhedsarkitektur viser vejen ud. Kinas Xi Jinping har svaret med en opfordring til et globalt sikkerhedsinitiativ. Kan vi få folk i Vesten til at hæve deres stemmer og sige fra over for selvmordspolitikken?

Bliv aktiv. Gå med i Schiller Instituttets kampagne. Skab historie. Stop katastrofen og skab en fredsorden og en global renæssance.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Ikke korrekturlæst

Den 20. april (EIRNS) – i et indlæg offentliggjort i {The National Interest} den 18. april advarer Kinas ambassadør i USA, Qin Gang, om det presserende behov for at reducere det enorme pres, der er lagt på det internationale system efter krigen, og som er blevet forværret af pandemien, den truende recession, “uovertrufne sanktioner” og en galopperende inflation. “Det er på høje tid, at vi mindsker presset, og ikke omvendt, for vores fælles verden”, understreger han. Der skal ikke blot være en afslutning på krigen i Ukraine, men også et “grundlæggende svar på varig fred og stabilitet i Europa og en afbalanceret, effektiv og bæredygtig filosofi og arkitektur for dets sikkerhed”.

Qin gennemgår derefter nøglepunkter i de sidste 40 års historie, herunder hvordan landene i Centralasien, Kina og Rusland håndterede provokationer fra Vesten, herunder NATO’s ekspansion mod øst, og engagerede sig i en “hidtil uset udforskning af en ny sikkerhedsfilosofi og -model”. Det, der blev kendt som “Shanghai Five”-mekanismen, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) og lignende typer af samarbejdsorganisationer, var konsekvensen, som gjorde det muligt at skabe fælles fred mellem Kina, Rusland og de centralasiatiske lande.

Qin uddyber karakteren af forholdet mellem Rusland og Kina samt Kinas egen udenrigspolitik og tilbageviser enhver idé om, at Kina på forhånd havde kendskab til Ruslands militære operation i Ukraine, eller at Kina bistår Rusland med hjælp. Dette er ren misinformation, sagde han. Han understreger den uafhængige karakter af Kinas udenrigspolitik og advarer om, at et forværret forhold mellem USA og Rusland ikke vil betyde et bedre forhold mellem USA og Kina, og at et dårligere forhold mellem Kina og Rusland heller ikke vil betyde et bedre forhold mellem Kina og USA. Det er en fejl, at nogle mennesker truer Kina med sanktioner for at tvinge det til at give afkald på dets uafhængige udenrigspolitik. Det er også en stor fejl at forsøge at sammenkæde Taiwan med Ukraine. Og andre “opildner til misforståelser, konfrontationer og usikkerhed i Asien og Stillehavsområdet”, uden at de bekymrer sig om, hvorvidt denne region kommer til at følge i Europas fodspor.

Den kinesiske ambassadør gør det grundlæggende punkt gældende, at selv om “vi ikke er i stand til at nå til enighed i øjeblikket om, hvilken slags internationalt system vi ønsker”, bør folk huske på “krigens svøbe”, der opstod to gange i det 20. århundrede, og som bragte “usigelig sorg over menneskeheden”. De sidste fire årtiers fremmedgørelse burde oplyse os om, at “vi alle lever i en fælles verden med en fælles fremtid”. Det er udelukket, at et land eller en blok af nationer kan have absolut sikkerhed, og samtidig ignorere andre landes sikkerhed. Uden respekt, tillid, gensidig tilpasning og samarbejde vil verden aldrig blive fredelig…. Vores fælles mål er varig fred, universel sikkerhed og fælles velstand for de 1,8 mia. kinesere og amerikanere og de 7,8 mia. mennesker i verden. Dette er det historiske ansvar for Kina og USA som to store nationer.”

Kilde: (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinese-ambassador-ukraine-crisis-and-its-aftermath-201867)

Den 6. april 2022 (EIRNS)- Ud over deres igangværende “kontrollerede opløsning” af verdens fysiske økonomi udfører briterne nu en “kontrolleret nedrivning” af den eksisterende internationale institutionelle arkitektur…. Den systemiske sammenbrudskrise, som Lyndon LaRouche længe advarede om, er nu over os. Verden har ikke længere den luksus at vente – at se om LaRouche virkelig havde ret, at se om de meget omtalte “de” vil gøre noget ved rodet, at udskyde og vente på at nogen andre skal handle først.

Tiden er inde til LaRouches nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur nu. Tiden er inde til, at du – sammen med regeringer og politiske ledere i hele verden – skal beherske LaRouches økonomiske metode. Et godt sted at starte er på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference på lørdag den 9. april, hvor en snes internationale højtstående talere fra et dusin nationer, der repræsenterer alle kontinenter, vil drøfte de idéer, der er nødvendige for en ny international sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur med den Westfalske Fred som model.

Den britiske regering er sammen med Washington på vej til at ekskludere Rusland fra alle mulige internationale institutioner…

Bucha bruges til at retfærdiggøre optrappede sanktioner mod Rusland, som har udløst en kædereaktion i verdens fysiske økonomi (hvad nogle kalder “forsyningskæder”), der omfatter desperat mangel og kraftigt stigende priser på energi og fødevarer i udviklingslandene, især i Afrika og Mellemøsten. Fødevareoprør truer allerede i snesevis af lande, og spøgelset om op til en milliard sultedødsfald i år er chokerende nok ved at blive en realistisk prognose.

Som Kinas ambassadør ved FN, Zhang Jun, udtalte i FN den 5. april: “Gennemførelsen af alle-dimensionelle og vilkårlige sanktioner er ensbetydende med at politisere, instrumentalisere og bevæbne verdensøkonomien, udløse en alvorlig krise inden for global økonomi og handel, finanser, energi, fødevarer, industrikæder og forsyningskæder, bringe årtiers udviklingsgevinster for det internationale samfund i fare, og få folk i alle lande til at betale en høj pris”.

… Tag ikke fejl: Den britiske politik om at udfordre den største atommagt på planeten i en sådan grad, at den udgør en eksistentiel trussel mod denne nation, fortsætter. Og det er, som russiske ledere gentagne gange har gjort det klart, det punkt, hvor de kunne gøre brug af atomvåben.

Som Jack Matlock, en af de sidste amerikanske ambassadører i Sovjetunionen, udtrykte det: “At tro at verden ville drage fordel af at gøre Rusland, en atommagt svarende til USA, til en paria, tror jeg ikke virkelig repræsenterer vores interesser i fremtiden. Jeg frygter en verden af den slags.”

KØBENHAVN, 29. marts – I dag afholdt DEO (Demokrati i Europa Oplysningsforbundet), en online briefing “Ukraine og den nye virkelighed i EU”. Der var 90 online-deltagere, og mødet vil blive arkiveret.

Under diskussionen stillede et medlem af Schiller Instituttet det sidste spørgsmål, som bl.a. omfattede en annoncering af Schiller Instituttets kommende videokonference.

Spørgsmålet gik på, at der ud over krigen mellem Rusland og Ukraine er fare for optrapning til endog atomkrig. ”Der er sket et skred væk fra ingen første brug af atomvåben, og USA og Rusland taler nu om, under hvilke omstændigheder atomvåben kunne anvendes. Vi må lave en plan for, hvordan vi kan undgå fremtidige krige.

Schiller Instituttet har foreslået en international konference for at etablere en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur for alle nationer med den Westfalske Fred som model. Vi afholder en videokonference om dette den 9. april kl. 15 eller senere. Hvad mener I om dette?”

Chefanalytiker i DEO Rasmus Nørlem Sørensen sagde, at han ville forsøge at svare på, hvordan man kan forhindre en atomkrig i den korte tid, der er tilbage. Han sagde, at siden Trump er nedrustning brudt sammen. Der er stadig NATO-diskussioner om konflikter, hvor atomvåben kan bruges som en sidste udvej. Russerne har nedjusteret, hvornår de er parate til at bruge atomvåben, men har sagt at de kun ville bruge atomvåben, hvis den russiske stat bliver truet. Kina har atomvåben som et valg i deres konfliktspor.

For at undgå atomkrig vil det kræve en ny international ramme, som SI-repræsentanten sagde, med nedrustning og forudsigelighed med hensyn til røde linjer. Et stort problem er, at der ikke er nogen kanaler åbne til Rusland lige nu.

Link til mødet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gfkhufo_bM

Spørgsmål ved 54:20

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg kl. 13

Lyd: 

Resumé:

Folk er i chok over Ruslands invasion af Ukraine. Hvordan kunne det ske? Der var ellers mange advarsler over lang, lang tid, som man overhørte. Vil man overse alle tegnene på, at konflikten mellem Vesten og Rusland kan eskalere til atomkrig? Det er ikke nok at håbe på, at det ikke sker. “Hope is not a strategy”. Man stopper ikke krigen i Ukraine gennem at sende våben til at bekæmpe Rusland. Fanatikere i Vesten håber, at Ukraine vil blive det nye Afghanistan for Rusland, men hvordan gik det så efterfølgende for Afghanistan? 27 millioner afghanere sulter nu og mange dør pga. af mangel på alt, mens USA og Vesten har indefrosset Afghanistans penge. Er afghanske liv mindre værd end europæiske?

Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt man holder med Ukraine eller Rusland, men om, hvordan vi får stoppet udviklingen mod global krig. Hvis ikke total økonomisk og kulturel krigsførelse imod Rusland, en chok og skræk-politik, vil få Rusland til at overgive sig til Vestens overherredømme, hvad så? Udryddelse med atomvåben? Hvis ikke Kina går med i blokaden af Rusland, skal vi så også i fuld økonomisk krig med Kina? Det vestlige finanssystem er allerede på vej mod en total nedsmeltning. Nulrente-politikken og ubegrænset likviditet til finansmarkederne er snart forbi. Så står verden med et uoverstigeligt gældsbjerg, der kollapser. Vil udelukkelse af Rusland fra SWIFT-systemet blive et nyt Lehmann Brothers? Sanktionerne vil ramme Europa lige så hårdt som Rusland, og økonomien er i forvejen presser af de høje gas- og energipriser og forsyningskrisen.

Hvad er den egentlige vestligt iscenesatte årsag til krisen mellem Rusland og Ukraine, som er censureret ud af den vestlige fortælling om krisen? Først var der udvidelsen af Nato i flere omgange imod alle løfter. Så kom den farvede revolution i Ukraine og husk på, at det var et vestligt organiseret statskup, der udløste Krims tilslutning til Rusland og krisen i Østukraine. Hvad har man i Vesten gjort for de civile i Østukraine eller for at sikre gennemførelsen af Minsk-aftalen?

Det drejer sig ikke om Ukraine men om den internationale verdensorden. Rusland og Kina annoncerede den 4. februar 2022, at man ikke længere vil acceptere amerikanske og vestlige diktater. Kina ved, at hvis Vesten kan knække Rusland, så er de den næste på listen. Kinas Bælte- og Vej-Initiativ og Ruslands energipolitik er et alternativ for Afrika, Sydamerika og Asien. Vil USA starte atomkrig for at stoppe det eller vil Vesten i stedet finde ud af at begrave geopolitikken og samarbejde om økonomisk udvikling?

Skriv under på Schiller Instituttets appel for en indkaldelse til en international konference for at etablere en ny arkitektur for sikkerhed og udvikling for alle nationer. Bryd censuren og skab diskussion og dialog om, hvad der egentlig foregår, og hvordan vi finder en løsning gennem dialog og samarbejde. Freden kan ikke sikres gennem konfrontation og krig! Når først vi overraskes af atomkrig er det for sent.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lydfil:

POLITISK ORIENTERING i går den 23. februar 2022:
Rusland gør oprør imod USA med støtte fra Kina.
Vil Europa ødelægge sig selv for at skade Rusland?

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rasmussen: How would you say democracy works in China?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Li: Exactly.

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

Li: I fully agree with your remarks and comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Li: Thank you very much.

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

Jan Øberg kan kontaktes her: oberg@transnational.org

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

Lydfil: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China and Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: President Lincoln

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

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

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Jan.

Den 15. februar (EIRNS) – Mens der vil ske flere skift i det internationale politiske terræn i de næste 72 timer, vil lørdagens konference i Schiller Instituttet, “100 sekunder til midnat på dommedagsuret: Vi har brug for en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur!” inddrage disse momentane skift af det taktiske landskab. Som grundlæggeren af {Executive Intelligence Review}, Lyndon LaRouche, engang i en anden, men sammenlignelig situation bemærkede: “Verden er gået ind i en overgangsperiode, hvor gamle metoder med hensyn til vurdering og orientering er ubrugelige, og endog modstridende, for den konkrete vurdering af de fleste af de nye fænomener i den strategiske og nationalt-taktiske udvikling. Af denne grund er meget få personer i verden … intellektuelt oplært til at forstå de processer, som vil være afgørende for udfaldet af nogle af de nærmeste uger og måneder, der ligger umiddelbart foran os.”

Der vil uden tvivl dukke modstridende historier op i de kommende timer og dage – forudsat at der {er} kommende timer og dage – om, hvad der sker eller vil ske i de forskellige forhandlinger, der involverer Tyskland, Frankrig, Ukraine, USA og Rusland. {EIR} vil forsøge, ikke blot at “formidle nyhederne”, men snarere at gribe ind i den aktuelle historie og fremme den, ved hjælp af en metode til statskunst baseret på LaRouches fire love for fysisk økonomi, som undertiden kort og godt kaldes ” modsætningernes sammenfald “. Denne metode til politisk beslutningstagning, som LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche forfægter, ses i strategiske løsningsforslag som “Operation Ibn Sina”, der for nylig blev præsenteret i det netop udsendte fælles forum mellem Schiller Instituttet og Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), “Den humanitære krise i Afghanistan: På vej til en langsigtet løsning”. https://schillerinstitut.dk/si/2022/02/faelles-videokonference-raadet-for-internationale-anliggender-i-rusland-og-schiller-instituttet-torsdag-den-10-februar-kl-14/

Metoden indebærer, at man tager udgangspunkt i verdens behov som helhed – fødevarer, rent vand, sanitet, boliger, sundhedspleje og uddannelse – og udtænker nationale politikker og praksis, der resulterer i en vellykket skabelse af en teknologisk avanceret global platform, som kommer flest mulige verdensborgere til gode, hvilket øger planetens potentielle relative befolkningstæthed. 

Krig, især forebyggende krig, der blev fordømt ved Nürnberg-processerne som en forbrydelse mod menneskeheden, er i modstrid med menneskehedens og dens efterkommeres generelle velfærd. Uanset oprindelsen, bør den rovdyragtige opfattelse, at “det grundlæggende organisationsprincip i samfundet er krig”, ikke på noget tidspunkt få lov til at blive “organisationsprincippet” for USA’s udenrigspolitik. Et britisk domineret USA, en uacceptabel omstændighed, som eftertrykkeligt har været fremherskende siden Sovjetunionens sammenbrud i 1991, må erstattes af et borgerskab, der genetablerer denne nations sande identitet, ved at tilstræbe et samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre nationer, baseret på Den amerikanske Frihedskrigs oprindelige regeringsdokumenter, herunder Hamiltons Fire betænkninger om Økonomi, som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført i sit forslag om de Fire Love. 

Den tidligere franske minister Roland Dumas, som var en central figur i forhandlingerne mellem NATO og Sovjetunionen efter 1989, har i sit seneste Les Crises-interview, som kan ses på Youtube, ikke efterladt nogen tvivl om, at han, James Baker og andre vestlige repræsentanter faktisk havde lovet Rusland, at NATO ikke ville udvides mod øst: 

“I realiteten indså vi – Gorbatjov, præsident Mitterrand og jeg selv, på det tidspunkt – at der ikke var nogen fredsaftale, der kunne afslutte krigen med Tyskland, og at det derfor var nødvendigt at gøre en ende på denne ustabile situation. Det er grunden til, at vi sammen med min ven Hans-Dietrich Genscher, den tyske udenrigsminister, udarbejdede en plan for at indlede forhandlinger om alle de mangler der var, eftersom der ikke var indgået nogen fredstraktat…. Vi havde møder i London, møder i Paris og til sidst i Moskva for at få den sidste del af den globale aftale på plads i nærværelse af Gorbatjov….” Hvad angår den senere diskussion om disponeringen af NATO-styrkerne efter en tilbagetrækning af Warszawa-pagten fra Centraleuropa, berettede Dumas: “Udenrigsministeren (Shevernadze) tog ordet og sagde: “Vi, den russiske delegation, ønsker at vide, hvad der vil ske med NATO’s oprustning som en del af nedrustningen.” Dumas sagde, at den russiske delegation fremsatte to krav. For det første, at monumenterne for de sovjetiske soldater, der kæmpede mod fascismen under Anden Verdenskrig, skal bevares og respekteres. “For det andet, at tropper fra både Warszawa-pagten og NATO forpligter sig til, at der ikke vil ske bevægelse af NATO-tropper ind i de områder af Warszawa-pagten, der var ved at blive afvæbnet…. Gorbatjov talte, Sjevardnadze talte, jeg talte. Og jeg fremsatte idéen om, at [NATO’s militære] styrker ikke må bevæge sig ind i tidligere militariserede områder.” Dumas erklærede, at amerikanerne og tyskerne var enige i dette. “Før [den tyske udenrigsminister] Genscher døde, spurgte jeg ham, om han huskede denne diskussion. Han svarede; ‘perfekt’.” 

På topmødet på Malta den 3. december 1989, mindre end en måned efter Berlinmurens fald, havde Bush og Gorbatjov “erklæret Den kolde Krigs ophør”. Der skulle ikke ske nogen udvidelse mod øst. Altså, NATO blev udvidet fra 15 nationer i 1989 til 30 nationer, og i strid med dette tidligere løfte forsøger at gøre Ukraine til nr. 31, klar ved den russiske grænse, hvor muligheden for en strategisk fejlvurdering, der fører til total krig, er større end på noget tidspunkt siden – og måske inklusive – Cuba-krisen i 1962. 

Formålet med tidsskriftet {Executive Intelligence Review} og den særlige metode, som LaRouche skabte, for at oplyse om den vurderende proces for indsamling af efterretninger, som han ønskede af sine medarbejdere, er at tilskynde til at alle “selvindlysende” antagelser, der styrer borgerens “daglige” tænkning, fjernes og erstattes af en metode til at formulere den nødvendige politik, programmer og samarbejde for at sikre alles varige overlevelse og velstand. Dette er essensen af en fornuftig økonomisk politik, og derfor også en fornuftig sikkerhedspolitik. At diskutere denne metode og foreslå en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur er formålet med lørdagens konference, som alle tilhængere af sandheden bør deltage i.

Indsat billede: Khwanchai Phantong, Pexels

Den 8. februar (EIRNS) – Vi begynder med at give en kort beskrivelse, som ellers ikke er tilgængelig for amerikanerne, af, hvad der foregik under de seks timers diskussioner, der fandt sted for flere dage siden mellem præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland og Emmanuel Macron fra Frankrig. Det skal påpeges, at præsident Joe Biden samtidig med disse drøftelser mødtes med forbundskansler Olaf Scholz fra Tyskland. Før deres respektive møder med USA og Rusland havde Scholz og Macron talt i telefon, og de talte også i telefon umiddelbart efter afslutningen af disse møder. Macron tog derefter til Ukraine for at mødes med præsident Zelensky, og han skulle vende tilbage til Tyskland for at rådføre sig med forbundskansler Scholz efter dette møde.

Præsident Putin: “Jeg er præsidenten dybt taknemmelig for at drøfte disse spørgsmål i Moskva i dag. Jeg mener, at disse sikkerhedsspørgsmål ikke kun vedrører Rusland, men også Europa og verden som helhed.

“Se, vores forslag omfatter ikke kun NATO’s udvidelse, som vi er imod, men også et andet punkt: at der ikke skal opstilles offensive systemer nær vores grænser. Hvis alle ønsker fred, ro, velvære og tillid, hvad er så dårligt ved ikke at opstille offensive våben nær vores grænser? Er der nogen der kan fortælle mig, hvad der er forkert ved dette?

“Hvis NATO er en fredelig organisation, hvad er der så galt i at bringe dens infrastruktur tilbage til niveauet i 1997, da NATO-Rusland-aftalen blev underskrevet? Det ville skabe betingelser for at opbygge tillid og sikkerhed. Er det dårligt?

“Vi kan lade løftet om “åbne døre” være, selv om spørgsmålet fortsat er på dagsordenen. Det er en nøgleprioritet for os, og jeg har forklaret hvorfor. Vi talte om det i seks timer.

“I morgen flyver præsident Macron til Kiev. Vi er blevet enige om, at han i det mindste vil fremlægge sin handlingsplan vedrørende dette. Jeg er ham dybt taknemmelig for, at han giver dette så meget opmærksomhed, og at han forsøger at finde en løsning på dette spørgsmål af stor betydning for os alle sammen.”

Præsident Macron:… “Jeg mener, at det først og fremmest er Frankrigs ansvar at have det stærkest mulige forhold til Rusland. Vi er to store europæiske nationer og vigtige verdensmagter. Vi er to permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.

“Bilaterale forbindelser er af stor betydning for os, først og fremmest for at få dem til at udvikle sig og for at træffe fælles beslutninger om akutte internationale spørgsmål. Vi forsøger at gøre det i forbindelse med det iranske spørgsmål og tilstræber at finde et kontaktpunkt i Libyen og lignende anliggender. Vi har uenigheder, men vi finder stadig kompromiser. Det er indlysende for mig.

“For det andet tror jeg, at præsident Putin og jeg er enige om, at Rusland er et europæisk land. De, der kan se Europa, bør kunne arbejde sammen med Rusland og finde måder at opbygge fremtiden i Europa og med europæere. Er det let? Nej, men Europa blev også skabt gennem vanskelige initiativer, der havde umiddelbare virkninger. Så ja, vi har vanskeligheder, men vi må ikke give op.

“Endelig er dette Frankrigs mission, det er Frankrigs rolle. I disse seks måneder har vi formandskabet i Den Europæiske Union. Vores rolle er at gøre EU’s stemme hørt og tage hensyn til en række komplekse omstændigheder i kommunikationen med naboer som Rusland, der spiller en afgørende rolle for vores sikkerhed, og også at lytte til alle europæere. Det har jeg gjort i de seneste dage. Når jeg er her, forsøger jeg at være den person, der kan bidrage til at finde den rette vej.

“Jeg har en simpel overbevisning. Kan vi øge vores kollektive evne til at skabe fred uden vores kontakter med Rusland? Nej, det kan vi ikke. Hvem overlader vi denne rolle til? Til andre.

“Vi har uoverensstemmelser. Det er vi klar over. Nogle gange lykkes det os ikke at komme videre, og det er resultatet af sådanne uoverensstemmelser. Men vi forsøger at finde kompromiser. Jeg anser det for at være mit ansvar. Vores opgave er at sørge for, at disse kompromiser beskytter vores partneres og allieredes interesser. Derfor skal vi i de kommende dage og uger påbegynde dette vanskelige arbejde, træffe nye beslutninger for at beskytte disse garantier, samtidig med at vi stadig beskytter vores grundlæggende principper og vores naboskabsforbindelser, for vores geografi vil ikke ændre sig. Det er derfor, vi fortsætter.”

Der har været seriøse forhandlinger og diplomati i gang med en daglig dialog mellem statsoverhovederne fra Tyskland, Frankrig, Rusland og USA samt Ukraine, ikke kun for at forhindre et potentielt udbrud af krig, tilsigtet eller utilsigtet, men også, med Macrons ord, for “i fællesskab at vise vilje til at arbejde på sikkerhedsgarantier og opbygge en ny sikkerheds- og stabilitetsorden i Europa.” Denne kendsgerning er blevet fortrængt fra de amerikanske og europæiske borgeres bevidsthed til fordel for mediernes sidespring, der af den russiske talsmand Maria Zhakarova rammende nok er blevet karakteriseret som “psykedeliske fobier”.

I den forbindelse blev “The Ned Price Experience” endnu en gang mandag kaldt frem af reporter Matt Lee, denne gang støttet af en kollega. Udenrigsministeriets talsmand, Ned Price, forsøgte at forfalske sin udveksling i sidste uge med reporter Lee, som blot havde spurgt Price om beviser, der kunne underbygge hans “af udenrigsministeriet godkendte” påstand om, at Rusland havde fremstillet en “false flag”-video, der skildrer et angreb fra Ukraine på Rusland, herunder ved hjælp af “kriseaktører” a la Alex Jones. I mandagens udveksling, hvor Price igen nægtede at fremlægge nogen som helst beviser, spurgte Lee igen: “Har du noget mere, som du kan sige for at underbygge din påstand – end du havde at sige i sidste uge? Det er det hele.”

Price: “Ud over det vi fortalte dig i sidste uge … i ganske detaljerede vendinger om de russiske planer … Vi har ikke yderligere at tilføje om det.” Anden reporter: “Så du siger, at beviset på at du har ret er, at der faktisk ikke vil ske noget? Er det det du siger? … fordi I ved at bringe dette ud vil have forhindret russerne i at gøre det, korrekt?”

Mens praksis omkring udenrigsministeriets snak (StateSpeak) tidligere har været genstand for satire, gennem årtier af forfattere som Joseph Heller og Kurt Vonnegut, er Ned Price og andre reaktioner på Ukraine nu mere som dialogen i “Venter på Godot” – selvsikker uigennemsigtighed, uimodtagelig for fornuft, men internt samstemmende og derfor “indlysende” for taleren alene. Uanset NATO’s indvendinger mod virkeligheden understreger sidste uges aftale mellem Rusland og Kina imidlertid en realitet, som Lyndon LaRouche for præcis 40 år siden udførligt diskuterede i sit “et 50-årigt udviklingsprogram for Stillehavsområdet”: Tyngdepunktet for den menneskelige civilisation har flyttet sig til Afrika, Asien og det indiske subkontinent, hvor mere end fem milliarder af de næsten otte milliarder mennesker på planeten bor.

NATO’s anstrengte diskussioner om “indflydelsessfærer” i forhold til Kina og Rusland svarer til at bruge Ptolemæus’ miskrediterede epicyklusser til at tegne mere og mere udførlige “revisioner” af en “gammel, gal, døende imperial verden”, som er ved at blive endegyldigt overgået gennem investeringer i avancerede energiformer, rumfart og produktionssystemer anvendt på minedrift, industri og landbrug, hvilket skaber en helt ny verdensplatform – og de mennesker, som vil producere og drage fordel af denne omstilling. De, der ikke har til hensigt at gå glip af Jordens næste halvtreds års fremskridt, “gør det klart med fødderne”, hvilken side af fremtiden de har til hensigt at være på.

Udenrigsministeriets uheldige gestikuleren, som bør latterliggøres, skal også tages alvorligt; den tjener til at skjule den faktiske udenrigspolitiske praksis af USA, dets “Jago-lignende” kontrollant Storbritannien og andre lige så skyldige deltagere i den igangværende sultedød og fordærvede ligegyldighed i Afghanistan og Yemen, som de mest iøjnefaldende, samt i brugen af sanktioner mod sårbare stater i hele verden. Opmærksomheden blev henledt på dette ved mandagens møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd under den åbne debat om “Generelle spørgsmål vedrørende sanktioner: forebyggelse af deres humanitære og utilsigtede konsekvenser”. I modsætning til Cambodja, 1975-79, kan verden ikke lade som om den ikke ved, hvad der foregår i landet.

USA kan ikke lade som om det ikke er ansvarligt. De enkelte borgere, der er bevæbnet med sociale medier og andre former for kommunikation, kan ikke påstå, at de er magtesløse eller stumme i forhold til at stoppe en af de grusomste former for mord, udsultning. Dantes grev Ugolino kunne i det mindste hævde, at han spiste sine børn som følge af ekstrem sult. I dag er vi som grev Ugolino med hensyn til vores forbrug af måske en million eller flere børns liv i Afghanistan, enten fordi vi forsvarer den folkemorderiske politik, der nu er i gang, eller fordi vi ikke formår at ændre den.

Det russiske råd for internationale Anliggender (RIAC) og Schiller Instituttet (SI) indkalder torsdag den 10. februar, 2022, kl. 14 dansk tid, til et seminar om emnet “Den humanitære krise i Afghanistan: På vej til en langsigtet løsning”. Vær med og hjælp med at gennemføre instituttets Operation Ibn Sina, ikke kun for at redde Afghanistan, men for på den måde at redde den transatlantiske civilisations sjæl.

“En atomkrig kan ikke vindes og må aldrig føres”, erklærede de fem atommagter og permanente medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd i en fælles erklæring den 3. januar i år. Eftersom brugen af atomvåben altid indebærer en risiko for at bruge hele atomvåbenarsenalet, og da selv en procentdel af det er tilstrækkeligt til at forårsage menneskehedens udryddelse, af denne grundlæggende indsigt faktisk have praktiske konsekvenser for alle atomvåbenmagters militære strategi. Men på trods af denne fælles erklæring lancerede USA’s strategiske kommando i den sidste uge af januar manøvren “Global Lightning”, som har til formål at teste de amerikanske atomstyrkers operative beredskab.

Selv om der var tale om en såkaldt “rutinemæssig” manøvre, der i år blev integreret med USA’s Indo-Pacific Command og derfor var rettet mod en mulig konfrontation med Kina, kan den i forbindelse med de øgede spændinger mellem Rusland og USA og NATO kun ses som endnu et, men måske det farligste, element i den leg med ild, som Vesten i øjeblikket spiller med Rusland og Kina.

Timingen af manøvren faldt perfekt sammen med USA’s og Storbritanniens endnu ubeviste påstande om, at Rusland planlægger et militært angreb på Ukraine i slutningen af januar og midten af februar, hvilket den russiske regering gentagne gange har benægtet. Øvelsen i indsættelse af atomvåben er baseret på den nuværende atomkrigsplan fra USA’s strategiske kommando. Hans. M. Kristensen, direktør for Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, kunne på grundlag af Freedom of Information Act få fat i titelsiden af denne plan, kaldet “Stratcom Conplan 0810-12, Stragegic Deterrence and Force Deployment, Change 1”. Kristensen, en af de mest kompetente specialister inden for nuklear strategi og våben, forklarede til Newsweek, at Global Lightning-øvelsen ikke blot forudsætter et atomart førsteangreb fra den ene eller den anden side, men en fortsat atomkrig, der fortsætter efter den første udveksling af slag.

Selv om de enkelte dele af denne nye krigsplan, der er blevet operationel siden den 30. april 2019, er underlagt den største hemmelighedsfuldhed, er konturerne af denne plan ved at tegne sig. Antagelsen er, at USA og NATO vil være i stand til at overleve et atomart førsteangreb fra Rusland eller Kina, derefter gengælde, absorbere yderligere angreb, gengælde igen osv. i en fortsat militær konfrontation. Denne atomkrigsplan omfatter ikke kun atomvåben, men også forskellige andre dødbringende systemer, såsom missilforsvarssystemer, målrettede energivåben såsom elektromagnetiske pulsvåben og lasere, cyberangreb og rumvåbenangreb fra rummet. Hvem skal kunne overleve en sådan fortsat atomkrig? De få mennesker, der kan gemme sig i dybe underjordiske bunkere? De morbide fantasier i Dr. Strangelove ligner en børnefødselsdag ved siden af dette.

Sidste års Global Lightning-manøvre i april 2021 fokuserede på den potentielle konflikt med Rusland; i år var den helliget den mulige konfrontation med Kina. Pentagons forskellige strategidokumenter siden 2017 har i stigende grad defineret Rusland og Kina som geopolitiske rivaler og modstandere og erstattet kampen mod den globale terrorisme med konkurrencen mellem stormagterne som en strategisk prioritet. Samtidig blev moderniseringen af den nukleare triade, som Obama-regeringen påbegyndte, fortsat, og tærsklen for brug af atomvåben blev i stigende grad sænket, bl.a. ved at der blev indsat lavtydende sprænghoveder på Trident-ubåde.

Den strategiske konflikt

Selv om der ikke har været mange officielle kommentarer, kom præsident Putins meddelelse den 1. marts 2018 om nye russiske nukleare systemer – Awangard hypersonisk missil, et interkontinentalt ballistisk missil med 20 gange lydhastigheden og fremragende manøvredygtighed, der gør det amerikanske missilforsvarssystem stort set forældet, Kinschal hypersonisk krydsermissil samt atomdrevne krydsermissiler, hurtige undervandsdroner og laservåben – som et chok for det vestlige militæretablissement. I mellemtiden har Kina også udviklet sine egne supersoniske missiler med infrarød målsøgningsteknologi, en evne, som det amerikanske militær måske først vil få om to til tre år. Amerikanske satellitbilleder har fortsat lokaliseret omkring 300 missilsiloer under opførelse på spredte steder i Kina, hvoraf nogle måske forbliver tomme, men i andre er atommissiler i en tilstand af “affyring ved varsling” for at undgå et afvæbnende overraskelsesangreb.

Dette er i store træk den strategiske baggrund for de to traktater, som Putin den 17. december præsenterede for USA og NATO med anmodning om, at de skulle indeholde juridisk bindende garantier for, at NATO ikke udvider sig længere mod øst og ikke installerer offensive våbensystemer ved Ruslands grænser, og at der også gives garantier for, at Ukraine ikke bliver optaget i NATO.

I modsætning til mange transatlantiske politikere og medier mener general Kujat, den tidligere generalinspektør for de tyske væbnede styrker, at ophobningen af ca. 120.000 russiske tropper nær den ukrainske grænse, hvoraf nogle befinder sig flere hundrede kilometer væk, ikke tyder på et forestående angreb på Ukraine, men at Rusland ønsker at bruge denne trussel til at demonstrere styrke for at fremtvinge forhandlinger med USA og NATO på lige fod.

Indtil videre har USA og NATO nægtet at give tilsagn om Putins hovedkrav og synes kun villige til at give det, som Rusland anser for sekundære tilsagn om nye nedrustningsforhandlinger. Putin har bebudet “militær-tekniske foranstaltninger” i tilfælde af en endelig afvisning. I betragtning af, at stationering af potentielt offensive våbensystemer nær Ruslands grænser i forbindelse med NATO’s udvidelse mod øst – det gælder f.eks. Aegis-missilforsvarssystemet, der er stationeret i Polen og Rumænien – har skabt en situation for Rusland, der kan sammenlignes med stationeringen af sovjetiske missiler på Cuba, opstår spørgsmålet om, hvordan disse “foranstaltninger” kan se ud. Den amerikanske Ruslandsekspert Gilbert Doctorow har mistanke om, at dette kunne indebære opstilling af atombevæbnede SS-26 Iskander-M-kortdistancemissiler i Hviderusland og Kaliningrad for at true NATO’s frontlinjestater og Østtyskland til gengæld. Han har desuden mistanke om, at Rusland kunne placere atombevæbnede Zircon-overlydsmissiler ud for kysten af Washington DC, som russiske eksperter tidligere har sagt kunne ødelægge den amerikanske hovedstad så hurtigt, at præsidenten ikke ville have tid til at flygte med Air Force One. Teoretisk set kan zircon-overlydsmissilerne naturligvis opsendes overalt på verdenshavene, og de er meget vanskelige at opdage og opfange for konventionelle luftforsvarssystemer på grund af deres ni gange lydhastighed og manøvredygtighed under flyvning.

Det er derfor kun logisk, at Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ “dommedagsur” kun viste 100 sekunder i tolv den 20. januar 2022. Der er kun ca. halvandet minut til den nukleare apokalypse. Selv om der siden optrapningen af krisen i Ukraine efter næsten 40 års dyb søvn i antikrigsbevægelsen har været en lang række appeller, opfordringer og åbne breve – senest fra 100 organisationer i USA, der kræver, at præsident Biden nedtrapper spændingerne med Rusland – er truslens enorme omfang på ingen måde trængt ind i den offentlige bevidsthed.

Manglende klarhed om årsagerne

Men selv blandt de fleste mennesker i Vesten, der erkender den akutte fare, er der uklarhed om de underliggende årsager til den eksistentielle trussel mod menneskehedens eksistens. De ligger på den ene side i den systemiske karakter af det neoliberale finanssystems krise, som nu er gået ind i sin hyperinflationære slutfase, og på den anden side i det krav, som dette finanssystems elite i City of London, Wall Street og Silicon Valley stiller til en unipolær verden, hvor det alene er denne elites magtinteresser der bestemmer, hvad der skal ske i den “regelbaserede orden”.

Dilemmaet er nu et dilemma med modsatrettede dynamikker. I den transatlantiske verden siden paradigmeskiftet i august 1971, som Lyndon LaRouche profetisk anerkendte, da Nixon effektivt afsluttede Bretton Woods-ordningen ved at afskaffe de faste valutakurser og dermed åbnede vejen for spekulativ profitmaksimering, et voksende skift væk fra investeringer i den produktive fysiske økonomi og hen imod spekulation i stadig mere eksotiske derivatbaserede finansielle produkter, hvoraf den seneste tåbelighed er “at flytte billioner” til den grønne New Deal.

De dermed forbundne investeringer i industrier med den lavest mulige energistrømsdensitet repræsenterer i sidste ende set ud fra et fysisk økonomisk synspunkt en lige så omfattende kapitalødelæggelse som investeringer i militær produktion af våbensystemer og hæren. At denne effekt for det meste ikke erkendes, hænger sammen med, at man forveksler pengeværdier, penge med reel rigdom, og med den

illusionen om, at børsnoterede selskabers aktieværdier siger noget om økonomiens produktivitet. Det er naturligvis i de yachtbesiddende milliardærers interesse, hvoraf nogle for længst har købt lejligheder i lavtliggende bunkere i Australien og andre steder, at bobleøkonomien opretholdes så længe som muligt, selv om andelen af den fattige befolkning fortsætter med at vokse, og middelklassen fortsætter med at skrumpe.

Da Sovjetunionen opløstes i 1991, og den transatlantiske elite trods alle advarsler – f.eks. fra pave Johannes Paul II – gav efter for fantasien om at have “vundet” den kolde krig og fortolkede “historiens afslutning” således, at hele verden nu skulle underkaste sig den neoliberale, regelbaserede orden, så de heller ingen grund til at holde løfterne til Rusland om ikke at udvide NATO mod øst. Hele spektret af instrumenter til at cementere den unipolære verden blev taget i brug: regimeskift enten gennem farverevolutioner eller “humanitære” krige mod alle regeringer, der stadig holder fast ved andre værdier. Viktoria Nuland pralede offentligt med, at udenrigsministeriet havde brugt fem milliarder dollars på NGO’er alene i Ukraine, hvilket i første omgang førte til den “orange revolution” i 2004. Da præsident Janukovitj i slutningen af 2013 nægtede at tilslutte sig EU’s associeringsaftale, ikke mindst fordi EU er fuldt forbundet med NATO med hensyn til traktater og sikkerhed, kom den ikke så demokratiske side af den regelbaserede orden frem i form af Maidan-nazistkuppet i februar 2014. Som følge heraf blev Krim ikke annekteret af Putin, men ved en folkeafstemning af Krimbefolkningen, som ønskede at undslippe Kievs fascistiske politik. Allerede dengang erklærede Putin, at Vesten virkelig var interesseret i at holde Rusland i skak, og at hvis det ikke var Ukraine, ville de have fundet et andet påskud for at gøre det.

Den afgørende opstramning over for Rusland og Kina blev senest i 2017 synliggjort ved at ændre sprogbrugen i Pentagons sikkerhedsdoktriner og karakterisere disse to lande som “modstandere” og “autokratier”. Mens de vestlige institutioner i første omgang havde reageret på Xi Jinpings annoncering af den nye silkevej i september 2013 med en vidtrækkende blackout i hele fire år, reagerede disse institutioner nu på det største infrastrukturprojekt i menneskehedens historie, som om det var en eksistentiel trussel – nemlig mod den unipolære verden! Stort set alle sanktioner, der er blevet indført ensidigt overalt i verden, dvs. uden beslutninger i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, har i sidste ende haft som hovedformål at forhindre Kinas økonomiske fremgang og Ruslands genvinding af sin status som en aktør i verden.

Udskriften af to unavngivne embedsmænd fra Det Hvide Hus’ pressebriefing den 25. januar afslører på chokerende vis denne hensigt. Her præsenterer de en lang række “strenge økonomiske foranstaltninger” – begyndende med det højeste eskaleringsniveau – for at modarbejde Putins strategiske ambitioner om at industrialisere sin økonomi ved at nægte ham adgang til alle moderne, udviklede teknologier som f.eks. kunstig intelligens, kvantecomputere og alle teknologier relateret til forsvar og rumfart, for at forhindre ham i at “diversificere” økonomien ud over eksport af olie og gas og for at opnå en atrofiering af den russiske økonomi.

Denne politik, der er formuleret i et utroligt brutalt sprog, er intet andet end en fortsættelse af Jeffrey Sachs’ såkaldte “chokterapi” fra 1990’erne, hvis udtrykkelige mål var at reducere Rusland fra at være en supermagt i Sovjetunionens dage til at være et råvareeksporterende land i den tredje verden. Denne politik var dengang som i dag en krigserklæring – den eneste forskel er, at Putin er ikke en ynkelig figur som Jeltsin, er blev forkælet af Vesten af geopolitiske årsager, men en strålende strateg, der ved, hvordan han skal forsvare Ruslands interesser.

De ikke mindre hadefulde tirader mod Kina, som man i dag kan høre fra imperiets hofskribenter og fra tidligere maoister fra SDS-tiden, som i dag er steget til topstillinger i De Grønne, kan imidlertid ikke ændre noget ved den kinesiske økonomis enestående succes, som i 2021 havde en vækstrate på over 8 % på trods af Corona. Kina har gjort mere for menneskerettighederne end noget andet land i det såkaldte vestlige værdifællesskab ved at løfte 850 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom i sit eget land – herunder uighurerne, som nu nyder en langt bedre levestandard og en befolkningstilvækst over gennemsnittet – og ved at give mange udviklingslande mulighed for at overvinde fattigdommen for første gang.

De samme kredses tavshed om den største humanitære katastrofe, der er udløst af de vestlige sanktioner i Afghanistan, hvor næsten en million børn sulter, og hvor i alt 24 millioner mennesker risikerer at dø denne vinter, besegler deres totale miskredit.

Fælles erklæring fra Putin og Xi

Hvis forskellige forfattere har advaret om, at kampagnerne mod Rusland og Kina kunne føre til, at disse to lande kommer endnu tættere på hinanden, kan de være tilfredse, for det er præcis, hvad der nu er sket i forbindelse med Putins besøg ved de olympiske lege i Kina. Det haster imidlertid med at tage de ideologiske briller af og erkende den ekstraordinære mulighed, som den fælles erklæring giver hele verden i denne ekstremt farlige verdenssituation.

Det 16 sider lange dokument med titlen “Fælleserklæring fra Den Russiske Føderation og Folkerepublikken Kina om internationale forbindelser i en ny æra og om en global bæredygtig udvikling” indeholder en opfordring til at erstatte den geopolitiske konfrontation med et økonomisk samarbejde som grundlag for en fælles sikkerhedspolitik. Begge nationer appellerer til NATO om at afstå fra yderligere ekspansionsplaner, at overvinde tankegangen fra den kolde krig og at forankre de langsigtede sikkerhedsgarantier, som Rusland kræver. Den rolle, som internationale organisationer som G20, BRICS, APEC og ASEAN spiller, bør styrkes. Rusland vil samarbejde om gennemførelsen af det “globale udviklingsinitiativ”, som Kina har foreslået, og understreger betydningen af begrebet “ét fællesskab om menneskehedens skæbne”.

Lad os tænke tilbage på de hundrede sekunder i tolv på atomkrigens ur: Hvem vil benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab? I de seneste uger er der blevet rejst mere forsigtige røster til fordel for en ny paneuropæisk sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter Rusland og Ukraine, og som kunne vedtages i en ny Helsinki-aftale. I betragtning af den komplekse verdenssituation, truslen mod verdensfreden, der berører alle stater, og den uadskillelighed, der er forbundet med alles sikkerhed, er det imidlertid nødvendigt at gå videre end Helsinki og skabe en international sikkerhedsarkitektur, der omfatter alle verdens staters sikkerhedsinteresser.

Denne arkitektur skal være baseret på principperne i Westfalens fred, dvs. at alle staters interesser skal sikres, og især deres ret til økonomisk og kulturel udvikling. Bevarelsen af verdensfreden forudsætter en fuldstændig og endelig forkastelse af malthusianernes politik og kræver, at alle nationer får ubegrænset adgang til de videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, der er opnået. Denne nye orden – som er forudsætningen for menneskeartens overlevelse – kræver et nyt paradigme, der skal udnytte de bedste traditioner fra alle kulturer på det højeste humanistiske niveau.

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

zepp-larouche@eir.de

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

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

Talerlisten inkluderer Jens Jørgen Nielsen fra Danmark.

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

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

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

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

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

Panel 1; kl. 16 dansk tid:

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

Talerlisten på engelsk:

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A Session

Panel 2: kl. 20 dansk tid:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A Session

———————

Den opringelige invitation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hvem kan benægte, at vi er et udeleligt skæbnefællesskab?

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Resumé:
Før åbningsceremonien ved OL i Beijing er der topmøde mellem Putin og Xi Jinping hvor Rusland og Kina vil bekræfte det tætte venskab og nok fremlægge nye økonomiske samarbejdsaftaler. Man forbereder at gøre sig uafhængige af amerikanske dollars og SWIFT-systemet. Vestens diplomatiske boykot understreger at man ikke kan regne med Vesten.

Mette Frederiksens pressemøde på Marienborg, hvor hun annoncerede at Danmark nu er i frontlinjen imod Rusland og ikke ville have en ligeværdig dialog er en farlig kurs. Arrogance + Ignorance = Katastrofe. Man er ikke dumme men dumlærde. Man fravælger med fuldt overlæg fakta, hvis de ikke passer ind i fortællingen man forsøger at sælge. Man overser de dramatiske konsekvenser af de beslutninger man træffer som i FE-sagen, Minksagen og nu korstoget imod Rusland.

Rusland havde ikke kun fået mundtlige løfter om at NATO ikke ville blive udvidet mod Øst. OSCE-aftalen fra Istanbul i 1999 garanterede ikke kun frihed for stater til at indgå alliancer for egen sikkerhed, men også at dette ikke måtte ske på bekostning af andre landes. Der har man ikke respekteret ved udvidelsen af NATO og diskussionen om at integrere Ukraine i Nato. Vi må forhandle og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina så alle kan leve trygt og sikkert.

Hvordan kan Vesten beskylde Kina for at lave (et ikke eksisterende) folkemord i Xinjiang, når man selv gennemfører et reelt folkemord i Afghanistan gennem at fastholde sanktioner og tilbageholde Afghanistans penge i vestlige banker? 20 mio. børn sulter og mange vil dø her i vinter, hvis ikke Vesten skifter kurs.

Se interview med Liu Xing fra Aalborg Universitet på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

Nedsmeltningen af det transatlantiske finansielle system er i gang. Siden 2008 er det blevet opbygget gigantiske finansboler under 13 år med negative renter og kvantitative lempelser. Inflationen i USA er nu 7 % og den er over 5 % i EU. Det er kun begyndelsen. Den kæmpe gæld der er opbygget skal der nu betales renter på og det er der ikke råd til. Der skal betales mere og værdierne er langt mindre værd. Det kan kun gå galt.

Eneste løsning er LaRouches fire økonomiske love. Lær af Kina. Rusland skal ikke vælge mellem Europa og Asien men være bindeled mellem Europa og Kina.

Hvedebrødsdagene er måske ovre for den danske regering. Kan ikke længere gemme sig bag COVID-19. Se på verden med friske øjne inden det er for sent. Gå med i Schiller Instituttet.

Diskussion: Den danske håndtering af COVID-19 var meget bedre end mange andre steder, men det var ikke pga. af regeringen, men fordi der var en høj grad af tillid og samfundssind blandt befolkningen. Husk at mange lande i Europa ikke som Danmark er hoppet med på briternes korstog imod Rusland.

Den 27. jan. (EIRNS) — Den Russiske Føderation insisterer fortsat på, at USA og NATO forpligter sig til at imødekomme Ruslands behov for forsikringer om, at dets nationale sikkerhedskrav vil blive respekteret. Men besvarelserne i denne uge – officielt leveret af USA og NATO – lever langt fra op til kravene. USA og NATO tilbyder en mulighed for at forhandle om sekundære spørgsmål, men har ikke afgivet nogen positiv tilkendegivelse om Ruslands centrale sikkerhedskrav.

Rusland, som går videre med militærøvelser i Hviderusland og Arktis, og organiserer træningsøvelser med anvendelse af dets atomstyrker, har gentagne gange gjort det klart, at manglende reaktion vil fremtvinge anvendelse af “militære eller militær-tekniske foranstaltninger”. Vil disse foranstaltninger omfatte fremskudt opstilling af hypersoniske atommissiler? Placering af kortrækkende atommissiler i Kaliningrad? USA opretholder omkring 200 nukleare tyndgekraftsbomber i Europa gennem fælles atomare missioner. Hvis Rusland forsøger at lægge et lignende pres på USA, hvor kort bliver så tidsrummet, til at træffe beslutning om at reagere på et reelt (eller opfattet) atomangreb?

Du og jeg kan ikke regne med, at amerikanske politikere, britiske imperialister eller NATO-kommandanter vil gøre det rigtige – for at undgå en situation, der, hvad enten det er bevidst eller ved et uheld, hurtigt kan eskalere til en ikke atomudveksling, man ikke kan overleve, der vil dræbe hundreder af millioner af mennesker inden for en time og ødelægge civilisationen globalt, måske permanent.

De NATO/angloamerikanske galninge, der forsøger at tvinge Rusland og Kina til underkastelse, kan heller ikke regne med samtykke fra deres formodede partnere og redskaber. Udenrigsminister Blinken hævder, at NATO er forenet, at der er “korrelation” mellem USA’s og de andre NATO-landes synspunkter. Men han tager fejl. De, der er opsat på at knuse Rusland, frygter, at et enkelt NATO-land kan udhule den konsensus, som deres beslutninger skal træffes på baggrund af. Vil Kroatien stå fast? Vil Bulgarien? Vil Ungarn pligtskyldigt spille sin selvmordsrolle? Vil Tyskland, efter sit angreb på Sovjetunionen i 1941-1945, virkelig forberede en ny krig mod Rusland? Vil diplomater, politikere, generaler og tænkere bryde geleddet?

Dette er øjeblikkets ubesvarede spørgsmål.

Når russiske diplomater bliver smidt ud af Washington, D.C., mens amerikanske diplomater efter sigende planlægger at forlade Beijing; når mediernes trommehvirvel for krig intensiveres, og når fredstilhængere hænges ud som forrædere – når våben flyver ind i Ukraine, når nye sanktioner overvejes – når opfordringerne til censur vokser – vil du så gå i brechen for den menneskelige arts værdighed og også for dit eget liv? Vil du forkaste det afskyelige malthusianske dogme, som hævder at vi er for mange mennesker, og den falske kultur, som påstår at vi er dyr? Vil vi være her for at beundre de overvældende observationer, som James Webb-rumteleskopet snart vil sende tilbage til Jorden?

En krise af denne størrelsesorden – et absolut skillepunkt i historien – kræver store ting af os. LaRouche-bevægelsen, der ledes af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har advaret om krisens omfang, som stadig flere mennesker erkender, og har forpligtet sig til at katalysere det nødvendige nye paradigme på denne planet.

I sit digt {Kunstnerne,} udtrykte Friedrich Schiller – Schiller Instituttets navnebror – det ærbødige ansvar, som påhviler hver enkelt af os i dag.

“Menneskets værdighed er givet i jeres hænder,

“Beskyt denne!

“Den synker med dig! Med dig er den opstået!”

Kan fremtiden regne med dig?

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

INTERVIEW

Professor Li Xing

Cooperate with China – It Is Not the Enemy

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Thank you too.

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

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

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

Advice to President Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But still, I would also say to the President:

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

Attitude of the U.S. Toward China

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Belt and Road Concept

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Debt Trap’ Diplomacy

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Means Development

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

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

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

Europe-China Relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ‘Differentiated’ Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: No, no.

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Yes, totally.

Reordering the World Order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Monroe Doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Exactly.

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

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

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

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

Prof. Li Xing: Yes.

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Exactly, exactly.

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

Operation Ibn Sina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Xinjiang

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The SWIFT System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Schiller Institute

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

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: I think 8%.

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

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

Michelle Rasmussen: Thank you so much, Li Xing.