Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast With Helga Zepp-LaRouche
July 19, 2018
Trump-Putin Summit Brings World Closer to New Paradigm
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast this week featuring our President and founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Helga, it’s only been a couple of days since the summit in Helsinki, and yet it’s clear the world has entered a whole new phase of strategic relations. The summit itself was an incredible success, and you can tell that, because immediately, those who had been doing everything they could to sabotage the summit, were trying to sabotage the results of the summit. So I think the President accurately characterized this, calling it “ Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
I think it’s important we start with what actually happened at the summit, because the media in their coverage of what they wanted Trump to do and that he didn’t do, they’ve ignored what actually happened between the two Presidents: so, why don’t we start there, Helga?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Indeed, this was a very historic summit. I think the fact that the leaders of the two most important nuclear powers of the world, who, as Trump noted, and I think Putin at some point also, possess together more than 90% of all nuclear weapons, that they would sit down and open a dialogue which they promised would be followed by many more summits; and that they actually move away from this non-speaking which was imposed on Trump because of the Russiagate coup attempt against him, that this is broken now, and that they found a good chemistry between themselves, that they obviously appreciate the fact that both of them represent large countries and they feel responsible to their country first, but naturally that a dialogue between them is what really is important for all of world peace. So I think the summit as such was a big breakthrough, given the fact that there was such a huge effort to prevent it from happening. And the things which are known so far in terms of what has been agreed upon, is of extreme importance: They decided to set up, I think altogether four committees to work continuously—one on economics where business leaders from both sides will meet in the future and discuss; then one on military questions; and I think most importantly, an agreement on cyber-space; and the two National Security Councils also already have started to meet.
Now, the thing on cyber-security is the most interesting one, because it once more shows that at least Putin is an incredible strategic, because while [U.S. Special Counsel] Mueller (or “muller” as he likes to call himself) decided to make another desperado operation in the last minute, by charging 12 Russian officials who would have meddled in the election campaign — obviously a last-ditch effort to sabotage the atmosphere of the summit—Putin made a very smart offer, namely inviting Mr. Mueller to come to Russia and investigate these 12 individuals. I think this is absolutely brilliant, because Mueller probably never thought that he had to bring any evidence, because if these Russians are in Russia and don’t come to the United States, how should there be a trial? But by Putin’s inviting Mueller to come to Russia and investigate, interview people, this is a very brilliant move, because if Mueller now refuses that then he looks very bad. Naturally, Putin in a reciprocal way also said that Russian specialists should be able to come to the United States and interview such people as the former U.S. Ambassador McFaul, or Bill Browder who is a crooked investor, who Putin says swindled the Russian state for altogether $1.5 billion tax money; and interestingly, related to this, both the Browder story, but also the Ukraine story and also naturally, Russiagate — Christopher Steele.
I think it is quite noteworthy that in the meantime, the White House confirmed that this arrangement is being discussed between Putin and Trump, and I think that this is probably the most brilliant outcome in the short term. Hopefully in the long term, it will be nuclear disarmament and similar things which they discussed, and bringing calm to various hotspots around the world. It’s also very good that Putin promised that he would support Trump in the effort to solve the North Korea crisis, which I think is also very important.
And we found in America, which I have heard from our colleagues there, a tremendous response: That many people come to information tables and say, “I did not vote for Trump, but look at what he’s doing—first, North Korea; now this summit with Putin. He is actually doing something very important.” So any sane person should be happy that the two largest nuclear powers, indeed, have found a channel of communication on the highest level, and if you contrast with the insanity of the media, and also some geopolitical politicians—one can only say some of these people really have a deranged mind, not only a “Trump Deranged Syndrome,” but they are deranged; because any peace-loving person in the world, should be happy about this. Naturally, also the military-industrial complex obviously needs the enemy-image of Russia in order to keep their military budgets intact.
But this is really a breakthrough for civilization and we should all be very happy about it.
SCHLANGER: This is all really important, and this last point you were making, that leading into the summit, that President Trump said repeatedly that neither Russia nor the United States would want to get into an arms race, and that this is something that should be on the table. And he also specifically talked about cooperation between the military of Russia and the military of the United States in Syria. So, the people who are attacking this, what are they doing?
Trump basically said he would prefer diplomacy to confrontation. They’re saying we need confrontation.
Helga, this is all happening with the backdrop of the Mueller case, rushing headlong toward trial, when Mueller says he’s not ready for the trial. You mentioned the indictment of the 12 before the summit, to try and break it apart. Just to go back a step before, there was tremendous concern from NATO countries that Trump was going to do something that would harm the relationship with NATO—it’s worth just looking for a second at what it is the geopoliticians are most afraid of, about what Trump is doing. And you talked about ending the era of geopolitics. Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the era of geopolitics from this summit?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s an important step in that direction, because as my husband, Lyndon LaRouche has said since 1997 at least, that in order to break the control of what we call the British Empire—which is naturally not identical with Great Britain, but it is the City of London/Wall Street control of the international financial institutions and the military apparatus which is in cahoots with these interests. He said, in order to break that control, which you can see—if you look at the media response to this summit, you can actually make a list of who are the agents of this, what we call the British Empire; they call it “Deep State” in the United States, but that takes it too short, because it leaves out the British angle in this mafia, one can say—you can make a list and see who are the most, loudest screaming journalists, media people; and you can actually remember their names because with 100% certainty at the next occasion will try to manipulate public opinion again. And it’s actually useful to look at it this way.
So, if you want to break the control of this, my husband said, and mentioned even many years ago, you need a great power alliance, including the United States, Russia, and China, and preferably India, and then you can add other countries to it. But you need an understanding of these large nations which are both economically and militarily the strongest ones, and also in terms of demography, who have the most population, in order to define a New Paradigm, a new set of international relations. And while we are still very far away from that, the fact that China has created the New Silk Road dynamic, deliberately, and explicitly based on the idea of respect for the national sovereignty of the other country, respect for the different social systems, the principle of non-interference, and that more and more countries are joining with the New Silk Road perspective, in which one big component of it is the very deep strategic partnership between Russia and China. And it is noteworthy that both Trump and Putin at the Helsinki summit, were talking about their “mutual good friend Xi Jinping.” And it’s also very important that China welcomed this summit, and said that it does greatly contribute to saving world peace and bring the world into order.
I think we should not be exuberant, because this is a first step, and obviously, the insane reactions from inside the United States, both the Democrats but also some Republicans—I mean, one Democrat from Tennessee, Steve Cohen, even demanded a military coup against Trump! — others were absolutely out of their minds, demanding that the translator should testify publicly in Congress on what was the discussion between the two Presidents. I mean, this is really a degree of hysteria and outrage. Then, we have such people as McCain and others who talked about “treason.”
Treason is whoever is pushing for war! And all of these people are obviously willing to risk nuclear war and the extinction of civilization, rather than have good relations between the United States and Russia. So, who is committing treason here is really the big question. And it’s interesting that Putin already commented on these criticisms against the summit, by saying that there are some people who, for their petty party politics, are risking the big issue of war and peace, and they should really be ashamed of themselves—I’m saying that; I’m not quoting Putin in that.
So, it is an important step. Obviously, the world is in a very rapid strategic realignment, including India, including Japan, including African nations, Latin American nations; and this is a good directionality. But a lot will depend on getting to the bottom of Russiagate, and if the United States and Russia work together to investigate that, which they’re now set to do with this committee on cyber-war, then I think the danger can be eliminated. But that remains an important step.
SCHLANGER: You mentioned before that from the United States, we’re getting readings that many people actually feel liberated that the President did this. I can report from the interviews that I do, that there’s tremendous response to the fact that Trump had the courage to go ahead and do this meeting — in spite of Russiagate, in spite Mueller’s grandstanding with 12 indictments right beforehand—and that people are really looking to this as a chance to finally defeat the British Empire forces that have run the post-Cold War order, and put us on the verge of a new hot war.
Now, I wanted to bring up something that you were just discussing: the China question. We have just produced a new report, that I think it’s extremely important and timely, and I’d like you to talk about that a little bit. Because this is really the alternative to the war policy of the Bush regime, the Obama regime, and this is what Trump has to go towards, the Eurasian Land-Bridge. I’d like you to say a little bit about this new report that’s coming out.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: As some of our viewers know, that we published the first World Land-Bridge report in 2014. The title of it was “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” That report has found quite an echo in the world; it was translated into Chinese immediately by Chinese institutions; distributed widely to faculties and think tanks. Then it was translated into Arabic, into German. And basically now, we have published Volume 2 of this World Land-Bridge report, as a comprehensive blueprint of what should be done in terms of development in Africa, in building the economy of Southwest Asia, but also the Eurasian connections, the Latin American projects, and the United States, naturally. This report is an absolute must-read for anybody who is developing interest in the New Silk Road and who wants to recognize the tremendous potential for all economies in the world to prosper.
Now, one big feature of it is naturally Africa: Where you have right now a lot of focus on — naturally also because of the refugee crisis, but that is only one side; because there is in Africa right now a tremendous potential of development. Xi Jinping just started a new trip which will take him to Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, where the BRICS summit will take place [July 25-27], and Mauritius. And this will lead to a total upgrade in Chinese investments and cooperation between China and Africa, which is already at an excellent stage. Then in September, there will be a big summit of the African leaders in China itself, which is expected to redefine on a completely new level the cooperation and partnership between Africa and China.
And then, obviously, we are in a campaign from the Schiller Institute—we’ve discussed this already in some previous webcasts—to have the “Singapore model” applied to Africa: By getting European leaders, nations, and African leaders, and hopefully, Xi Jinping, together in a summit and announce a crash program for the infrastructure development of Africa. That was also the subject of the recent conference of the Schiller Institute [June 30-July1] we had, and I would really urge all of you not only to buy a copy of this World Land-Bridge report #2, which is absolute eyeopener for anybody who wants to look into the future, what potential developments are possible; but I would also urge you, in case you haven’t done it yet, to please watch the totality of the speeches from this conference.
What was significant about this conference is that it discussed solutions, instead of just an analysis of particular problems; and it had also a very important debate about Southwest Asia, Africa, the reestablishment of international law. Because many people recognized that we are in urgent need to go back to the law of the people, to international people’s law, because the “power of the fittest” has dominated the world in the recent decades.
This is all very important material, and obviously, if you agree with our approach, you should become a member. The Schiller Institute wants to be a membership organization, because we want to create a Renaissance, and we need a lot of people sharing and distributing these views.
SCHLANGER: Helga, one of the things that people are wondering about in the United States, is, in the aftermath of the NATO summit, which was quite frictional, what’s the response in Europe to the Trump-Putin summit? Do you have much on that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it’s quite mixed. For example, very positive reactions came from Italy. Both Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte welcomed the summit; Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, who is Deputy Prime Minister and head of the Lega party, invited Putin and Trump to hold their next summit in Italy. And he said, “Well done, well done, Presidents.” There is a very positive response coming from Italy. Conte will also meet Trump shortly, and he will also go to Moscow, so there is actually an active diplomacy.
Others reacted much worse, for example, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was mocking—these people are so stuck in their geopolitical, backward, always being in yesterday totally unable to have any vision for the future. Once more, naturally, Trump did attack the EU, called them a “foe.” Everybody was completely freaked out about that. But there is a German proverb which says, “It shouts back from the woods, as you yell into it” — meaning the echo is exactly whatever you shout comes back. And if you look at the hysterical reactions of the Europeans from hour 1, after the election victory of Trump, calling him the most derogatory names you can imagine, I’m not surprised that Trump doesn’t have a high opinion of these people. So, I think you see a very measured response coming from some former diplomats who say that it’s a good thing that the two largest countries in terms of nuclear weapons are talking to each other. One former German ambassador said, “Europe should think more about its independence in its own way.” I’m not against that all: I think the absolute dependency of Brussels and Berlin policy—not so much on Washington, because the moment Trump became President it became clear, it’s not Washington as such, that they feel subject to, but it is the British Empire. And I think if there is more independence from that, so be it, and the New Paradigm is already on the horizon. The best way to overcome the present tension would be to welcome the cooperation among the United States, China and Russia, and become part of that! There is a higher level of reason, where you can solve these problems, and I think the world needs to urgently move in a completely different thinking, what I call the New Paradigm. And for sure, overcome geopolitics, because geopolitics is what led to two world wars, and if you don’t get rid of that, the danger is the extinction of civilization. For example, Paul Craig Roberts is very pessimistic: He welcomed naturally the summit, but he basically looks at the opposition to Trump and predicts that there will be a war as a result of it. And if these have their say, he may not be mistaken.
I also think a very interesting comment, by the way, came from the blog of Pat Lang, “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” where this person who writes under the name Publius Tacitus, his column on the summit—I really would like people to read it, because there he says, that those in the United States who are quick to blame Putin and Russia for everything should be aware of what the United States has done, obviously under previous administrations, sitting in the biggest glass house of all. [see http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/07/ americas-russia-derangement-syndrome-by-publius-tacitus.html] These kinds of commentaries are extremely important and should be shared widely to counter these absolutely disgusting, mainstream “presstitutes,” as Paul Craig Roberts likes to call them. I think this is a very appropriate name for people who are really, really doing a disfavor to their nation and to humanity as a whole. We should not pay attention to them, and outflank them.
SCHLANGER: One relatively influential that I speak with told me after the summit, he said: “I’m sure this summit makes Lyndon and Helga very happy, because of their life’s work oriented toward the Four Power agreement.” And then he had a question for you. He said that he’s heard you talk recently about the reestablishment of the Bretton Woods system, or a New Bretton Woods system. He said he researched this, and he saw that Lyn was putting this forward in the 1980s. And he asked me to ask you: How would a New Bretton Woods system work, and does it require active support from Russia, China, and the United States? Would that be enough to implement it?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The pre-form of such a system already exists. It exists in the form of the financial institutions associated with the New Silk Road, the AIIB, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the New Development Bank of the BRICS; and many similar institutions; and also the emerging Africa investment fund. There you have regional institutions which already are lending for the real economy, rather than speculation. And I think that China is in the process of curbing speculation altogether. There has been a drop in international investment on the side of Chinese, but that is mainly due to the fact that China is now outlawing speculative investments abroad. There are some countries that are already doing the right things, but obviously, the big, dark cloud on the horizon is the condition of the Western financial system, which is in terrible shape: Deutsche Bank, then the whole Level 3 derivatives. There is a big worry about the future of the euro because of the so-called Target 2. Some people argue that this is all money which is irretrievable for some countries. There are many clouds — you have the corporate debt, naturally. What you would need is indeed, probably a debt conference; you have to get rid of the derivatives — Level 3 derivatives for sure, but also untangle this whole speculative aspect, and just completely wipe it out—and then have institutions to create a credit system, national banks in each country, and fixed exchange-rates among the currencies, maybe with a gold standard; and basically then have a stable financial governance. This is what China has been calling for.
Naturally on the side of the West, there has been no forthcoming, but again, Italy may be an important factor in triggering such a discussion. After all, Italy is the third-largest economy in Europe. And you have right now several ministers and deputy ministers, secretaries of state (which has a slightly different meaning in Europe than in the United States) assistant ministers—who have called for Glass-Steagall and a National Bank.
While these are only steps in the right direction, and naturally the best would be that President Trump carry out his election promise, which is not to be excluded, because he has a good record of bringing about his election promises, namely to implement Glass-Steagall, to go back to the American System of economy, and then reach out to the other countries to establish some kind of New Bretton Woods agreement. So, if each country would go to a National Bank, its own credit system, then you could have clearing houses to discuss and negotiate long-term, international investment among these countries; such clearing houses would balance the fact that you have many differences: You have large countries with lots of raw materials and few people, like Russia; you have countries with small territory, relatively densely populated, high-level industry, like Germany, Switzerland, Belgium; then you have small countries with few people, little industry. But all of these countries somehow should be part and partners of such a New Bretton Woods agreement, and that can be set up pretty much according to the model of the old Bretton Woods system. I think this is definitely a discussion which should be held on an international level, because the biggest problem, one of the really big, threatening problems in the background, is the potential of a disorderly financial collapse. That must be countered, by setting up a new financial architecture, and as I said, with the New Silk Road, with the Belt and Road Initiative, you already have the framework of the kind of model of cooperation among nations which is needed. That is why the Schiller Institute is making such an effort to convince people of the benefits it would have for every country to participate in the New Paradigm, because that would be really the best way to have an orderly transition into a new set of international relations. And that is not an option: I think this is an absolute must, if we want to avoid chaos, and out chaos there is always the danger of war. So this discussion is very timely and very urgent.
SCHLANGER: And imagine the reaction of the opponents of Trump, were Trump to do such a thing. The same people who today are arguing for war rather than diplomacy, would argue for the collection of their unsustainable debts, even to the extent of killing people, rather than taking the risk of writing down or writing off this debt which can never be collected. Helga, we’ve covered a lot, but I want to make sure that if there’s anything else you want to bring up, that you have the option to do so.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I can only really invite you to join with us, because it is absolutely possible to reach a new era of civilization in the short term. I think the dramatic changes you have seen since the New Silk Road is on the agenda, which is less than five years; if you see the completely new optimism which has emerged in Africa as a result of the New Silk Road policy; and actually, I was wondering, if the American population— naturally, people are very far away from Africa, admittedly it’s closer to Europe than to the United States—but I was wondering if this new spirit in Africa which has given the African countries a completely new sense of self-confidence, that they can make the transformation into industrial countries, that they can create large middle classes, overcoming poverty and underdevelopment, building infrastructure, being partners for investment on an equal level with other countries of the West or of Asia; if this is so exciting, provided you know about it, which you wouldn’t find out if you read the New York Times and Washington Post — but it is happening—if that is not an influence, or something exciting for, let’s say, African Americans, and Africans in other countries as well, to really start to develop an active relationship between this development in Africa, and the United States? Because I think that all of these questions, how to get rid of the trade deficit, sanctions or not sanctions—well, it’s now clear that the Beige Book of the Federal Reserve finds that the tariffs are hurting a lot of American industries and making the consumer prices higher. And I have advocated the whole time that the better way is to have joint investments in other countries or continents, like the African continent. So if the African Americans would start to take a really active interest in the kind of revolutionary changes which are taking place in Africa right now, maybe that would inspire them to also have a similar discussion on how America could be part of it, because you need a lot of industry, you need industrial capacity, know-how, financing, in order to accomplish what could become the next big chance of civilization. And there are many people who already say that Africa will be the “next China with African characteristics.” That was just an idea I wanted to throw out, and if any of you would like to respond to me, please, I’m happy to receive your email and we should have a dialogue about this, because for me, this potential for African development is one of the most joyful and exciting things of the present time.
SCHLANGER: With that, I think our viewers have now been given their marching orders: Join the Schiller Institute, become engaged in a dialogue with us, but take that dialogue out to the population, because, I think people around the world are in revolt, they’re in an insurgent state of mind. They want change, but they need to know what change means, and what change would work.
And so, Helga with that, thanks again, and we’ll see you next week.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, till next week.