Germany Can Make History:
The Decision for War or Peace
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Oct. 23—In the present historical period—in which virtually all seemingly reliable assumptions about society are becoming obsolete, and everyone senses that we are faced with the heavy issues of war and peace, of ‘to be or not to be,’ of collapse into chaos or a new Classical Renaissance—Germany is one of the few actors on the grand stage of world politics that can help determine which of the two alternatives comes to pass.
So far very few people in Germany think so, but that does not diminish the truth of this statement. Of course, the world-historical role of China is more obvious, and with President Xi Jinping’s “win-win” vision of the global expansion of the New Silk Road, China has put a completely new model of relations among nations on the agenda. That model shows, for the first time in history, how the ominous geopolitics that led to two world wars in the Twentieth Century can be overcome—through the cooperation of nations for the common good.
And equally obvious is the importance of the role of Russia—with its strategic partnership with China and its military flank in Syria—which has led to a new balance of forces in the world; that exposes just how hollow the Obama Administration’s claim to be the One World Superpower has become.
President Putin has just pointed out—in his speech at this year’s meeting of the Valdai Club on the theme of “War and Peace”—the danger that arises if the United States attempts to use its missile defense system in Eastern Europe for a so-called disarming first strike with very precise, modernized nuclear weapons. The intention would be to shift the strategic balance in its favor and dictate its will to the whole world. But such an approach could only lead to mutually assured destruction, Putin said. After the successful nuclear agreement with Iran, the pretext of an alleged threat of Iranian missiles can no longer be maintained, although the threat never really existed anyway. So why is the missile defense system still being maintained, he asked.
Putin—whose own military operations in Syria against ISIS and other terrorists are successfully advancing step by step—used the same speech to point out the reason for the comparative failure of the American military operation in the region. It is an insoluble contradiction, he said, if you intend to fight the terrorists on the one hand, and on the other, you arm them so that you can overthrow legitimate governments with their help.
No one should miss the delightfully ironic skit on the theme of the confusion of U.S. policy on terrorism in the Middle East in the latest satirical program, “Die Anstalt,” based on the schmaltzy show “Blind Date.”
Obviously, the American population itself—perhaps the most important actor on that world stage—has the responsibility to end and take action against the incessant violations of international law, which have unfortunately become the rule as a result of the continuity of neo-con policies from Bush/Cheney, to today’s Obama Administration. These violations range from the wars in Southwest Asia—which were built on lies; to the deployment of drones against alleged terrorists—without any due process of law; or the notorious “collateral damage,” which, according to the revelations of the recent whistleblowers to the website The Intercept, concerns innocent civilians in over 90% of the cases.
The Congressional investigation now urgently demanded by several organizations could lead very quickly to the impeachment of President Obama, who, according to published documents, has personally put together the target list every Tuesday. The wave of refugees coming to Europe, and especially Germany, is the result of these wars and drone strikes, which have favored, rather than stemmed, the advance of ISIS.
The Refugee Crisis
But in a certain sense, history has passed the ball into Germany’s court precisely because of the refugee crisis.
A large majority of the population, faced with the plight of many desperate people, remains firmly ready to help. But at the latest, since the demonstrations sporting mock guillotines, and the approximately 500—according to the Federal Criminal Police Office—attacks against refugee centers this year, and the attempted murder of the Cologne candidate for Mayor Henriette Reker, it is also clear that the dividing line between “concerned citizens” and rightwing extremists, who do not shrink from using force, has been crossed. What President Putin warned about many months ago—that Western support for Nazi organizations in Ukraine would lead to the expansion of such organizations in many European countries—threatens to come true.
The unspeakable situation of the refugees in Slovenia is only a snapshot of the tragedy unfolding; in recent days, refugees who are too lightly dressed have been rounded up like dangerous criminals, by totally overstretched security forces. Such an approach will do nothing to decrease the wave of refugees. If no solution on a new level is found, the situation in all of Europe will lead in the very short term to an escalation, which could expand into chaos and civil war.
There is a solution for this crisis, but it requires correcting a whole array of axiomatically flawed assumptions behind the policy of the West and Germany in particular, over the last decade. The first obvious implication must be to put an immediate end to the wars started under false pretenses. Germany is to blame not only for allowing the mega-spying of its own citizens through the collaboration between the BND and the NSA, but also by knowingly allowing the Ramstein Military base to be used for drone strikes in Southwest Asia, and by its tacit and partially explicit support for Washington’s and London’s policy for a unipolar world. Only the refusal to participate in the wars against Iraq under the Schröder government, and against Libya, under the Merkel/Westerwelle government, saved a small part of Germany’s honor.
Germany has likewise been complicit in carrying out the decades-long conditionalities policy of the IMF and World Bank against the developing sector, a policy which has prevented any real development while setting up a debt spiral, which has solely served the interests of the financial sector of British empire—for which the term “globalization” is just another expression. If millions of refugees today are fleeing not only from wars started on the basis of lies, but also from poverty and disease—the so-called “economic refugees” from the Balkans, Southern Europe, and Africa—it is because of of this policy.
Social tensions in Germany and all of Europe will intensify to the point of explosion if Germany insists on adhering to the same monetarism which is also applied against Europe, and to German Finance Minister Schäuble’s “zero deficit” doctrine—under which for the sake of the chimera of a balanced budget, day-care centers, gymnasiums, education programs, pensions, and so forth must be cut in order to be able to provide for the refugees, which goes together with the brutal austerity policy against Greece and all of Southern Europe.
And there is yet another bad, cherished habit, that Germany must get rid of, if we are to find a solution for this crisis: We must throw the green ideology overboard. And we must reject the notion that we can fob off on the so-called developing countries “sustainable, appropriate” development—in point of fact, no development at all—while at the same time building a new “Limes” wall around “Fortress Europe.” We need actual development and reconstruction programs for Africa, Southwest Asia, and the Southern hemisphere, which will overcome poverty and underdevelopment.
Those principles discovered by science and art which are universally valid, are called universal because they also apply to developing countries.
Whether mankind will be able to master the current challenges, will depend upon whether we put into effect a new paradigm, which actualizes the highest expressions of the wonderful multiplicity of cultures and civilizations, which the universal history of mankind has produced. And only if we succeed in bringing about a dialogue between representatives of these high phases of different cultures, will we be able to contrast the grand idea of an international entente among peoples, to the limits of the acountant’s mentality or the simplemindedness of idiots.
If Germany were to say, “We demand that these wars stop; that a real development policy combined with that of the BRICS countries for the construction of the World Land Bridge be put on the agenda; that we immediately integrate the refugees, but at the same time develop their homelands with the construction of the New Silk Road,”— if we hearken back to our own highest Classical culture, and begin a dialogue of cultures with the highest level of other cultures, then we Germans can make history.
I am optimistic that that can be done.
View full size