Go to home page

This transcript appears in the May 20, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]


New Initiative for a Partnership
Among Youth Around the World

View full size
Schiller Institute
Helga Zepp-LaRouche

This is an edited transcript of excerpts from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s international dialogue with youth following her keynote address to the “Global Youth Partnership for a New Paradigm” meeting on May 7, on the urgent need to create a youth movement committed to ending the tragedy of geopolitics, replacing it with a New Paradigm. The youth dialogue is building on the process initiated by the Schiller Institute with its April 9 conference, “To Establish a New Security and Development Architecture for all Nations.”

The video of Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote is available here. The transcript is available here.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Daniel Burke

Daniel Burke (moderator): We have people on from Yemen, from Haiti, from South Africa, from Canada, Nigeria, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Germany, Denmark, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Austria, Uganda, Colombia, Spain, and Peru, Australia, Palestine, Argentina, China, and Bangladesh.

Our first respondent is from Brazil.

The questioner talked about the role of the non-aligned movement in bridging the relationship between Russia and the United States, especially with the actual close proximity of Russia to the U.S. He asked Mrs. LaRouche if she thought this was a good approach.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I suggest you look at the various reports we have published, like “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” When Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in September 2013 in Kazakhstan, we put all our reports into a big study, updated it and called it the World Land-Bridge Special Report.

That report shows you how we intend to connect all continents through tunnels or bridges—an integrated transport and infrastructure system from the southern tip of Chile and Argentina all the way up through Central America, North America, and then through the Bering Strait, connecting to the Eurasian continent and then going all the way across Eurasia to the tip of South Africa—the Cape of Good Hope—and then branching out to Indonesia and even Australia.

That is the vision. I fully agree with you that we have to convince the United States that it would be so much more in its interest to participate in such development rather than trying to suppress China and Russia. That is, I think, the big battle, because as Chas Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador correctly said: So what if the Chinese build a harbor and an airport? Let’s put American ships and American airplanes there and use it, and work together. I fully agree.

We have to get the United States to accept the idea to work with China. For example, in Latin America this is absolutely key. For Russia this is the key for much of Eurasia and Africa. So, I fully agree. If there are many voices saying, we want the United States and China to cooperate, and the United States and Russia to cooperate, you create an environment. I think you need right now the mobilization of every voice of reason around the world to get us away from this brink of the abyss.

The next speaker was Areej Atef, a member of the BRICS Youth Parliament in Yemen. BRICS refers to the cooperative relationship among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, as a leadership group.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Areej Atef

Areej Atef: I’m so happy to join you from Yemen. We send greetings to Mrs. Helga LaRouche, to all the members of the Schiller Institute, and to the LaRouche international movement. We are pleased to participate in your youth conference, in increasing the effort of the April 9 conference to build a new international architecture for economics and security, as was echoed April 21 in an initiative by the Chinese President. We believe in the five LaRouche keys in your report, “From the New Silk Road to the World Land-Bridge,” which is the correct roadmap of the economy and common prosperity.

In our BRICS Youth Parliament from Sana’a we trust that the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, since its announcement in 2013, as well as China’s policy document on Arab countries issued in 2016, has been carried out on the basis of the joint security. We have had many positions with the official Yemeni authorities to call for a joint defense strategy in the face of the imperialist aggression on Yemen.

Will America, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE allow security to come to Sana’a? Could the Chinese President’s initiative be a window for Yemen to exit from the past? Or will the Chinese-Arab summit be in Saudi Arabia at the time when Sana’a remains outside the calculations of humanity, civilization, and friendship—this, despite the opportunities that the historic Yemeni frankincense and incense road holds for the youth of Yemen and the youth of the world.

We affirm in Yemen our endeavor to get rid of the gambling of the interest-based money policy of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as this is what Islam dictates to us. God has permitted selling, but has forbidden usury.

We want to take advantage of this permanent participation with you to propose a structure for young people around the LaRouche youth organization and the establishment of branches around the world, and to discuss opportunities for coordinating this with the BRICS youth in Russia, India and China in particular, and the Sino-Arab Forum of Young Politicians towards formulating the new world order.

Finally, we would like to express, on behalf of all the youth and children of Yemen, our grief over the passing of our comrade, Marsha Mallouk, who has an immortal imprint in Yemen, and will remain in our minds and hearts as the icon of courage and love across the borders and seas.

Zepp-LaRouche: I’m very happy about your reminding us of Marsha Mallouk for whom Yemen was very dear to her heart. She never stopped reminding us to absolutely be concerned about the future of Yemen.

As to what you have proposed: I would ask you to send me a proposal in writing, because I know the difficulty in the past has been the ongoing war, the not-resolved conflict; now it seems to be a little bit more under control, but the realization of what the project about reconstruction of Yemen was, was never really launched. I think right now, at this moment, as I said, we are experiencing the birth of a new financial system, a new credit policy. I think it’s the right moment to bring in the proposal for the reconstruction of Yemen in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative.

We are planning more youth conferences. This is only a preparatory discussion. And we are planning later in May or soon thereafter, another big youth conference. That would be then also the place to bring in these proposals very concretely. I think what you have said is absolutely a very hopeful perspective, and the time to start to really think about the realization of it is now. So, let’s stay in close contact about that.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Florencia Renteria del Toro

Florencia Renteria del Toro: I’m Florencia from Mexico. I’m a PhD student in nuclear science and technology at Harbin University in China, and I’m a fellow of the Technical Cooperation Department in nuclear power infrastructure.

The remarks you give us today are very interesting in terms of energy security and deployment of advanced technologies.

For example, in securing the quality assurance process under the framework of the protocols and the safety of especially fourth-generation fission reactors or the fusion technology that you were mentioning. China, U.S.A., UK have been doing a lot of interesting work, or for example the ITER cooperative program between different countries like France or Japan. But it is very vital to solve the issue of the threat of nuclear weapons, because this is part of the misconception. People are blocking the information on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy—to the threat of war. For example, asserting that if a nation has a nuclear power plant, that automatically that nation will go to war, which is not the case.

But unfortunately, the media, as you mentioned, are diverting information and are not telling the whole story as it is. They are creating a lot of miscommunication between the politicians and the diplomats. Diplomacy should be the main tool to solve the issues peacefully, because no one wants to have a crisis, no one wants to have the current problems we have nowadays, where children are not able to go to school and are not receiving the health care attention they need. Or, devastating a region, not just in terms of physical phenomena like an earthquake or a tsunami. We are now talking about protecting the whole land or the territory from destruction by missiles, which is very crucial for preserving the integrity of the human race.

Another aspect I would like to mention: More countries may need to include radiation technologies as a priority in their agenda to move forward to the global decarbonization and the sustainable future. I’m not just talking about nuclear power plants; I’m talking about radioisotopes. People need more medicine; they need to have more advanced systems for food assurance. Many regions around the globe are having problems with water, especially in Africa where they don’t have all the tools or technology to deploy and to bring the benefits of life to other people. Including more radiation technologies in the budget of each country, could be vital because now we can try to assure having a good quality of life.

More politicians and diplomats are getting closer to the International Atomic Energy Agency, putting in their agenda to have the cooperation programs where they are training their people or sending their people to have those remarkable courses to deploy advanced technology and especially to think in the future what the next generation will need as knowledge transfer from the present generation. Knowledge transfer is pretty important, because then we can know exactly the areas where we have to point out more. Talking about digital transformation, we need people trained in programming and other advanced skills, cybersecurity issues as well.

There are many concerns under the umbrella of securing the sustainability of our planet, but in terms of first having, for example, a space program we need first to have strong cooperation on the Earth. Conflicts between countries like Ukraine and Russia, or even Taiwan, hold us all back. We have to move forward together, not to separate our efforts.

You were mentioning that the United States and China should cooperate together. They did so before. One of the examples is on the Travelling Wave Reactor, where both were trying to deploy this technology. But after the sanctions process started in 2019, they both dramatically shifted the program.

How can we build the trust between both countries and their politics? I’m sure some channels are a little bit damaged, so in building the trust again, it will be more pragmatic to deploy more programs together. I don’t know from your experience how you see all those challenges, or which you want to say are priorities to include in the nuclear programs in the future.

Zepp-LaRouche: You gave me a whole bunch of beautiful flowers here, all of them very relevant. You are a “live wire,” as we say.

On the question of trust: that is why we need youth. Old people, or middle-aged people, have habits, and they are sometimes so stuck in their habits that they cannot change. Young people normally are not burdened with so much baggage from the past, and that is why I think a youth dialogue can do a miracle right now to rebuild the trust. This is why I want this initiative to really explode. We should build this coming conference as a big one. You should do everything in your faculty, among your friends, to make sure that a lot of people join this idea, because if we would have an explosion of young people who say “We need and want a New Paradigm, and we represent the future. You old fuddy-duddies: do not destroy the world, which is ours, because we are the coming generation.” You have all the right to say that.

On the question of nuclear: I think technology is always dual use. You can use a stone as a weapon to kill your neighbor, or you can say, “Oh, contained in this stone is iron ore and traces of other of minerals, and I can do the following with it.” It depends on the technology and what it is used for; how it is used always depends on the quality of the human being using it. If the human being is evil, they will use anything. A truck can be used to blow up a factory, or it can be used to transport goods. Therefore, the aesthetic education is a very important part of our work. We have to stop the idea that every opinion is as good as the other one, and everything is allowed. You can be as perverse and pornographic and violent [as you like] and all of these things, it’s all good and fine—this is the liberal world outlook.

We have to go back to the idea of having as the goal the moral improvement of the individual; that each human being has a duty to self-perfect, to become more developed so that they can better serve society. You have to educate your emotions better. Your emotions can be educated on the level of reason; you don’t have to be irrational. You can educate your emotions. All of these things are extremely important, and that is why we need great Classical art.

On the question of nuclear energy as such: I think I would really like to incorporate this idea of banning nuclear weapons. I think there have been such treaties and there are organizations like that, and I would really like to incorporate this idea, that because of the extreme destructive character of nuclear weapons, they should be outlawed; the production should be forbidden. All the nuclear weapons which exist must be destroyed. My husband developed a technological way of destroying nuclear weapons by making them technologically obsolete by developing defensive systems. That is what I think we have to bring back in the discussion.

The famous proposal President Reagan called the SDI [the Strategic Defense Initiative] was the idea of my husband to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete. And then dismantle all of the systems on all sides. I think that is very important. If that would have been done, then, nobody could say that the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is so bad.

We have to educate people as to why energy-flux density in the production process is everything. If you go back to energy-flux density of the renewables—that is, solar and wind—the energy-flux density is very low. My husband had determined the relationship between the energy-flux density and the number of people who can be maintained on that level. That’s why we need to have an increase of such energy-flux density; this is why the evolution from wind and solar to fossil fuels to nuclear fission, and hopefully soon to nuclear fusion, is the only way how you can have durable, sustainable longevity of the human species. That needs to be taught.

If we distinguish peaceful nuclear energy, which is good and is to be allowed, from nuclear weapons, which are absolutely to be banned; if we build a new world system, with peaceful uses of nuclear energy as part of it from the very beginning; if we also discuss the means of enforcement, with an international global oversight; if we do all these things, then I think we can get the acceptance of people and this irrational fear of nuclear energy will vanish. This is a very important issue, and I agree with you that nuclear irradiation for food protection is absolutely needed. A lot of waste would be avoided if we had nuclear irradiation. Naturally in medicine, nuclear is extremely important. So, this all has to be made rational again, and I thank you very much for the points you raised, because they are all extremely relevant.

The next speaker offered greetings from the CTU USCTRAB trade union confederation in Bogotá, Colombia and noted that we are not being told the truth, especially in the current war situation in Ukraine. He asked:

“What alternatives exist so that we can learn the actual facts of what’s going on, and other than those very interesting fora which are being blocked right now?”

Zepp-LaRouche: We have our own independent news agency in various languages, called EIR, Neue Solidarität, Solidarité et Progrès. The LaRouche movement thus has its own independent evaluation capability. This was initiated by my late husband because when we started to organize politically—this was at the end of the 1960s, the beginning of the 1970s—we were only a philosophical association of students together with my husband, who was not yet my husband then. We were attacked, even if we represented nothing; we just were a group of students, a loose group of young people. But rather than capitulate and stop doing what we were doing, we said, “Hey, wait a second! Why are they attacking us? What is that?” Over the years, we developed an in-depth capability of evaluation of axiomatic assumptions of the different groupings and so forth.

Today, despite certain limitations, we try to have an overview about what is going on in all countries where we have language access. That is, most European languages. For example, we pick up when a French military person is saying something of relevance about Ukraine, which happened recently. Or, a Swiss analyst, or an Italian former general. So, we are not relying on simply one source, but we try to have an independent picture.

That’s what I can invite you to join. We put out a daily briefing, we put out a weekly magazine, we put out special reports. If you joined this youth movement, you will also learn how to evaluate, yourself. To learn intelligence is not so difficult. Once you have a certain philosophical grip about the main historical forces, the main battles of ideas over the centuries, you can actually learn to evaluate. So, you are not dependent upon opinions, but you have a way of judging things. The first step would be to make sure you have access to our daily publications.

Burke: I’m going to go ahead and read the statement from the Yemeni ALBRICS Youth Parliament. This is from our good friend, Dr. Fouad al-Ghaffari.

Dr. Fouad al-Ghaffari: The call of the Schiller Institute to convoke an international conference to establish a new security and development architecture for all nations represents our conviction to work with you since the birth of the BRICS in Yemen in 2014, to the current year, 2022. Especially since 2022 is the Year of LaRouche, and considering the resilience of our country for seven full years under the brutal aggression, siege, and crimes committed by the Anglo-Saudi and Zionist-American Emirati alliance. It became the official conviction in our country when the leader of the revolution announced on August 18, 2019 the establishment of the principle of security in exchange for security and the elimination of the zero-sum equation in the interests of a common human security.

The next question, from Peru, was translated from Spanish.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Walter Carreño

Walter Carreño: The Christian Democracy in Peru has been following the Schiller Institute’s proposals in the various conferences, and we think that the proposals for the Belt and Road, which the Schiller Institute supports for all the countries, is the most appropriate one for our country, because we need to develop our infrastructure nationally and to connect ourselves further to the different parts of our own country with other places in the world.

My question to you is, how can the developed countries help us with transfer of technology, and with the knowledge that they’ve developed, develop infrastructure in our country as they have done in theirs?

Zepp-LaRouche: The reason why we have the mess we have is because the dominant attitude of the Western neoliberal system has been not to share technology. A lot of it was blocked by the so-called ecology movement, the green ideology, where the idea of having sustainable development practically means no development. This has become the crucial question, as the world is now in such a horrendous condition—you have the world famine at one point, with 1.7 billion people threatened; you still have a pandemic which is not under control; and unless we have a world health system, meaning a modern health system in every country, the pandemic can come back with new variants in the next season!

We have now the incredible destruction of the war in Ukraine, and the consequences of that worldwide. We will reach very quickly a point when nations will have to make a decision: If we continue in the old paradigm, we will not make it. Or, we will have a new paradigm, which will be a peace order, and, as we discussed at the April 9 conference of the Schiller Institute, the “new name for peace is development.” This is the idea of Pope Paul VI, so it’s actually not a new idea: He developed it in his encyclical, Populorum Progressio, published in 1967. It was a very important document and it still is, in which he basically says we have to have the development of all nations on the planet.

And that is an idea which I think will be the only way how we will get world peace. The idea that there can be parts of the world that develop, where the people are doing well, the privileged classes are the ones better off, that system is finished. I don’t think we can return to it.

We have a breakdown crisis of the neoliberal financial system, and if the people in Europe and in the United States would actually be wise, rather than fighting Russia and fighting China, they would take the institutions of the BRI, like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) or the New Silk Road Fund and similar organizations, as safety nets. Because otherwise we will go into a period of hyperinflation, where either when the central banks increase the interest rates, like they are now carefully trying to do, risking a sudden collapse of the financial system, or they let inflation go. Either way, this system is absolutely coming to an end.

We need the kind of reorganization my husband has proposed, the famous Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche: Glass-Steagall, National Banking, a new credit system, and an increase of productivity through space and fusion power cooperation. That has to be put on the agenda.

That system is being built now—not in Europe or the United States, because they don’t want to, or they have signaled that they would rather fight this system than cooperate—but right now between Russia and China; India is also part of it. The next period will be decisive: Will that system come into being and will there be a complete break between the Atlantic sector plus Japan, Australia, maybe New Zealand—“Global Britain” as they call it—on the one side; and the China-Russia-India bloc on the other side. Or, can we bridge these two blocs and form a joint system?

In that context, Peru should really think in terms of lining up with the new system, and hopefully we can get what the first speaker from Brazil was saying, that we have to get the United States and China to cooperate in Latin America. That would be the most easy way for Peru to develop. So, we should absolutely engage in more activities where that perspective is forcefully brought to the attention of everybody in the United States and Europe, that they rethink their present policies.

Burke: The next question is from an engineering student in Nigeria.

“Given this round of sanctions, how can anyone trust the Western system? And, what does this mean for globalization?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I think that the sanctions policy is already boomeranging. It’s causing blowback, because many people are asking exactly the same question as you: When the Treasury and the European banks confiscated—stole—$9 billion from the Afghan people, that was already a big blow. But the latest, when the same institutions, especially the U.S. Treasury confiscated $300 billion of Russian assets, everybody is saying that maybe it’s not such a good idea to keep your assets in dollars or euros, for that matter, because you’re subject to having it be stolen.

I think this was the most stupid thing, from the standpoint of the Western powers, because that gave acceleration to the formation of a new system that is happening much faster than it otherwise would have, in the same way that the attacks on Russia and China have forged a partnership between those two countries, which I think is now absolutely unbreakable. So, they’re not very smart. That’s my answer.

Burke: Miss Princy Mthombeni in South Africa is the founder of Africa4Nuclear. Please go ahead.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Princy Mthombeni

Princy Mthombeni: Good evening everyone. Good evening South Africa. Helga, thank you so much for your earlier presentation. It’s always good to consume your wisdom. And to the Schiller Institute, thank you so much for inviting me to be part of this, and for opening your doors to me to be part of this family; I’m very, very grateful to be part of it.

I am a founder of Africa4Nuclear, an advocacy campaign which aims to promote nuclear as a key contributor to achieving the African Union Agenda 2063. Right now, I’m coming to you as somebody from a country that voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons program, the first nation ever to do so; and also that gave rise to what is called the Pelindaba Treaty, which declared Africa as a nuclear weapons free zone.

Helga spoke earlier about how the U.S. is trying to disempower Russia, in terms of economy, its economic development, and also, we know about weapons. I am also of the view that we should stop the use of nuclear weapons, and that they must never be considered for any option whatsoever, as a resolution to any war.

How do we, as nuclear advocates, encourage peaceful uses of nuclear technology, especially when developed nations have made it seem that without nuclear weapons you are weak, and you also do not deserve a seat at the table of globalization negotiations? Because that’s where we find ourselves as nations that do not always get a response. Nobody really gives us attention when it comes to talks of globalization.

Zepp-LaRouche: I’m absolutely aware of what you are saying, because, you should know, and maybe you do know already, that we started our whole work with a development plan for Africa. We published our first book about a comprehensive development plan for Africa, in 1976. We had a big conference in Paris, and that was part of an effort to have a new International Development Bank [see excerpt in this issue of EIR], which would solve this problem of technology transfer—this also is an answer to the person from Peru who was asking this before. My husband had developed the idea of an International Development Bank, which should have given credit every year, $400 billion worth of technology transfer, to replace the IMF. The African development plan was part of that approach.

And all of that we brought to the Non-Aligned Movement, which, for one year we organized them, we had even feasibility studies [to see] if that would work. And then finally, at the Non-Aligned Movement conference in Colombo, in 1976, they adopted a resolution demanding almost word-for-word the proposal of the International Development Bank. I called the German Press Agency (the DPA) in Hamburg, and I said, “Oh, this is fantastic! Three-quarters of the human species are demanding a new world economic order. When are you covering that?” The officer of the day replied, “What? Colombo? Non-Aligned Movement? That is not newsworthy.” I was really so shocked about that arrogance and that indifference.

So, I think what you are saying is absolutely true. But right now we have allies in the discussions between Russia and China to set up a new financial system, a new credit system, the idea of technology transfer, the idea of having an open possibility for every country in the developing countries is an absolutely crucial part.

Right now, I think there is a complete revolt. Last year’s COP26 was not supported by the majority of the developing countries. Indonesia is not bowing to the pressure to not invite Putin to the G20 summit. So, there are many signs that many of the developing countries have had it; they don’t want to be put at the table for small children anymore, and are demanding their rightful place.

I think the answer to your question is that we need right now to build a strong youth movement which works together, which cooperates, and then you can, together with other institutions which we are also trying to get in, we can change this! We are at a historical moment of the most profound change ever! I’m not saying that because I’m blue-eyed; I’m saying that with the cold-blooded assessment that one system is collapsing, and a new system is emerging. And that creates opportunities which did not exist at any time before. So we should really concentrate on building this youth movement as the most vocal voice for the change which is needed, and we should invite as many young people to have the idea that their voice will be heard, and they have an absolute right to bring in their ideas and demands for how the future should look.

Nicolas Holman: Hello. I’m from New York, I’m an American.

I think one of the more peculiar things about the old paradigm that I often bump into, is the idea that military security needs to precede the development of material infrastructure in these countries. I think this is premised on the idea that if we develop nations without sending huge armies there, like America has done, that they’re going to use that development to just destroy themselves.

When we tell people that what we’re asking for is for them to change their idea about humanity, that if we give them the opportunity, they’ll rise up and do something with it, that’s good. Americans especially feel like they’re being asked to make like a leap of faith. And not for want of examples. The Belt and Road Initiative has proved it can work, now, in our lifetime, And the Westphalian Treaty that the Schiller Institute talks about is a good historical example for when this has happened in the past.

But it seems to me to be like a more small-scale thing. Americans especially think, “Well, if I can’t even trust my own neighbors, how can I trust countries all the way across the world?”

I was wondering, Helga, if you had any ideas about what we should be doing in smaller communities to reach people there and to build the trust that’s necessary for this whole thing?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think then the Committee for Coincidence of Opposites is the right place to look. Because this was an idea I put forward after the murder of George Floyd in May of 2020. You remember that it was only two years ago, three years ago, and I was really shocked because obviously, this incredible demonstration of racism which was expressed there, it had the potential to trigger race wars very quickly; fights between right-wing people and Black people—it’s a very complicated question, because I’m convinced for a long time, that there are two Americas: There’s the White America and there’s a Black America. Some Blacks are part of the White America, you know, it’s not exactly a question of their skin color, it’s a question of the mentality. But there is no question that there is a whole part of the United States which the White people pretend does not exist. But, if you’re talking to a Black person, close to that reality, they are extremely, acutely aware that these two worlds exist.

I have a long history of seeing and experiencing this. So, I was really concerned that this would lead to a complete polarization and violence and so forth. So, I made the proposal for a Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites. Now, this sounds like a difficult philosophical idea, but it actually comes from a thinker from the 15th Century, Nicholas of Cusa, who very brilliantly realized that human beings are different from animals, in the fact that they can think a higher One, that the human mind can conceptualize a higher One, which is more powerful than the Many. That is actually an idea that Einstein also had, that you always have to find a solution to a problem on a higher level than the level on which the conflict was arising.

Now, my idea was that if you want to prevent race riots in the United States, and an escalation of the polarization, you have to put forward the One, so that the different manys can unite in solving that higher One. And the higher One was that rather than having a conflict between the right-wing and the left-wing and whatnot, that we are in a pandemic, we have world hunger, that you have to get the medical associations and doctors in the United States, and the farmers, to form partnerships with similar institutions in Africa and other developing countries.

And then, rather than having the youth be radicalized, to train them to become medical auxiliary forces, and have them work both in the United States to help educate the population for what they have to do in a pandemic, but also have these same youth help to build medical systems in African countries, to produce more food, because when you have a famine, then food is medicine. The idea is to give all the different forces a higher task, something which is absolutely necessary for the common good, and which basically helps them to overcome the conflict among them, because they are devoted to that higher common good.

This initiative has actually grown. It has not exploded the way I had hoped, but it has done some good. We have now young people in Washington, D.C., who have done an enormous job in decreasing the mortality rate, in respect to COVID, because they were able to teach people basic hygienic and health measures, what to do in a pandemic. We have established some connections to Africa, we have started to ship food, we are working on a program called Operation Ibn Sina to develop Afghanistan, which has one of the worst humanitarian crises in history. In other words, this idea of the Coincidence of Opposites, that you bring the different forces together to work on a higher task, who normally would not only have no trust, but who would fight each other. That is actually what you have to do.

And that has to be done on a world scale! If people start to say, “OK, we are all human beings, and we can solve the food crisis. 1.7 billion people are in acute danger of starvation. Let’s put our minds together. How do we double food production? Maybe you should become somebody who learns agro-science.” We are trying to put together agricultural scientists from many countries who agree that we have to double food production! Not only for the people who are right now in danger, but because we will have an increased world population.

Africa will have 2.5 billion people by 2050. There is no way these people will survive unless we increase food production. Maybe you should be part of that. And then you have some colleagues of yours who join in, and you become a model in your community of young people who are doing something useful, and that then becomes a shining example of how to solve such conflicts.

The next question came from Pakistan.

Question: Thank you for letting me speak, and thank you Helga, for answering all the questions very patiently. I want to mention a few facts, before I get to the real question, which is a practical question. Pakistan refused to join the U.S. condemnation of the Russian military operation. And it was partly because of that that the Prime Minister was removed.

Also, the impression in the West is that Taliban are anti-U.S., but in Pakistan, since they’re next door to us, we take a different approach. So does China. We are yet to see the Taliban respond to the hand of friendship extended by China, or any Chinese ally, such as Iran. So far, they’ve been responding negatively to any of the countries that are opposed to the order supported by the U.S.

In many countries, like here in Pakistan, in the universities you cannot teach in an economics class any system other than the system authorized by the United States.

In this kind of environment, how can we mobilize youth, so that the intended impact is maximum?

Zepp-LaRouche: I’m not so sure that what you are saying about the Taliban is entirely correct, because there were two major conferences, one in Islamabad, by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC, and then another one in China of the neighbor countries in Tunxi, in the province of Anhui, where in both cases Taliban delegations participated and expressed a great happiness to cooperate. I know the situation in Afghanistan right now is becoming very tense, and there are many problems, but I just wanted to say, it’s not in my knowledge exactly as desperate as you say. But I’m willing to listen to your information about that.

I think you have to do the same thing concerning the Pakistan youth, like what we’re trying to do anywhere. I think you have to present them, with the larger picture. Go to the conference proceedings of the Schiller Institute conference of April 9, which right now has been the most authoritative demonstration of what we need, what we mean by “a new international security and development architecture.”

We had speakers there from Russia—actually, the Russian ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov; we had speakers from India, from South Africa—actually a minister from the Nelson Mandela cabinet; the Indian speaker was an adviser to Rajiv Gandhi; we have many friends in Pakistan who also were represented there; a Chinese speaker, other African speakers, European speakers. And that kind of format, where you transgress the limits of national borders by really looking at the world “from above” so to speak, that is the perspective, for how you have to talk to youth in Pakistan.

Because no country in the world can solve its problems on a national basis. We have reached the point where either we make the jump to become the adult species, that we really understand that you put the one humanity first, and then you can put your national interest behind that; and there must never again be a situation where the national interest is put first, and then comes humanity last. So we are on that kind of an evolutionary jump, and I think if you talk to young people in Pakistan to join that perspective, it also means that these young people can see why they are in the same boat as the youth in India, the youth in China, the youth in Iran, the youth in Afghanistan, or all the other neighbors of Pakistan. And I think you should try that, and see if there are not young people who understand that in a moment like that, the old order is simply not going to function.

I know that the change in Pakistan of the prime minister seems to indicate that the old order is still in place, but I don’t think that that is a correct idea. Because I think what we are experiencing right now are epochal changes, and what will come in the new world, is up to us and up to you.

Burke: Let’s go to Australia; it must be about 2 a.m. there.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Thomas Thackray

Thomas Thackray: Thank you. My name is Thomas Thackray. I represent Australians for a New Democracy. I’ll keep this short and sweet: Do you have any insights to recommend on the Australian context?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think you should take the same approach as what I said to the person from Pakistan. Because Australia right now is a very difficult situation, where the government obviously is trying to make China the big demon, and if you only focus on China, then the authorities will probably say you are a dangerous element to their system!

So I think this idea of the Coincidence of Opposites, the common aims of mankind, that there must be people in Australia who want to be part of the people who solve world famine, who create a new world health system, of people who say that the problems of the world need to be dealt with by dialogue and not by confrontation. I think you have to somehow build some people around you who think likewise, and then stay in contact with your international friends of the Schiller Institute.

Things will come very quickly! I think most people don’t think the change will be so sudden, but I’m now working on this idea for almost 50 years, and I can tell you that the speed of change is increasing in an accelerating way, and we are heading toward the perfect storm. So, you should be very flexible, and take the large picture. As I said, no country can solve its problem in the context of your nation. If I would look at Germany this way, I would become desperate! The Germans have gone crazy right now! [laughs] But I’m not only looking at Germany from the inside, I’m looking at Germany from an international point of view: I look at it from how it looks from Africa, how it looks from India, for example, from China, from Russia, from the United States. And that way you train your mind not to be the slave of the circumstances you are in.

View full size
Schiller Institute
Moshiur Rahman Bhuiyan

Moshiur Rahman Bhuiyan: I am a Myanmar citizen. The Rohingya Muslims displaced from Myanmar are now almost 1 million people. Now they are living in Bangladesh. But I saw that many times, that this problem is not too much highlighted in many organizations in the world like the Schiller Institute.

So, the thing is now, there is still no progress to return to their motherland in Myanmar from Bangladesh. And the Rohingya people are not living well and they and their children face many limitations in their lives. How can we work together to solve the issue or to highlight it in a major event, to key leaders in the world to solve the issues? Because this is also a problem for Bangladesh. There are physical problems due to this mass of people being forced into very small areas.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, this is a very difficult question because it depends on the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh. I’m aware of the problems involved there. The only thing I can say is that you have to have the idea of peace through development, that only through a regional economic development program which does address the needs of all the countries involved, of Myanmar, of Bangladesh. Bangladesh needs urgently— I was some years ago in Kolkata, and this was after a big flood in Bangladesh. People were living on the street, and everybody had a place on the street of the size of a towel. So, people had their towels on the street, one after the other. On the one side they were cooking, and on the other side they were doing what people have to do when they digest. It was an unbelievable situation! And that happens again and again and again, because there’s no flood control. When you have a flood, it tends to displace millions of people every time.

The only way to solve the Rohingya problem and the problem of the poor people being exposed to this, you have to have a regional economic development plan—I don’t care if you call it Belt and Road Initiative, or if you call it “connectivity,” it’s the same thing. Once you build infrastructure as a starting point for agriculture and industry, it grows into each other.

So, I would suggest we work together on concrete projects: What would alleviate the situation? And then we make a campaign about that. You know we could even have a regional conference, at this point still a virtual conference, but we could present a regional economic development plan, and say, because of the Rohingya problem, because of the flood and poverty in general, we propose the following projects, and then we organize think tanks, universities, youth organizations to organize a lobby for that. So, I suggest we talk about that and make it happen. It can be done.

Bhuiyan: Thank you so much for your response. The U.S.A., European Union or China, need to take this up. It is too difficult for my country, because our government meditates many initiatives, but due to lack of willingness of others. But if we cannot solve this issue, it is a direct threat for South Asia and East Asia.

Zepp-LaRouche: I think this is something in which China and India should cooperate, and that would be good for both of them.

Burke: We have a final written question from another participant in Brazil:

“The new architecture we seek to create demands a mentality among young people who have been targets of the new economy they call “sustainable,” which in fact has been characterized by climate terror. How can we as young people build this architecture, given that we’re up against this force that comes very strongly from Germany, for example?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you can start by making fun of the Germans. I think this would be actually, very, very good. Make very short videos, use TikTok—TikTok is a way how young people have been brainwashed by thinking they all should be dancers and singers in 8 seconds. But you can turn this around and you can make short videos and say, “Ah! The Germans are so stupid! They give up their energy, they give up nuclear, they don’t have an alternative. Now they allow that their oil and gas is being turned off—Oh, how stupid the Germans are!” And variations of that. And I’m sure this would go viral. It would get back to the stupid Germans, and it would puncture their arrogant self-confidence. So, I’m really asking you to do that, as a personal favor. I mean, I’m serious. I’m serious.

So, I think in a certain sense, it’s true that climate change and all of these things are big problem because the brainwashing is very thick. But I can tell you that now that the war propaganda about “Putin the demon” and the Russians having left the human race, that propaganda has so overtaken the climate propaganda that some Greenies are now getting very upset and saying, “nobody’s talking about climate anymore!”

So, in a sense, what I’m saying is that in a collapse phase like this, contradictions break out, and you have to try to find those people among the young people who are still human and who are still capable of a human feeling. And it will be very difficult; I know that it’s not easy.

But the reason why I’m confident that this initiative of creating an international partnership of young people will actually grow very quickly is that the world is in such an incredible turmoil, that you cannot stick to your old axioms; and the good thing about young people is that they’re not yet hardened. Some of them still have a heart, still an open mind, and that is what we have to reach out for very quickly. And once people see that there is an alternative, they become very encouraged, because a lot of people are just behaving like sheep; they do exactly what the other one is doing, what the club, or groupthink tells you to think, and that’s why they’re all marching like lemmings to the cliff.

But when they see that there’s one very bright sheep who goes the other way, and says, “Hey! Listen to me. I have a better message,” then they all come to your direction and you can educate them and tell them, and say, “Hey! Stop being sheep! Be human!”

Closing Remarks of Helga Zepp-LaRouche

My only other point, which further addresses the problem raised by the young man from New York about the question of trust. I think what the world needs most right now, is people who demonstrate love. Because love is a powerful emotion and force. People need people to demonstrate the idea of love of mankind.

That is not something which is common to politicians, but I think the idea that you have to cultivate your own heart and your own capacity to feel that love for humanity: It’s something you can learn. You can learn it by, as I said already, great Classical art. You can go to the Schiller Institute conferences, and look at our performances of great Classical music, for example. You can read the works of Friedrich Schiller; this is very important, also, because of that idea of aesthetical education, to become a better human being, to be able to do the job you have to do, while you have your short life. I mean, life is short, even if you are 90 years old—life is still short! It’s not very long. When you are young, you think you have millennia, but when you are getting older, you realize, “Oh, wait a second, this is not going to last forever.”

And the question is, what do you do with this short period of your life? Do you want to just stuff yourself and eat as much caviar as you can, and then on your tombstone, you have a sign, “this person owned three Porsches and ate so many kg of caviar ...” or do you want to be somebody who will be remembered in a world which exists in part because of you! You brought the world away from the verge of nuclear extinction, and you have made sure that your children, grandchildren, and many generations to come can live a better life. And that you devote your life to that idea. And to do that you have to become a better human being.

And I think if you cultivate your personality in this way, to become more forthcoming for others; don’t think about yourself, think about what you can contribute—I think that that is the way how we build a new paradigm. Because a new paradigm is not going to be a construct; it will be a lot of people deciding that we have to become better human beings. And that’s all I want to say.

Back to top    Go to home page