The following is an edited transcript of the Dec. 10, 2025, weekly Schiller Institute dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Subheads have been added. The video is available here.

Diane Sare: Welcome to the weekly webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I’m Diane Sare, filling in today for Harley Schlanger. The topic today is “Global Glass-Steagall, Not Global NATO.” I think that already is very provocative, although some people may not appreciate how provocative it is.

What I would like to start with, Helga, is your response to the new National Security Strategy that was put out by the [U.S. President Donald] Trump White House. It’s dated November 2025, but it came out in the first week of December. It includes some dramatic changes, really fundamental changes from previous [President Joe] Biden-era policies, and some other things in a different direction that are not really changes. You put out a very thought-out response; rather than say more, I would like to turn it over to you.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Thank you. The new [U.S. National] Security Strategy is obviously a welcome break, as you said, from the previous attitude represented in those studies before. It’s a very mixed document; I think one has to look at it in its complexity. The European, pro-NATO hardliners are in an absolutely frantic state of mind in reaction to it. It is really unbelievable; I have not seen such hysteria probably ever—at least not in respect to the United States. People like Norbert Röttgen [CDU member of the German Bundestag] and others say we have to get accustomed to the fact that the United States is no longer our ally; just unbelievable things. Naturally, what is important is that both Russia and China have careful but moderately positive reactions to it. Not exuberant, because everybody is aware of the fact that words are words and deeds are deeds; so everybody is waiting to see what the result will be.

But there are some positive elements in it for sure, one of which is, in my view, that the expansion of NATO is supposed to be stopped. The formulation is not 100% clear, because it has the perception of a continuous expansion of NATO. That naturally leaves room between perception and reality. So, with all caution, I would give it the benefit of the doubt, but my response was obviously not to now go into every aspect of this very contradictory paper. It’s terrible in respect to Latin America, where they added the so-called Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This basically means to make the Western Hemisphere the backyard of the United States. It has very mixed formulations with respect to China, and carefully worded improvements in the relationship with Russia, which was welcomed by Kremlin spokesman Peskov.

But rather than going into all the contradictions themselves, I think one can attribute them, on the one side, to the very contradictory person of President Trump, but more fundamentally to the very contradictory situation the United States finds itself in. On the one side, they want to keep world dominance, which is very clearly expressed in the paper. But on the other side, is the United States really still in a position to keep up with that self-inflicted demand?

The Neoliberal Order Has Failed

Rather than responding to all of those things, I want to take a different approach and point to the fact that, given that the old order, the neoliberal order and especially the order which emerged in the post–Cold War period, when the United States and Great Britain tried to impose a unipolar world order—which completely backfired, because it was so much against the interests of the Global Majority countries. So now you have the emergence of a new system with the BRICS and the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization]. Obviously, Europe is in a downward spiral which is unprecedented.

Naturally, you have the Middle East situation remaining; the Ukraine crisis not yet resolved; you have a new crisis between Japan and China; and then you have the threat of invasion in Venezuela hanging over the world like a Damocles’ sword. So, in light of all of these complex problems, I took the approach to say that, given the fact that there now is clearly a process of transition, and that there are many actors pushing the world in different directions, why not take the approach to catapult the whole strategic discussion into a new domain, into a new paradigm, whereby one really tries to overcome all of these conflicts by abandoning geopolitics and establishing a new paradigm in which the one humanity is being put first? Then all the national interests must be brought into cohesion with the one humanity. Whoever says that is not possible obviously has no trust in the character of the human species. We are one species, and we have one future, because we are all sitting in one boat. In the time of thermonuclear weapons, and pandemics, and the internet, and various other factors, anybody who does not see that our fate as one humanity is united for good or for bad, is not thinking clearly.

Therefore, I used the opportunity to say, let’s use this moment of utmost insecurity and confusion and outrage and freakout to move to a discussion of a new security and development architecture, which, in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, must take into account the interests of every single country on the planet. If you don’t do that, it does not lead to peace. There are examples in history by which one can prove that.

So, I have issued this paper, and we will attach the link under this webcast, and I would urge people not only to read it, but, if you agree with it, endorse it with your name; circulate it as widely as you can among your friends and colleagues and social media networks and other such institutions—because we have to get the discussion on a strategic level beyond the level of narrow self-interest, which ends up in an array of contradictions for which no solution may be found. But if you redefine the whole discussion and say, let’s start from the top; the top is, where does mankind want to be 100 years from now? If we don’t resolve our conflicts until then, we will not exist. So, this is definitely something which should, minimally, stir up a discussion on how mankind should proceed to overcome the present, many contradictions.

Sare: There is a lot that we could look at, but one of the things you mentioned in your paper, is the question of what happened in 1989. I think it would be useful for you to review your thoughts on that matter, because you and your late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, actually called for the reunification of Germany in October 1988. Then, various forces—probably those that support NATO today—moved to imprison him and silence his voice. But a year later, the Berlin Wall was down, and a year after that Germany was reunified. Clearly that was a moment when a lot could have been changed; you have said you think this was a missed opportunity. Perhaps your clarification of that would help in this regard, too.

Zepp-LaRouche: We have documented this in various interviews, among others with Jack Matlock, who was the American ambassador to Moscow [1987-1991] in these fateful years. He testified that it was a golden opportunity that was missed. Already, years before the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was no longer regarded as a threat. When the [Berlin] Wall came down and the Soviet Union subsequently disintegrated in 1991, there was a moment when everything was possible. There was no longer any enemy; you had no obstacle to stop the creation of a new security and development architecture. People were talking about a new security architecture from Lisbon to Vladivostok; [Soviet President Mikhail] Gorbachev and many others were talking about a common European house. There was the promise by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, III to Gorbachev and [Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard] Shevardnadze that if they agreed to the peaceful unification of Germany, then NATO would not move one inch to the east.

‘Structures of Sin’ on Both Sides

There has been a huge effort to say this was not true, that the promise was never made—but that’s not true. In the meantime, literally hundreds of documents have been published, and anybody who wants to study the historic facts can go to the various presidential libraries, the National Archive, various other top libraries, and find the original documents. There are hundreds of such statements. Not only did Baker make that promise, but so did then-German Foreign Minister [Hans] Dietrich Genscher, and many others. That promise, not to move NATO one inch to the east, obviously was broken, because while Baker made that promise, the neocons were already planning how to use [to their advantage] the idea that the West had supposedly “won” the Cold War. But they did not win the Cold War. I remember very well that Pope John Paul II at that time warned against this kind of triumphalism by the West, saying there are “structures of sin” both in the East and in the West. The structures of sin in the East were paid for by the collapse of the Soviet Union—that’s my comment. But the structures of sin, according to the Pope, were existing and visible in the underdevelopment of the countries of the developing sector. He said, if you doubt that there are such structures of sin, look at the developing sector.

Sare: I want to interrupt for a second, because I think you and your husband also warned that the economic system of the West was going to collapse, so to all of this gleeful celebration that communism had failed, you said, well that may be true, that was a failed system. But don’t think that means the liberal free trade system also is a success.

Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t want to take the glamor from my late husband that he was the person who prophetically anticipated all of that, but that particular statement is one of my claims to fame. That’s exactly where we are now; we are sitting on the most huge bubble ever in history. It’s many times larger than in 2008. That’s why we are calling for a Global Glass-Steagall [separation of commercial and investment banking, as in Franklin Roosevelt’s U.S. Banking Act of 1933]. Some of the Chinese economists, like Justin Yifu Lin, a former chief economist of the IMF, have warned that China should prepare for the eventuality of the potential collapse of the AI bubble. With the present measures which are being considered, we could have a collapse triggered by foolishness, by indebtedness of firms, by inability to keep certain payment schedules.

For example, if forces in the EU succeed in stealing the Russian assets which are in Brussels and other European locations, to “finance” military aid to Ukraine, that act alone could trigger a meltdown of the entire system. I think Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever is acutely aware of this, and that’s why he is warning against doing it. I believe $117 billion or so are in Belgium, and he fears retaliation. But he said after the last discussion, that German Chancellor [Friedrich] Merz is willing to guarantee the fallout from such a move. Merz claims the entire EU will back Belgium, but that’s not true. So, Merz is actually gambling with German taxpayers’ money; it’s unbelievable what these people are doing in their despair.

China Bets on Physical Economy

In any case, to come back to your question, it was visible at the time of German unification, because it was clear that this money-makes-money system at the expense of the physical economy would not last forever. That’s where the big difference is with the Chinese system, which has been betting a lot on the physical economy, and is in a much stronger position. That’s also why they won the recent trade-war battle with President Trump.

We are in for very interesting times, but my point in proposing this new security and development architecture is that once you agree to solve these problems together, you can solve any problem. All these things are manmade; they are not natural catastrophes. Therefore, if there is a peaceful attitude, and you sit down and agree on certain principles, you can resolve these things. If you don’t do that, there is the danger of an anarchistic collapse which could bring havoc over the whole world.

Sare: I think this is very important, and I want to go back to the 1989 period, because many people who have not organized, underestimate the intensity of the battle around economic policy. Around the time of the reunification of Germany, you had put forward several proposals for a kind of West-to-East economic development which would have put us in a beautiful position today, had it been done. The leader of Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen, was assassinated at that time, and I really think it would be good if you would say something about it. I understand there is a movie or documentary in Germany about the assassination that’s been getting a lot of publicity and generating some discussion. But is it so important that these people would assassinate others in a position to make economic policy?

Zepp-LaRouche: This is a question which has not yet been answered, because the idea that it was the third generation of the Red Army Faction that killed Herrhausen is very dubious, and nobody believes it. Herrhausen was the head of Deutsche Bank, and he was a banker unlike bankers today. He thought of banking as a service to industry. For example, he proposed the cancellation of most of the developing sector debt, because he said it’s unpayable anyway, and as long as they are burdened with this debt, they cannot develop. That was a revolutionary proposal. He also proposed to develop Poland outside of the IMF framework, by using the methods of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which was used to create the German economic miracle in the postwar period. That also violated the standard of the international financial oligarchy, if you have a top banker proposing such things. So, when he was assassinated, this was an absolute paradigm shift.

Fletcher Prouty was a Pentagon official portrayed as Mr. X in the Oliver Stone movie [JFK] about John F. Kennedy. He gave EIR an interview at the time, saying the significance of the assassination of Herrhausen was as paradigmatic [for Germany] as the Kennedy assassination for the United States. I can only agree with this, because at that point it was the question of what would happen with German unification.

Herrhausen was killed two days after [Chancellor] Helmut Kohl had put out his 10-point program, which was the first baby-step toward sovereignty made by Germany. It was not even a unification proposal, it was a proposal for a federated Germany; but even that was too much. So, two days after Herrhausen was assassinated, there was a European summit. Kohl would later say these were the darkest hours of his life. Everybody came down on him, preventing him from having any kind of idea of what should happen with Germany. What was then imposed on Germany was the euro, as a way of controlling Germany to make sure that there would be no independent relations between Germany and Russia. As has been stated many times, German science and technology, and Russian raw materials and manpower, in terms of scientific manpower, together would be an unbeatable competitor for the United States.

Many experts in the meantime—George Friedman being one of them—have famously said that for more than 100 years it was the aim of the United States to prevent such cooperation between an independent sovereign Germany and Russia. So, the euro was designed to make sure that no such independent relationship would develop and that Germany would be firmly put in the austerity corset of the EU, which later was imposed with the debt brake.

A Tragic, Lost Opportunity

So, this was an absolutely tragic lost opportunity, because what we had proposed was to use the fact that the Iron Curtain had vanished and you could unite the industrial and population centers of Europe with those of Asia through development corridors—meaning that you could not only build transport lines, but have a unified approach for fast trains, highways, waterways, energy production, construction of communications centers—and in that way create the conditions for investment in the entire interior of the Asian continent which would be equal to those at the coastlines and riverbanks. That is what became what we called the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the New Silk Road, in 1991. This is what you can see China has been doing with the Belt and Road Initiative.

In a certain sense, on the one side it’s good, because these ideas did flourish. What is bad, is that Europe took such a negative attitude to it; because of the rejection of cooperation with this new system, Europe is right now in a downfall without bottom. While I’m not agreeing with every word of this new [U.S.] security doctrine, it has the formulation that if Europe does not change policy, it is threatened with “civilizational erasure,” which is pretty strong language. I think the paper refers to the influx of migrants as the cause of it, but it is more fundamental; it’s the wrong economic and cultural policy of Europe which is threatening such a potential civilizational erasure. This is a formulation I have used, but I attribute it to vastly different causes than this paper does. The end effect is the same. Europe has to change policy if we are to survive this present crisis.

Sare: That’s a topic that has been on your mind for a very long time. You’ve described wondering how a nation like Germany, which produced Beethoven, Bach, Schiller, these geniuses, could have succumbed to National Socialism. I think many people are reflecting on some pretty horrible shifts in their own nations. I think your emphasis on this question of culture is really very important today. As an American, I will say I share your pain in a sense, because you see the intention of our republic to be a bulwark against colonialism; to say every human being is born with equal potential and the purpose of government is to protect that. But then we seem to have a policy that is treating some people, to quote [George] Orwell’s Animal Farm, as “more equal” than others. So, some people are deemed better and acceptable, and others are deemed to be thrown on the scrapheap. We really have to get a shift.

I’ll ask you a question that allows you to develop this, because I think we should take some time on this positive vision that you have with your Ten Principles, and how you’re thinking about how this would work. I imagine it also involves agreements, as the Peace of Westphalia did, for debt forgiveness, perhaps returning to a fixed exchange rate and so on; but, fundamental principles. The question that came in earlier is, “There is a tendency among world leaders to find pragmatic solutions to solve a problem, which is a terrible tendency and will not change things for the better. I think we have to have a broad people-to-people-based discussion to find solutions which are based on a higher one, which will actually change things for the better and help to create a more perfect world.” That was a comment someone sent.

Please, go ahead on how we get to this new paradigm that you’re talking about.

Zepp-LaRouche: The key question is, is mankind as a species capable of giving ourselves an order which allows for our long-term survival in the universe? In my Ten Principles, I made seven programmatic points which are sort of obvious—like sovereignty, a new credit system, infrastructure, a health system, various other concrete programmatic points. But the most important are the last three points, which have a more philosophical nature. Unless you situate such an economic program in the context of a relationship to the universe which we are in, it’s sort of hanging in the air. That’s why I say we have to bring the political and economic into cohesion with the physical laws of the universe.

I think that’s eminently doable, because of the fact that human beings are capable of producing adequate ideas about the laws of the universe. This means mankind is able, again and again, to come up with new discoveries, new hypotheses which lead to scientific breakthroughs. If you translate these breakthroughs into technologies, you can use them in the production process. Each time you do that, if it is an adequate idea, it leads to an increase in the productivity of labor, productivity of the capacities, and consequently an increase in the living standard of the population, an increase in longevity, and so forth and so on.

Because an idea comes from the human mind, when somebody produces such an idea, it doesn’t have material conditions, it doesn’t have weight, it has no length—it’s immaterial. Nevertheless, if it’s an adequate idea, it can cause profound changes in the physical universe of the sort I just described. It improves the conditions of mankind to live. That is the proof that there is a correspondence between the lawfulness in the microcosm (the mind), and the macrocosm of the physical universe, the economy, etc.

That’s a very important principle, because it means that you are not just free-floating in the universe like accidental beings not connected to anything. We have a corresponding lawfulness which we have to somehow obey. For example, we are now very close to producing here on Earth plasma fusion processes—which normally are occurring in the Sun—in the form of fusion technology; we are very close to making that applicable as a fuel source. This would provide virtually limitless energy; to enable mankind to produce energy for tens of thousands of years. If we can replicate something which is taking place in the Sun in a fusion reactor on Earth, then you have the practical proof that such a correspondence exists.

Classical vs. Pop Culture

If we can do it in terms of physical processes, then we should adjust our economic practice and our social and cultural practices as well to these laws. I think that is a very exciting idea, which has also been celebrated in great art, which is why my late husband always made the point that there is no difference between the mental activity which leads to scientific discovery, and that which leads to artistic discovery. That’s why we have put so much emphasis on the need to have Classical culture, not pop culture. Classical culture tries to discover such principles, while pop culture just imitates rhythm, which monkeys can do when they hammer against their cage. So, there is a fundamental difference in that conception of art.

Then, naturally, I just want to briefly mention that the image of man which goes along with this, is an image of man in which we understand mankind to be principally good by nature, and all evil is the result of a lack of development. The good news is that if there is a lack of development, it can be overcome by development. If you apply that, and if you want to develop that capacity, there are no limits to the perfectibility of both the mind and the beauty of the character. I know most people scream when you say this, but I’m absolutely certain that the only worthwhile conception of man is one of the beautiful soul. It is potentially in every human being to become just that. This is my vision of the whole thing.

Sare: Well, that’s great! I would like to make a plug for the international youth conference coming up this Sunday. I hope that there are a lot of people watching this dialogue between us, who say, “I want to become a beautiful soul. I would like to take responsibility for the one humanity and leadership in my country.” That conference can be found on the Schiller Institute website. Perhaps you would like to give people some marching orders.

Let me just quickly add that we did have people yesterday up on Capitol Hill, discussing the need to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, and also nationalize the Federal Reserve. You cannot merely separate the banks and wipe out a lot of garbage without also having a national bank mechanism to direct credit into what is required. I do think that’s part of this NATO operation—to maintain the financial system. The fact that they are purchasing weapons that can’t even be produced for three years, makes me think there must be some kind of giant derivatives bubble associated with this as well. They are so desperate that the war between Ukraine and Russia can never end, etc. I know you have several initiatives, so why don’t you please go ahead and tell people what you want them to do, and any other thoughts, or something that I forgot to ask that you wanted to bring up.

Zepp-LaRouche: Three things come to mind: One is what you just raised. We have this idea of a Global Glass-Steagall, which would mean every nation should impose Glass-Steagall banking separation. There should be a national bank in every country, because that same requirement exists for each nation. Then you need a clearing house among those national banks which would emphatically establish a New Bretton Woods system with the idea of making financing of large infrastructure projects in the Global South an absolute priority.

As Lyndon LaRouche always emphasized, the key difference between a new Bretton Woods and the old Bretton Woods, is that the old Bretton Woods was established after Roosevelt, unfortunately, died at an inconvenient moment. After that, [U.S. President Harry] Truman and [British Prime Minister Winston] Churchill eliminated the most important idea of Franklin D. Roosevelt; namely to uplift conditions in the developing sector. That was not part of the Bretton Woods system as it turned out, although it was useful for the industrialized nations for as long as it lasted until 1971. But it did neglect the need to improve the living standards in the Global South. So, this would be a very important component, and if you have such a new security and development architecture discussion, that would be part of the agreement between the Western nations and the BRICS countries—to reorganize such a system.

Organize for the Future

Please take these principles; you can find them in a link which we will add below. Go to your elected officials wherever you are—congressmen, parliamentarians, various representatives, state legislators, mayors—and tell them they should study Glass-Steagall and the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, because the time may come quickly, in the near future, when we very well may have to enact these policies.

Secondly, take my proposal for a new security and development architecture and likewise approach professors, intellectuals, think tanks, various people, to say we need a discussion of how to get out of this present strategic mess by moving into a completely new paradigm of international relations based essentially on the UN Charter and the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Let’s organize our world in a way where we can all live together as one humanity. That is the second marching order.

And if you are a youth, you should definitely participate in our upcoming youth conference this next Sunday. Write to us and register to be part of it. We want to have a discussion about the role of the youth. In a certain sense, whatever we are saying is one thing; but the young people now in their teens and 20s and 30s have to either live or not. Can you imagine? Chancellor Merz this past Monday had a discussion on public TV with so-called citizens, and then a soldier, who said he has been a professional soldier for ten years, asked Merz a question. He said, “I have gotten used to the idea that I will only live to age 40, then I will die, because of the present world situation. Chancellor Merz, how would you convince young people that they also have to die soon?” He meant it completely seriously. He didn’t say, what the hell are you doing? He said, “No, I’m used to it, because I’m a soldier by profession.” Merz naturally takes that huge flank which is given to him and says, “No, I just want the army to be strong so that we never have to defend ourselves.” But the soldier comments and says yeah. It was awkward; can you imagine this?

Obviously, the youth have to take a different role. On the positive side, I can say that last Friday in Germany, there were about 50,000 pupils who took to the streets in 90 cities to demonstrate against the draft. It’s not that we are against the draft in general, which may be a patriotic thing you may want to do if it’s for defensive purposes. But under present circumstances, it would really be to get young people as cannon fodder for the planned war [with Russia], of which Prime Minister [Viktor] Orbán of Hungary says the EU has made the decision already to go for this war. Under these circumstances, naturally, the pupils need all support to oppose this and make sure this is never implemented.

Therefore, if you are a young person, register for this conference, and let’s have this discussion on how the youth can play a role to fight for a new paradigm for all of humanity next Sunday and beyond.