ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Trump-Kim Meeting
Revives ‘Singapore Spirit’

Demonstrates Potential of Presidential Initiatives

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm Webcast of July 1, 2019. A video of this webcast is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello! I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast with our founder and President, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s July 1, 2019. There’s been a lot of developments on the strategic side of things, Helga; why don’t we start with the Trump-Kim meeting in Panmunjom at the DMZ. What’s your assessment of this meeting?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think that is definitely going back to what I called the “Singapore Spirit,” referring to the first summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un, and I think this is, potentially, the real thing. Because, as we have observed, the summit in Hanoi was sabotaged essentially by, I think, Pompeo and Bolton.

But this time, I think the fact that in Osaka, on the sidelines of the G20 meetings, there were these meetings between Trump and Putin, Trump and Xi Jinping, Trump and Abe, which is in the background, also, and also with South Korean President Moon Jae-in—I think this is all back to the idea that policy is being made on the level of the presidents. There was a summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping, and they also had a dinner about which very little is being reported. but Trump’s spontaneous decision was that he would go to the DMZ, meet with Kim, which was sort of a surprise; he even went earlier than announced, and he stepped symbolically over this very important border [into North Korea].

Now, the interesting thing about it, is that it is very unusual, is that the North Korean media, all, instantly, very broadly reported about this, calling it a “historic meeting,” “bold,” and “efficient,” and that the two leaders will stay in close personal contact from now on. This is all really a sign that the chickenhawks in the Trump cabinet were outflanked, and policy is back to being made by Trump. I think especially for the viewers outside of the United States, who generally, at least in the West, only have an extremely negative picture of Trump from the media, it’s really important to see this difference: When President Trump has the freedom to act, he tends to do very important things, and I think this is very, very promising.

Unlike with the previous summit follow-up, this time it will not just be Pompeo who will do the follow-up, but there are supposed to be working groups, entire teams from the State Department and North Korea, and they’re supposed to follow this up.

Further Reactions to Trump-Kim Meeting

The Italian politician Michele Geraci made a very important characterization that I tend to agree with, where he said this event is probably the event of the year, and it may be the event of the first term of the Trump Presidency. So I think there is all reason to be really optimistic, because, with Russia and China in the background, and it seems to be that also South Korean President Moon was in the environment; he was on the video together at the press conference with these other two leaders, that all means that a potential for the solution for the North Korean denuclearization is shaping up on the horizon.

Only if there are security guarantees for North Korea, will the country denuclearize, and not fear that Kim Jong Un would face the same fate as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi—which is the main reason why North Korea insisted on its nuclear program. Now, with Russia and China in the picture, an entire Asian security architecture may be possible, which could then address the North Korea situation in a serious and fruitful way. And if that would come together, and all signs now point that way—with the Belt and Road Initiative being the economic dimension of this whole program—I think this is a very hopeful sign, and it would mean that one of the most dangerous crisis spots in the world strategic picture could be resolved.

So, I think this is very, very promising, and it really shows that on the level of the Presidents Xi Jinping, Putin, Trump, solutions can be found. And in this case, also, the Japanese government is in a supportive role. There are many Japanese and Chinese scholars who want to improve the relationship between China and Japan. South Korea has the greatest interest in seeing this problem resolved. So, I think this shows you the incredible potential of the New Silk Road to be the inspiration for peaceful solutions and a durable peace.

Schlanger: Helga, you mentioned the outflanking of the chickenhawks within the administration: It appears from the hysterical reaction of the Democrats that they were also caught off guard by this meeting.

Zepp-LaRouche: Oh, yes. The Democratic reaction. Absolutely, they just lost it. Tim Ryan, for example, compared the meeting between Trump and Kim with the meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1938. That shows you that they really have gone off the deep end, so to speak. I don’t see Kim Jong Un taking over all of Asia. But it just shows you that the Democrats are really the war party, and the only very good exception in this chorus of insanity, was in the first Democratic debate, where Democratic Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard spent the entire seven minutes she had to participate in the debate, in denouncing the danger of nuclear war, saying it’s closer than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

She denounced the endless regime-change wars, and she also attacked Trump for letting the conflict with Iran get as close as 10 minutes to war. So, Tulsi Gabbard, at least on the war issue, is a very good exception in the chorus of Democrats, and it’s quite good that the population has increased their support for her in the polls after this debate. That shows you that once you have leaders who speak to the issue of war and peace, the American people are not for war and that is a very important lesson in this Presidential campaign.

The G20 Summit

Schlanger: Let’s look briefly at the G20 summit, because it seemed to be a waste of time, although there were all the side meetings that were quite significant.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. The important fact is that the meeting between Trump and Putin did take place. Remember, that previous such summits there were last minute sabotage actions. This did not happen [this time]. The Trump-Xi Jinping meeting was also very important, and naturally, many other bilateral meetings. But essentially the most important meetings were those that involved Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, while the EU was completely irrelevant.

Now, as a criticism, I must say that the G20 should have addressed the danger of a coming financial crash, but they did not do that, probably having to do with the fact that the G20 is not a format that is capable of addressing this issue.

On the more positive side was a definite improvement in the relationship between the United States and China. Trump and Xi Jinping got the trade war at least stalled, so that there is room for new negotiations. The Huawei ban was lifted, at least for the time being, so that American products can be sold to Huawei, and also China agreed to import a large quantity of U.S. agricultural products, so that, hopefully, this can now get on a better track. I’m not giving a de-warning sign yet, but I think this was definitely a step in the right direction.

But I said that the big issue, the one that the G20 should have addressed, that is, the pending danger of a financial collapse, did not take place, and that shows you that our proposal, that you need a different combination—preferably the combination of Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, and Narendra Modi of India—to address these issues is a viable idea, because the G20 failed again to do what really is their responsibility to the world’s population.

Financial Crash Ahead

Schlanger: The Bank for International Settlements just issued a report saying that we are, as a result of overleveraged corporate debt, heading for a potential crash. What do you make of this report?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, that is not the only voice making such a warning. However, the BIS is the so-called “central bank of central banks,” which is, in essence, reporting that the corporate debt crisis and their engagement in derivatives is the equivalent of what the subprime mortgage crisis was in 2008.

Now, that obviously has been building up for a while, and now, all the data for the first and second quarter of this year show that the world economy, with very few exceptions, mainly countries that are working with the Belt and Road Initiative, but all the European countries, most of the Asian countries and the United States, exhibit signs of a recession or zero growth. All the figures are negative; so I think we are in for a very big crisis.

Our colleagues in the United States at EIR have just published a new study, “The Bitter Truth about the Economic Recovery,” referring to the supposed recovery in the United States. In that study, EIR has analyzed the different segments of the U.S. economy, everything from collapse of infrastructure, unemployment, homelessness, the drug epidemic, the falling life expectancy in the United States—and the U.K., one should add—so all these parameters of the physical economy show that there is no recovery. We have warned all the time that the increase in the price of shares on the stock market is rather an alarming sign, rather than an indicator of the real economy. For example, Deutsche Bank just announced, or is rumored to be having, major layoffs, and yet their stocks went up significantly.

So I think we are in an urgent situation, where the economic package designed by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche some years ago, the Four Laws—Glass-Steagall banking separation; a National Bank in every country; a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system, and the United States and Europe joining with the New Silk Road—is an urgent, urgent question. We need to have a mobilization: So, I’m asking you our viewers and listeners to help us. Contact us, because this crisis is coming on fast, and it would be almost a miracle if a crash doesn’t take place very soon this year.

The Positive Trump-Putin Meeting

Schlanger: One of the important developments was the meeting of Trump and Putin, coming as it did, especially after the danger that we saw over the weekend before last, over Iran. What’s your assessment of where things stand now between the United States and Russia?

Zepp-LaRouche: It’s not yet a situation where one could be satisfied, but, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, there were some inspections involving what they call the New START agreement—Russian and U.S. military talking with each other in this context, and Russian specialists doing investigations in Turkey and in Romania, according to the OSCE document. So, I think that there are clearly signs in the aftermath of the Putin-Trump meeting, that a normalization could occur.

There was also an agreement between Russia and NATO: They agreed on some non-escalation agreement, and that is not much, yet, but it means that for the time being that there will not be an increase of troops into the East on the borders of Russia, and no increase of equipment. So that is not yet a solution, but at least these are very tiny, baby steps that show some hope. And also President Trump accepted the invitation by President Putin to attend the 75th anniversary next year in Moscow, celebrating the end of World War II, which is a good sign.

And also French President Emmanuel Macron, seeing things not going so well for him, in general, accepted a similar invitation from Moscow, which is a good step in the right direction—unlike, unfortunately, I have to say, the new head of the CDU in Germany, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer (or AKK, as she is called) who made another one of her really mindless, Cold War speeches, defending the sanctions at a family-entrepreneur conference in Germany.

So the dividing line is really between those people who are trying, in this very dangerous strategic situation, to open new discussions, towards a rapprochement of Russia and China with the West; and those who are in the old paradigm and are backwards oriented. I think that that is an important difference.

The European Union Is Finished

Schlanger: Many Americans are wanting to know what actually is going on with the European Union. The EU seemed to play almost no role in Osaka, at the G20, and they couldn’t even elect a new leadership. Where is this headed?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the EU is essentially finished: This organization is a large bureaucracy, modeled on the principles of the British Empire, have completely moved away from the interest of their member-states, of the populations they’re supposed to represent, and I think it’s falling apart. I mean they couldn’t agree on the successor of Jean-Claude Juncker for European Commission President.

Manfred Weber, the candidate of Germany was completely rejected, and Macron made intrigues against him. Then, for the time being, the Dutch social democrat Frans Timmermans was mooted—he was opposed by the Visegrad Group [Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland] and Ireland, and I think Bulgaria. Naturally, then there is wheeling and dealing, that “we will give that post to this one, and then the other one gets this post”—this is all very much without any dignity, and that becomes visible to the public eye, so they had to break off the EU summit because they couldn’t find a solution as to a joint leadership. Now that, in my view, reflects the fact that there is no unity in the EU, and naturally, the EU policies overall are completely unfit for any of the crises that exist.

So it’s high time to replace the EU with something different, and again, I have to quote Michele Geraci, who also commented on the fact that the EU has completely become superfluous, and will vanish in a larger Eurasian kind of combination. And that actually makes a lot of sense, because you already have the integration of the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union, and if European countries would start to associate with that, in the context of the joint building of the New Silk Road, then all of these problems could be addressed.

And since I’m quoting Geraci, let me just mention one other important, interesting thing he said, namely, that the West has completely underestimated the rapid growth of China, and that China is now a leader, not only in 5G technology with Huawei, but also in e-cars, e-batteries, DNA mapping, and quantum technology. One could add fast train systems, fusion energy research, and Moon exploration.

So I think China is on a very good trajectory, and countries who really want to solve their problems should cooperate with China. Xi Jinping offered again, at the G20 in his speech, that the BRI is an open concept for international cooperation. And I think the countries of the West would be well-advised to take up his offer.

Italian Scientists Attack Climate Hoax

Schlanger: One exception to the dysfunction of the European Union seems to be Italy. A group of prominent Italian scientists, from the Italian Association of Research Scientists and Technologists (ASTRI), has issued a significant statement, attacking this climate hoax. What do you know about that, Helga?

Zepp-LaRouche: It’s very important. This is a group of extremely well-known and prestigious scientists who have made an appeal to the Italian President, the Italian government, and the parliament, not to adopt policies of reducing CO₂ emissions, with the argument that CO₂ is not a pollutant, that to the contrary, CO₂ is extremely important for life on the planet. And that in any case, all of these claims about control of the climate by reducing this CO₂ emissions is a complete hoax, that there is not one single fact for that, and that in science, facts cannot be replaced by the number of people who claim to have the same opinion. All of these predictions are based on computer simulation models and not on any true physical science.

So, I think this is very important. There were about 70 original signers, and then one signer, the very famous Prof. Antonino Zichichi, who was the leader for many decades of the famous Erice Center in Sicily. And I think this is something that deserves support by many people in other countries as well, so we are planning to publish this appeal. [See the Petition in this issue of EIR.] Actually, if people are interested to have an honest debate, they should sign this appeal, so that Reason is brought back into the debate.

They also note in this resolution, by the way, that the consensus among the scientists on this issue, does not exist at all, but that there is a growing number and a large number of scientists who absolutely oppose the findings of these models, and say it’s a complete illusion to think that you can control climate by CO₂ reduction. Climate change is obviously taking place, but it’s almost a fakery to claim that you can influence the climate by such measures, because it’s not anthropogenic, it has to do with quite different phenomena in our Milky Way, in the galaxy, on the Sun—all things that man cannot influence as such.

Now, talking about fakery, just to mention, that we will probably pick this up in the next program next week, a group of journalists has just documented that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) completely faked their report on the supposed chemical weapons attack on Douma, Syria in 2018, and that the initial OPCW report said it was a staged event! So this is all now coming out, and the role of the British in that fakery, as well. But that we will deal with more next week.

Celebrate July 4 and July 20!

Schlanger: We are coming up to the moment where the British Empire is increasingly exposed as not just corrupt, but is the continuing dominant force in the old paradigm. This week is the week of July Fourth, the founding of the American republic. How should people think about this situation, by reflecting both on what the American Founding Fathers did, and the upgrading of the American Revolutionary ideal by your husband, Lyndon LaRouche?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the July Fourth celebration is not just for barbecues: People should remember the proud history of the American War of Independence against the British Empire, the Declaration of Independence, and the principles declared there. The idea of Benjamin Franklin, of Alexander Hamilton, and the Founding Fathers in general, to declare a republic, to give the United States a Constitution devoted to the common good, not only of the present generation, but of posterity, is an extremely important inflection point in all of human history. And if the United States could go back to those ideas, and with the present policies of Trump, at least in the first steps, there is the hope that America can become a republic again.

I’ve said this many times: If the United States would remind itself of the ideals of its origins, and act on those principles, and abandon the role of junior partner of the British Empire, then America will have all the friends in the world. This move by United States, back to its principles, is the crucial step for world peace, not world war.

I hope that people on this Fourth of July reflect on that, and make a step in this direction—especially, because shortly after the Fourth of July will be the 50th anniversary celebration of the Apollo Moon landing. There will be many events, and the Schiller Institute will also have major events on July 20, especially focussing not on the last 50 years, but on the next 50 years, and what kind of economic crash programs are needed to make possible what President Trump had promised, when he said that by 2024 there will be again a man, and this time hopefully also a woman, on the Moon: But that requires to go into the kind of economic crash mobilization as it was defined by the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche. And it’s actually the absolute mandate to be implemented in the near future.

So, I think we have an incredibly—what Friedrich Schiller would call “a pregnant moment”—in history. I think a great catastrophe has been barely avoided with the situation with Iran. And now with talks again between the U.S. and China and Russia, there is actually hope, but that is just the first baby step. And we need the full New Paradigm, a new system of international relations, and especially a new economic system based on the physical principles developed by Lyndon LaRouche.

So therefore, I can only appeal to you, as I have done in the past: Help us with the exoneration campaign for my husband, sign the petition, and, please, take the time to watch the two videos: of the Memorial for Lyndon LaRouche and the Case of Lyndon LaRouche that describes exactly what was done against him and why, and why it is so absolutely crucial to exonerate him, to make the way free for his solutions.

So, please watch these two videos, help us to circulate them as widely as possible, and join the Schiller Institute.

Schlanger: Well, Helga, thank you for joining us, and we’ll see you maybe even later this week, as events are happening so rapidly.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, till soon.