Live Dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

World Mobilization for Ceasefire in Gaza
and LaRouche ‘Oasis Plan’ for Development and Peace

The full video of this webcast is available here. The following is an edited transcript of the live dialogue. Subheads and hyperlinks have been added.

Harley Schlanger: Hello and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. Today is Wednesday, February 14, 2024. I’m Harley Schlanger, and I’ll be your host. You can send your questions and comments to questions@schillerinstitute.org.

Helga, since we last spoke, two major developments have been shaping a global strategic debate, although that debate is being suppressed in the United States and Europe. They are the immediate threat of an Israeli aggression, an offensive into Rafah; and then secondly, the interview done by Tucker Carlson with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Situation in Gaza

Let’s begin with Gaza: As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is escalating on Rafah, The LaRouche Organization’s Jason Ross produced a documentary on the LaRouche solution to the three-quarter-century war between Israel and Palestine, centered on your late husband’s brilliant work on the Oasis Plan. Lyndon LaRouche’s idea transcends Realpolitik and geopolitics, showing that true lasting peace requires acting on profound philosophical principles, such as those you identified in your important memo on the Ten Principles. As we just recognized Lyn’s legacy on the fifth anniversary of his passing Feb. 12, 2019, I think it would be very helpful to building a real peace movement, to hear from you, your thoughts on the LaRouche solution.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The situation in Gaza, especially in Rafah, reaches a point of absolutely unbelievable dimension and potential human catastrophe: The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] has already started some military actions in Rafah, leading to a large number of people being killed, but the [danger] that there will be a real massive intervention is hanging like a Damocles sword over the world’s fate. Therefore it is extremely important that the South African government, just yesterday, made another intervention requesting urgent action by the International Court of Justice to act on the basis of Article 75(1), which provides additional measures to intervene.

Now, next week, on Feb. 19-26, there will be a review, in any case, about the demands from the International Court of Justice, as to what Israel and other nations have done to prevent genocide. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened: There was no prevention, but as a matter of fact, an escalation. So let’s see what happens now, because as far as I know, if the International Court of Justice makes a ruling based on this more recent request by the South African government, the ball goes back to the UN Security Council and they have to do something, and if that doesn’t work, it goes to the UN General Assembly

This is an unbelievable situation and that’s why the best thing we could do, and we can do, other than mobilizing people and asking for an immediate ceasefire, and making people aware of the need, because the mainstream media in Germany, and the majority of politicians, they’re just absolutely—they pretend that nothing of this has happened, they are still talking about the “right of Israel to defend itself,” leaving out completely the provisional ruling of the International Court of Justice, and the horrendous situation in Gaza, where more than 30,000 Palestinians have been killed, and many more wounded, and under the rubble, and who knows what else.

You can say that Israel has a right to defend itself, but this is completely disproportionate. It has gone way, way beyond the right of a nation to defend itself. But the politicians and the mainstream media ignore that! People who only listen to the TV and read newspapers, never find out what is happening! I mean, that’s the really shocking thing about it.

But that is not going to last, because the courageous action of the South African government, which is watched by the global majority of the world population, is the driver right now. So, the best we could do under the circumstances was to reactivate the proposal of Lyndon LaRouche, which he made already in 1975, namely that the only way how you can bring peace to the Southwest Asian region is by having massive economic development. Given the fact that this is a desert area, it all has to start with massive amounts of new, freshwater, which requires building canals from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea and to the Red Sea, and then using desalination for these saltwaters, and then development of agriculture, infrastructure and industry, to make the whole region one of blooming gardens of agriculture, forestry, and therefore create conditions for massive improvement for all of the people in the region.

I really urge all of you who are concerned, to help us to distribute this Oasis Plan video. It’s a 14-minute video, and it’s already being dubbed into many languages: into German, Spanish, Italian, French, Swedish and many other languages. Help us to distribute it. Because I think if we flood the zone, so to speak, where everybody who is concerned, in all the neighboring countries in Southwest Asia, if they all would know that this is the way how to bridge the situation, and create a real order of peace; based on the idea—and this is not a new idea. Already in 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical, Populorum Progressio, in which he says, “The new name for peace is development.” It is the idea that no durable peace is possible, unless there is economic development which makes the living conditions for everybody so much better that they have an incentive to stop hostilities and move to an era of cooperation.

So please, take a look at this video, which is very well done. It gives you a real vision of what this region could look like in a very short period of time, if some donor countries would jump in, and say, “We need a comprehensive development plan for all of Southwest Asia.” That is the only hope I can see, to stop this situation from growing into a larger regional conflict, which could even go into a global nuclear war. So, there is every reason to intervene and to help us to spread this video as far as you can; get it to your parliamentarian, congressman, city council member, mayor. Let’s create a real movement for development based on the idea that the “new name for peace is development.”

Actions for Peace

Schlanger: A supporter from Sweden wrote of his support for the new South African initiative, and how important it is. But then he also points out that you’ve said the U.S. could prevent further killing, if only President Biden would cut the funds to Israel and demand a ceasefire. He asks, “What will it take to make that happen?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I think it does require a lot more action of what is going on massively in the United States already. Several peace organizations are demanding exactly that. The most recent example is the official request by the Veterans For Peace, to the Inspector-General of the U.S. State Department, that he should investigate the illegality of the weapons shipments to Israel, basically using the argumentation of The Hague Court, that to ship weapons into a situation which is stated by the Court as plausible genocide, obviously is completely illegal.

Given the fact that the United States has not only a large Jewish population, but also a large Arab and Islamic population, if many organizations would pick up supporting the initiative of the Veterans For Peace, and, naturally, also support the Oasis Plan, it could create an environment where Biden, who has to be concerned about what is the impact of all of this on the election campaign, may be induced to stop.

Schlanger: Speaking more on the Gaza situation, we have from Svetlana: “How would it be possible to eliminate interventions of London and Washington, which in the last decades have literally killed all hope of development in the entire Middle East area? How could that be done?”

Zepp-LaRouche: The more people are discussing it, the better. I just saw that Jeffrey Sachs has made a new list, demanding the creation of a new “Church Committee,” on the 50th anniversary of the Church Committee in 1975, which investigated the illegal activities of the CIA. These kinds of things, because there must be a remedy to the lawlessness into which we are plunging.

The more people are also causing a public debate, which has become almost dangerous to have in the present West—but to have a debate, that all of the policies of the neoliberal establishment of the trans-Atlantic region have utterly failed and have had a tremendous blowback! There must be a debate about that.

For example: Did the interventionist wars in the Middle East achieve anything? Did they increase the influence of the United States or the British? No, they caused millions of people to die, but the influence of the United States in Southwest Asia—and the British, for that matter—has dramatically decreased. So, it was not in the interest of the United States to do this.

Similarly, did the sanctions regime against Russia accomplish what it was set out to do? Did it “ruin Russia” as [Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Annalena] Baerbock was always demanding? No, it did not—it’s ruining Germany, and that in a massive way. But the Russian economy is the strongest economy in Europe right now, so that did not work, either. Did the weaponization of the dollar accomplish what it was supposed to do, namely, to contribute to the ruination of Russia? No. It led to de-dollarization, with many countries now trading in their own national currency.

The Establishment so far has shown no sign of being able to reflect on the failure of its own policies. I think that is one thing.

The other thing, which I think is equally, or maybe even more important, is to discuss the alternative. Discuss the options, that it would be so easy—and I really mean, very easy—to remedy the situation if we could get the Western countries to cooperate with the countries of the global majority. There is a tectonic shift going on. It’s irreversible. It’s just that some of the Western Establishments have been completely ignorant and indifferent, because they think they’re so beautiful and so good, and nothing could ever happen to their arrogance.

But the reality is that the world has moved already in a completely different direction: You have the BRICS, you have the BRICS-Plus. Twenty-two countries of the Global South have applied to become BRICS members; 40 more have expressed an interest in doing so. So, there is already a trend, where the global majority is moving in the direction of creating a new economic system. The only way I can see avoiding a catastrophe, is by getting the European countries and even the United States to stop the geopolitical confrontation and say, “we have to cooperate.”

Discuss that, and discuss the new security and development architecture, which we have been working for, now for almost two years, and spread that idea. Take those Ten Principles that I suggested as a basis for the discussion, and get a discussion, among journalists, among think tanks, among university [students and faculty]. Because I think we are really challenged: Are we the creative species which can avoid its own self-destruction, or are we condemned to be like lemmings, going to the cliff and jumping over? I don’t think so. But it does require a lot of people really taking the courage to engage in the debate and work with the Schiller Institute. There is a lot we can do.

U.S. Policy Toward Israel

Schlanger: Helga, I have one more question for you on the Biden policy toward Israel. We’ve gotten a lot of questions specifically on this. Charles writes: “It seems obvious that Joe Biden is attempting to win an Oscar award by pretending to have issues with Netanyahu over the aggression against Palestinians in Gaza. But this seems to be an attempt to buy time, as [former German Chancellor] Angela Merkel did with the Minsk Accords. Does he think this will allow the flames of opposition to burn out?”

Zepp-LaRouche: If that is what he thinks, it’s for sure mistaken. In Gaza, and in Rafah in particular, these people have no place to go! When Baerbock belatedly goes again to Israel, to now say, “Oh, there must be a secure corridor”—well, corridor to where? There is nothing left! Egypt has refused to allow the Palestinians to be driven into the Sinai, because they don’t want to have another time-bomb ticking. They have even threatened that they will cancel the peace treaty with Israel, if there is an attempt to push Palestinians into the Sinai. So, there is no place these people can go.

They’re sitting there. I don’t even want to imagine: How afraid and how desperate almost 1.5 million people are, who are starving to death. Authors like Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and before him, Jean Ziegler, who was the first UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, have described in detail how people die of hunger. It’s the worst kind of death, because the organs start to consume themselves and all the functions disappear, one after the other. It’s just an absolute catastrophe. But that catastrophe is what Palestinians are suffering in Rafah right now.

There is no way you can undo that! The only thing you can do to remedy it would be to go with the Oasis Plan immediately: Have a comprehensive Middle East peace conference, go for the two-state solution, and then have economic development. And if all the neighbors, and other countries from the so-called Global North agree, you could really start to improve the situation very, very quickly. But it does require a massive mobilization of a lot of people, including you.

‘Are Germans That Stupid?’

Schlanger: Let’s shift direction now to look at the situation in Europe, and in Germany, in particular. I’ve gotten several emails expressing anger at the discussion coming from German government officials about needing another €100 billion or €300 billion in the defense budget, in order to “deter Putin.” One of these emails said, “These officials must not have heard Putin’s answer to Tucker Carlson’s question on Poland: “Why would we invade Poland?”

Another person asks: “Who’s the target audience being addressed by the neocons at the upcoming Munich Security Conference [Feb. 16-18], which will be pushing this same military buildup line?”

And then, one more, direct question: “Are Germans really that stupid?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, unfortunately, I can only say that the contemporary Germans seem to have lost the ability of previous generations, which after all produced a lot of thinkers, poets, inventors, philosophers—Germany was once called the people of thinkers, and philosophers, and poets. There’s almost nothing to be found here left of that. I think at least a good portion of the population have somehow lost their minds. I cannot say it in any other way. Naturally, that’s not everybody, because at the same time is taking place mass demonstrations of the farmers, of truckers, of bakers, craftsmen, all of whom are fighting for their existence.

But I think right now a psychosis has broken out in Germany, which is absolutely incredible. For example, there is now this new gimmick—and I can only call it a very dangerous gimmick—which is the idea to call for nuclear weapons in Europe, maybe even in Germany, after former President [Donald] Trump made a remark, I think last Saturday, Feb. 10, saying that if he were President, and a NATO country did not pay its full share of 2% [of its GDP] to NATO, then he would not only not come to the defense of that country, but would encourage Putin to do whatever he likes, or some formulation like that.

This has caused a complete outcry, and now several people, among them the leading candidate of the Social Democrats for the EU Parliament Katarina Barley, are calling for nuclear weapons to be built and established in Europe.

Even the high representative of the military-industrial complex in Germany, FDP Bundestag Deputy, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, is saying this doesn’t make any sense. She apparently has a little bit of knowledge about the field, contrary to Ms. Barley, and says this will take a long time, because you cannot just put some nuclear weapons along the border. You need to develop the industry, the skills; this takes training, and 10 years or so. And then some people—I don’t want to mention their names, because it’s so ridiculous—are asking, “Who should then control the nuclear button?” Maybe we should have a suitcase that travels from one capital to the next, so there’s a rotation of responsibility for who pushes the button!

People who are talking about this topic, in such a frivolous way, should go to a psychiatrist and have themselves seriously diagnosed whether they have a problem. We are already sitting on the verge of World War III. We have two crises: Ukraine and Southwest Asia, either of which could go really wrong at any moment! Anybody who, under these circumstances, tries to push Germany into arming Europe with nuclear weapons, first of all, has forgotten history: Do you really want Germans to have nuclear weapons?

I think the whole world had better make its voice heard. While Germany has behaved relatively OK in the last several decades—the very idea that Germany, with the guilt we definitely have as a historical burden, with what happened in the Second World War in particular—I think the neighbors of Germany, and all of Europe would go into an uproar about this idea. And I would not even blame them for doing so.

Secondly, Germany has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that’s a good thing! Nuclear weapons should be banned altogether! Abandoning nuclear disarmament, which was a serious matter when it happened, is crazy! Nuclear weapons, which could lead to the annihilation of the human species, should be banned. More than 50 countries have signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, outlawing nuclear weapons for a very good reason.

Because if nuclear weapons would ever be used on any scale—and you don’t have to use all of them. I think if you use 10% of them, you will have a nuclear winter for 10 years, and that would be the end of all human life. Those who are pushing this, in this situation, have no diplomatic proposal, no vision to end the war. They are only talking about “more weapons, more weapons.” Why? Because the military-industrial complex has the profit. It should be noted that both [Germany’s Chancellor Olaf] Scholz and [Greens Economy Minister Robert] Habeck just now came out and said that they want to make the German military-industrial complex competitive in the world!

These are really wrong ideas, and we should absolutely oppose them and say what we need is not a new militarization, but a diplomatic solution to all the problems. In the age of nuclear weapons, war is not an option. That should be clear to everybody. The need to have a lot of people speaking out on that is also very clear.

Schlanger: Helga, we have an answer from Harry Smith to what you raised earlier: “The Uniting for Peace Resolution [adopted 1950] by the UN General Assembly does allow by a simple majority vote, the legal authority and duty to use military intervention to stop crimes against humanity, if the Security Council fails its duty.” So, I think he’s confirming that you were right in saying that it would go to the UN General Assembly.

The ‘Peace of Westphalia’ Approach

You mentioned the Trump statement on NATO. We have a question on this from an American blogger who asks: What do you think about former President Trump’s comments on NATO, that if NATO countries don’t spend more to defend themselves, don’t count on U.S. support if you’re attacked. The blogger writes: “While I agree with his contempt for NATO, I was disappointed. He said nothing in the statement about NATO’s provocations against Russia.”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I don’t think the statement is very helpful, because you saw what it triggered in terms of really insane responses. The problem is that there are now people talking about the need to have a new European security architecture, to include Russia and Ukraine. I think this is a good first step in the right direction, but I don’t think it’s enough, because the conflict is not a European one. The conflict is a global one. You have a Global NATO. You have the rise of China which some regard as the absolute threat to their position in the world. And if we do not get out of this geopolitical thinking, I think World War III will be inevitable in the not too far distant future.

The Europeans—even Germany—are now thinking about sending a fleet convoy, a group of ships, to the Pacific, obviously with the aim of facing off [against] China. That is absolutely going in the wrong direction, and that’s why I’m thoroughly convinced that we have to get a discussion [going] for how we get out of this dilemma. As reasonable people, as representatives of the only species gifted with reason, known [by us] in the entire universe so far, should we not be able to overcome something which is threatening our own extinction?

I think the way to look at it is by using the Peace of Westphalia as a model. At that time, 150 years of religious warfare were brought to an end, because all the participants realized that they would cause their own extinction, if they continued the war, and there would be absolutely nobody left to enjoy the victory. That is a motivation which should cause us to get to the negotiation table. Why not have an exploratory commission, or representatives of the different countries—maybe retired diplomats, maybe people who have a sense of the importance of this issue—and start to discuss how to actually remedy the situation.

The Peace of Westphalia, [concluded in 1648] in Münster, [Germany,] took four years to settle all territorial and other questions. Maybe it will take a while before settling all the detailed questions, and so forth. But if the overall intention is to establish a higher level of reason, of common development, [it can be done].

LaRouche’s World Land-Bridge and Oasis Plan

In 2014, we wrote this proposal, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” a detailed proposal for how to develop all the continents through infrastructure, how to connect them all through tunnels and bridges, and how to use the idea of joint economic development of the entire world as the basis for peace. If we start with that intention, that we want to come up with a solution that is in the benefit of all, without exception, then we can start to discuss the specifics—the security interests of this country and that one—and we will come up with a comprehensive plan. I’m absolutely certain that this can be done, but it does require some courageous people to step forward, like retired diplomats who have the experience in conducting such discussions. Then, I think we can find a solution.

So please look at the Oasis Plan as a part, as an integral part of this World Land-Bridge proposal, and then you have the way for how to think about it.

Schlanger: People should also download your Ten Principles, which is an example of how this works as a real principle of statecraft. It’s available on the Schiller Institute website.

I have one final question for you from Jeremiah, who asks: “Can’t we just expose the warmongers as supporters of colonialism? Whatever happened to the American commitment to promote the General Welfare?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you answered your question yourself: We should expose them. There are some in the United States from Pax Christi and other organizations, who are already making actions, peaceful direct civil actions, nonviolent actions, against the “merchants of death,” the military-industrial complex; the farmers are demonstrating against the cartels. And if you look at the financial structures, you find that the military-industrial complex, the financial institutions that control Wall Street and the City of London, and the cartels, are all the same thing!

What the former colonial countries are trying to get rid of, for good, namely the structures which have prevented them from becoming developed, which is in large part, the international financial institutions, the cartels, and the military-industrial complex—they are the same phenomenon. They are not nations; there are oligarchical structures which only allow the profit maximization of a few, while making the large, large majority of the world poorer and poorer and poorer. That is the structure we have to change.

Schlanger: Helga, we’ve gone through most of the questions I have. There are a few which are much longer. Maybe we can answer them via email

I want to thank you for joining us today, and for your clarity and spirit in taking this on. We’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, and get active with us, in the meantime.