Schiller Institute Weekly Dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The BRICS Summit and the End of 500 Years of Colonialism

The following is an edited transcript of the Oct. 30, 2024, weekly Schiller Institute dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Embedded links and subheads have been added. The video is available here.

Harley Schlanger: Hello and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute. This is Wednesday, October 30, 2024. I’m Harley Schlanger and I’ll be your host today. You can send your questions and comments by email to questions@schillerinstitute.org.

Helga, last week was an extremely eventful week: Three of the most significant events were the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia; the Jose Vega and Diane Sare Peace Fund symposium/concert on Oct. 26 in New York City; and the Operation DAWN “Threat of Nuclear War in the World Today” Brunch the next day, hosted by Scott Ritter. At the two events in New York City, you were a participant and provided a clear alternative to the wars of the oligarchy, in which you spoke of replacing geopolitics with a new strategic and development architecture.

So, our first question is, can you elaborate on what you mean when you say we must reject geopolitics, and give your assessment of the BRICS summit? Did it represent positive motion toward overcoming geopolitics?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Well, yes. The Kazan meeting offers a new system of relations among nations, basically based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, namely, to respect the sovereignty of every country, of non-interference in the internal affairs, and accepting the different social systems. So, I think that the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence is the basis for the BRICS conference, and that is also naturally embedded in the UN Charter. And if the West would stick to the UN Charter, they would have no problem in associating themselves with it.

What stands in the way are the remnants of geopolitics, which come from the time of empire, especially the British Empire. It is notorious that they always like to manipulate states—allying with the weaker state against the stronger state, or presenting some kind of map which would give room for manipulation of borders and ethnic conflicts. And then naturally this idea of geopolitics was emphatically reiterated in the Wolfowitz Doctrine at the end of the Cold War, whereby the neocons basically said that there must be a unipolar world dominated by the United States, and that no group, no country, no nation or group of nations should ever be permitted to surpass the U.S. in terms of economic, political or military power.

Now, that is obviously what was, unfortunately, the basis of foreign policy in the immediate period after the Cold War, which led to color revolution, to regime change, to interventionist wars, by basically trying to keep that unipolar world, and make sure that no other government would oppose that.

Now, this is too short to go into all the policies which went along with it, but it led to an enormous blowback, because the idea that you can export the liberal model of democracy, what Francis Fukuyama called the End of History, which basically meant that you would export the neoliberal economic model, the liberal cultural model, export the Western conception of democracy and human rights into all of these countries around the globe—that led to a gigantic blowback.

And now, what we see since quite some time, is a realignment of nations that do not like to be changed. People say “we have our own culture, our tradition, and we want to stick to that.” This is why you now have a relatively loose association of states, which are not forming a bloc—and they are very emphatic that they are not competing with NATO or the EU in terms of bloc-building—but basically they say they are open for everybody to join, including NATO members.

So, this would be a perfect opportunity to say: Let’s just put this confrontation, that you always need an enemy and either a country is with you or against you—either friend or foe—let’s put the scheme of black and white aside, and just recognize that it’s a good thing that the world is made up of so many nations, and cultures, and traditions. And let’s find a Modus Operandi through common development that we can all live peacefully on this one planet, which happens to be the only one we have so far. You know, pending future space exploration—but this planet is the only one we have to live on, for the time being. So, let’s make peace and let’s have an order which allows that to occur.

Now, that was the overwhelming intention: At the Kazan BRICS meeting, there were already 22 members—I think 9 permanent members and 13 partner states, becoming members but being already accepted as members. And then a whole long line of countries that are hoping to become members in the future. So, already in Kazan, there were 4.7 billion people represented, and with it 57% of the world population. Now that’s clearly the Global Majority, already right there. And these countries are now proceeding to try to build a new economic system, which will overcome poverty and underdevelopment for all of them. And they, while not yet going fully the way to have a new reserve currency, because they want to be careful and not repeat the mistakes of the euro—but they are creating new institutions. They have already created the New Development Bank, which is supposed to become the great bank of the Global South. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested an investment platform for the BRICS, a grain platform for the BRICS.

So, things are moving very, very rapidly, and I think the West is still having a very difficult time—not everybody, because people who know about [the BRICS], ordinary people, so to speak, they are quite happy and welcome this development—but some of the establishments, they have a very hard time to recognize this new majority, that it’s organized, that it’s growing. Because if they would take a positive attitude, they would have to throw overboard all of their existing assumptions and axioms about the world, and obviously, they’re not intellectually flexible enough to do that.

So, they’re still refusing to relate in any positive way to this new BRICS combination. But there are more and more voices now that speak out, like, for example, Hungary, Slovakia, the new government in Georgia; but also, the grandson of Charles de Gaulle, Pierre de Gaulle, said that France should, under no circumstances, miss the opportunity to join the BRICS! There are forces saying things like that in Italy, in Germany: So, I think it is now a period of great transformation. And I can only say, people should really study this, and not condemn it, just because the mainstream media is having a negative attitude: I think it’s really a chance for humanity to avoid the disaster of going into nuclear war which would end all life on the planet—if we can join this new situation in time.

So, I think it’s a very optimistic and joyful event.

Schlanger: Helga, prior to the BRICS summit, there was an agreement reached between India and China, toward resolving their border dispute, which had been a longstanding issue. So, I have a question for you from a correspondent in Pakistan: “Given the role of the Anglo-Americans in provoking confrontation, do you think this agreement can succeed in achieving better relations between India and China? And what does this mean for Pakistan?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I’m pretty sure it will succeed, because it’s pretty clear that India was the most contested nation of the BRICS, from the standpoint that the so-called “democracies” wanted to pull India, as the supposed largest democracy in the world, into the camp of the democrats. There has been tremendous effort from the United States, from Great Britain, from Scholz—German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went there with four ministers on Oct. 25, immediately following the Kazan meeting, trying to pull India into the Western camp by offering military equipment to reduce the “dependency” on Russia, and all of that. So, they have not given up on trying to pull India in the other direction. And I think that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is— There are a lot of things one can say about his domestic policies, but I think on the strategic outlook, he wants to keep the independence of India, in the tradition of Indian policies going way back. So, I think that is an important thing. And I think for Chinese President Xi Jinping, it is also a very high priority. Remember that Xi Jinping went to India ten years ago [September 2014] or so, and he made a speech in New Delhi, which I read at the time in detail—and I was really impressed that Xi Jinping has an in-depth knowledge about Indian history—and he emphasized the important high points in Indian history and culture. So, I think from that side, there is a great openness as well, and what that means—so, I think they will stick to it. They know what is the opposite, they know who is trying to oppose it, and they are smart politicians.

What does it mean for Pakistan? Well, I know that it was probably due to India that Pakistan was not invited to the BRICS summit, if I’m not mistaken, and obviously there are still lots of tensions. But I’m still quite optimistic that the whole idea of the Belt and Road Initiative, or local connectivity, will grow across all of Asia, all of Eurasia. It will connect the Asian countries with the European countries through development corridors along the old Silk Road, along other corridors which are newly built. So, I’m quite optimistic that the CPEC corridor, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is one of the showcases of the whole Belt and Road Initiative, will be connected to all of these other projects. And that eventually, through joint economic development, these tensions will outgrow themselves.

Now, I think that will also have some important implications for the domestic policy in Pakistan, which I think also needs some improvement in terms of what is happening with [currently imprisoned former Prime Minster] Imran Khan. So, I think the overall perspective, I think the momentum is clearly on the side of the BRICS, and therefore, hopefully, the tensions between Pakistan and India can be eliminated in that context, in the common interests of all.

Culture’s Role in Defeating Geopolitics

Schlanger: Now, on Saturday, there was a conference—a symposium and a concert—sponsored by the independent candidacies of Diane Sare for U.S. Senate in New York, and Jose Vega for U.S. Congress in the Bronx [CD15, New York], titled “Build a Peace Chorus against the Ghouls of War.” We have a question from one of the participants, who said, “the musical presentations were especially moving,” but she asks, “I’m not sure I fully understand how culture can play a role in overcoming geopolitics.”

Zepp-LaRouche: That’s a good question!

You know, I think it’s important to understand that both from the humanist side—what I mean by humanist, since I know in English this word has a slightly different connotation, than when we use the word in Europe—what I mean by humanism is the Italian Renaissance, the German Classical period, people like Beethoven, Schiller, Humboldt: For them, the idea of music, and culture in general, but music in particular, has a direct effect on the emotions. And the reason why we, and they emphasize so much Classical music—of which the African-American Spirituals in the United States are so much a part—is because it speaks directly to the heart, to the mind, but through the heart, and it elevates people: It makes people think and feel more ennobled, more sophisticated, more elaborated; having more degrees of freedom in your development. And that’s very important in the development of the character and the mind. This is why, for example, many great scientists, including Albert Einstein, before they would start to work on a mathematical or a physical problem, would play the violin, or some other musical instrument, because it puts yourself in a creative mindset.

Now, if you look at what the opposite [idea] does, that’s the Roman Empire. You know, they used the circus, the gladiators, fighting each other or throwing Christians to the lions. In that tradition, the empires always used entertainment to lower the moral and intellectual level of people—because they think if people are made as bestial as possible, it’s easier to control them. Because if the people have unelevated emotions, you can get them to agree to kill the Christians or the gladiator, by putting their thumb down. If they want them to live, they put their thumb up—and that way, involving the people in a bestial mindset.

And if you look at some of the so-called popular music—and I know I’m stepping on many people’s toes when I say that—but if you look at some of the pop music from gothic to various forms of rap, where the bestial image of man is being put forward, or meaningless violence, or just the lowest part of the human character—you increase aggression. And you can actually get people, through specific rhythms—you can get them to become pretty aggressive. You see that in certain types of football, soccer games—anyway, you get the gist of what I mean.

So, if you want to elevate people, and say that we should not regard other nations as enemies, but we should relate to the best tradition of the other—well, then you would try to find the most beautiful folk songs, or the best Classical composition. Not all music has the kind of polyphonic composition of Western Classical music, but you can find, even in simple folk melodies, you can find incredible degrees of beauty—and you would relate to that.

Now, obviously, you would not end an ongoing war by playing a Classical concert, but you transform the people listening to the Classical music into a more noble mindset. And then they are also more receptive to more noble ideas. So, that’s why, I think it was a real breakthrough and a joy to use this mixture of political speeches, Classical music, choral music, soloists, to have that effect. And some people have never been exposed to Classical music, and they have a difficult time to relate to it, but I think only very few, hardened minds are not able to eventually get it.

Schlanger: The video of the event last Saturday is posted to the campaign websites of Jose Vega and Diane Sare Peace Fund. It’s about three hours, but I recommend watching it, sharing it—it was really quite an extraordinary event, with very well-known speakers such as Scott Ritter and Jimmy Dore, Garland Nixon, Col. [ret.] Lawrence Wilkerson, and, of course, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Now, on the question of elevating the human spirit and the question of brotherhood, there are several questions from people who are angry about the continuing, murderous attacks by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) against Gaza, and Lebanon and elsewhere. We have, for example, Jim writes: “What’s the point of trying to persuade psychopaths?” And he called for a massive armed invasion of peacekeepers to protect aid workers in Gaza.

Another one wrote that she’s losing hope, and asked, “Why won’t the Arab nations or Russia threaten to strike Israel?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think it is unspeakable, what is happening, and the latest development of Israel banning the Palestinian aid organization UNRWA is— If you just imagine what is going on: Now there are no more journalists, because they’ve all been killed or driven out; no more aid workers, no medical help, no doctors, and the few reports coming from Gaza are so unbelievable, what is happening there: Basically it is ethnic cleansing, and that mankind is not capable so far to deal with that is incredible.

But I think there is a lot in motion: The South African government just delivered new material, 5,000 pages of documentation to the UN International Court of Justice, asking for immediate action. And I can only say that the non-action of some governments will be a stain on them probably forever; and that there are still some governments sending weapons to Israel, despite everything that is going on. I can only hope that we can mobilize some alternative. I said it last time, even if it looks extremely unlikely, with the military strikes between Israel and Iran, the ongoing horror show in Lebanon, the genocide in Gaza, I can only hope that we can succeed to push the idea of a new international security and development architecture on the international arena; and then, have the Oasis Plan development for Southwest Asia as a part of that, and really try to change the dynamic.

On the one side, you really cannot rest for one minute, because of the situation. But I am a little bit hopeful: Because the changes are occurring extremely rapidly. The Ukraine situation is coming to a decisive point of change, hopefully for the better; the situation in the U.S. election—we will have a new U.S. President in six days, one would think, or in any case a change in the situation. And we have had the results of the Kazan BRICS summit. So, we have to keep mobilizing as much as we can, to put the solutions on the table, which is an economic development plan for the entire region—because if you don’t have an approach which helps every country involved, I don’t think a solution is going to be possible.

I know this is not what some people would like to hear, but if it would be an easy problem, it would have already been solved. And I can only say that the hope for economic development in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative is probably the only way how we will come to peace and end the massacre.

Schlanger: Okay, I have an addition to the event from last Saturday: You can link to it from the Sare for Senate campaign and also Vote Vega campaign websites.

On the cultural questions, a woman from Canada writes: “There’s not much culture in the West today. Unfortunately, all we hear and see is Hollywood entertainment. Thankfully, with the internet, we can now access real culture.”

Now, here’s a question that came in from several people: “What’s the state of Saudi Arabia? Is Saudi Arabia part of the BRICS, or not?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, not formally. I think they’re still sitting sort of on the fence. I can only imagine they’re being pressured a lot from Great Britain and the United States, not to join the BRICS. Given the history of Saudi Arabia, with Great Britain and the United States, I’m not totally sure what the internal dynamic of Saudi Arabia is. But as of now, I think they’re sitting on the fence, and one can only assume they will go with the tide, eventually.

Schlanger: Here’s a question from someone about the elections in Georgia on Sunday, Oct. 27. The Georgian Dream party, which is considered a pro-Moscow party, won the election, and immediately the European Union and NATO expressed their discontent. And this person is writing, “Do you think there will be an attempt at a ‘Maidan coup’ in Georgia, and if so, what would Putin do?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think it’s very, very interesting, because what becomes very clear is that, if a pro-NATO candidate wins anywhere, it’s a victory of democracy; and if the opponent wins, then it is vote fraud, and has to be opposed! I mean, it’s becoming so apparent! The Georgian Dream party had 56% [of the vote], the pro-European Union party had 39%, so it’s an overwhelming victory. But that did not prevent the President [Salome Zourabichvili], who is obviously pro-EU and pro-West— She is actually a student of Zbigniew Brzezinski! She studied at Columbia University, she was the French ambassador to Georgia at one point, she has French nationality. So, in my view, she’s one of these examples where certain pro-Western politicians have been put in positions in the former Soviet republics, and then they are very loud in demanding freedom to join the West, and so forth, but not actually representing the will of the people.

Now, remember that there was a war in Georgia in 2008, where Russia did intervene in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and this was a very dangerous moment for Georgia. It was the result of the effort to pull Georgia into NATO, which was promised at the Bucharest NATO summit in 2008. And a lot of the trouble for Ukraine was the result of that reckless promise that Ukraine could join NATO. And that then led to the Russian intervention into Georgia. That stopped it for Georgia for the time being. And obviously, Georgia is in a very difficult situation, because it has to be— They’re not anti-West. The Georgian Dream party is saying they want to be part of the European Union, part of the West, but they also want to have good relations with Russia. Now, isn’t that a reasonable position?

I mean, what do you think? Why is Mexico not joining the BRICS? Because they’re at the border of the United States. And there is a saying in Mexico: that they only have one problem—and that is geographical and historical. It’s obvious what that refers to!

So, Georgia is in a comparable situation. And is it not wiser to say they want to have a good relationship to both, like Slovakia, like Hungary? So, I think the whole idea of what the EU is doing, [European Commission President] Ursula von der Leyen, calling out this election, it’s just exactly the kind of geopolitical thinking I was talking about before, and it’s not good for the Georgian people. And sure, they’re trying a “Maidan” right now, there’s no question about it. Hopefully it can be calmed down, and I don’t think Putin would allow Georgia to go in the direction of what was attempted in Ukraine, because it’s a vital security interest of Russia, not to have offensive weapons systems at the border which can reach deep into the territory of Russia. That’s a red line: Would the United States accept Cuban or Chinese, or Russia offensive systems at the border of Canada/U.S. or Mexico/U.S.? Obviously not!

So, there should be an equal principle for all, and therefore I can only hope that the effort to repeat the Maidan [in Georgia] can be defused.

Options for Germany

Schlanger: And the Georgia border with Russia is almost 600 miles long. On the question of Mexico. The other saying about Mexico, is “Mexico is too far from God, and too close to the United States.”

Helga, I have a couple more questions for you, one from Germany. There are reports of growing tension within the governing coalition, that is, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Greens, as their votes have been collapsing in the last three state parliament elections. The question that comes in is, “What would you propose to replace the failed and unpopular Scholz coalition government?”

Zepp-LaRouche: The coalition is really not functioning. Obviously, they have managed to ruin Germany to a degree—yesterday there were two economic summits. One was called by Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD), with the CEOs of the auto industries; and then another one called by Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) with the middle-level industries and start-ups and the two summits had nothing to do with each other. So, it was like the Chancellor and the Finance Minister basically trying to pose themselves against each other for future election results. But obviously, they have two completely different concepts. Neither of them works: We have a huge crisis in Germany right now, where [automaker] VW has announced that they want to close down three factories, basically laying off tens of thousands of workers! And the region of Wolfsburg, where VW has its headquarters, and where there are a lot of VW plants and suppliers, is about to be completely shut down and ruined! This is a major national crisis, and there are now several spokesmen from the FDP, but also Lindner himself, who are basically saying that it could very well be that the coalition will not outlive this fall. And Lindner said this autumn is a fall of decision.

So, it could very well be that if they do not manage to get an agreement among the three coalition partners on the budget for 2025, I think the government will fall; and it could fall before Christmas.

Now, on the replacement, that’s not so easy, because unfortunately, the present chancellor candidate for the Christian Democracy (CDU/CSU), Friedrich Merz has profiled himself as being the most hawkish, pro-war person. He’s demanding that Germany deliver the Taurus missile to Ukraine—which, I don’t understand how you can, in your right mind, say this, when even a top-level Ukrainian commander just came out yesterday and said the whole front is collapsing, that there’s a lack of ammunition, there’s a lack of troops, they have no resupplies, the soldiers on the front are super-tired, because they have been fighting for years, and he admitted that it’s not functioning and [is] coming to an end. So, in this situation, anybody willing to call for escalation, is just saying, “Let’s butcher some more Ukrainians” in a war which has a geostrategic aim for NATO, but is obviously fought on the back of the Ukrainian population and is killing more people!

So therefore, the opposition in Germany, right now—at least the traditional opposition—is not creating any change, of any sort.

Now, concerning the other new parties, the [Alternative for Germany] AfD and Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW), they could gain a lot more votes in a new election. I’m pretty sure they would. And I think there is right now an extremely interesting battleground, in the states of Brandenburg, where the BSW has negotiated with the SPD some preparatory paper for entering negotiations for a coalition; they could find an agreement on the key demand of the Wagenknecht party, which in foreign policy demands no more weapons to Ukraine and no installation of U.S. medium-range missiles from 2026 on. And they found some agreement, which is still watered down, but it’s agreeable to both sides.

In the state of Thuringia, the local chairwoman of the BSW capitulated much more to the CDU, with a very wishy-washy statement, which prompted Wagenknecht to attack it very sharply. And there is now a huge brawl within the BSW, where most members say, we did not go into the fight to become like all the other parties, where it doesn’t matter what you say, because the policy is the same.

So that is very interesting, but all of that means an increase in the polarization in Germany, and if there are early elections, I’m pretty sure these opposition parties will gain a lot more votes. Because people are very scared about the world—it’s not just Ukraine and Southwest Asia. People really think that we’re in a terrible crisis, and they’re looking for people whom they can trust, and the previously governing parties have lost the confidence of the population to a very large degree already. So, It will be difficult, because forming a government when you have so many parties trying to do that is very difficult.

So, I can only say, what we will try to do: We will try to tell people, no matter what party you belong to, you should basically organize that Europe, Germany, and also other European nations are relating in a positive way to the BRICS, and that we should convince even the United States to do likewise: Because that is the only way I can see how we get out of this crisis.

Schlanger: And the final question is also about elections. By the time we speak again next week, the U.S. election will presumably be over. We have two comments. One is from Fred, who says: “The corruption of the present political parties shows that without free elections the will of the people will never be heard.” Having been in United States the last few weeks, and watching the ads on TV, it’s all negative, attack ads and so on. So, the question comes from a New York supporter: “Given the choices we have what do you recommend we should do?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Uhm—I don’t know! I mean, the impression one gets from the level of discussion, where candidates just attack each other, and as you say, negative to the hilt, makes it very difficult. I think the only thing I could wholeheartedly suggest is that you absolutely help in the remaining days, especially if you are from New York, to get as many votes [as possible] for Diane Sare and Jose Vega. And the rest, I don’t want to make any suggestions, whatsoever, because, maybe with Trump the Ukraine war would end early, but I’m not so optimistic what his Mideast policy would be, so I don’t really want to suggest anything in that respect.

I think we are in an epochal change: I have said many times. The period of 500 years of a world order where the so-called “West” dominated the colonial countries is coming to an end. I think there is no way how we will return to the kind of system which was based on colonialism and imperialism. And now the big question is, can we in the West get some kind of a renaissance by going back to our best values? And I think the only people who represent that, were the people gathered at the concert on Saturday, which I think was a formidable combination of people. I could not tell who else would have been able to pull that kind of a combination together, from Eisenhower Media Network, to the VIPS (the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity); to Diane Sare and Jose Vega, and the musicians, and so forth. And I think no matter what happens in the U.S. presidential elections, I think I would vote for someone who is antiwar—and whoever is not antiwar should not be voted for. I think that will not resolve the problem, because I think we will go into more transformation. I think we will not make the world safe, until we get to the new security and development architecture I’ve been talking about now for almost two-and-a-half years, almost three years. There are many countries, including what comes from Xi Jinping, what comes from Vladimir Putin, what comes from the BRICS— I mean, Putin’s offer for a Eurasian security architecture, and recent proposals by China for a Global Security architecture, have formulations coming very close to what we have been discussing. So, I think we have to think in those terms, and not be hung up on the election as such. The only thing I can endorse wholeheartedly is Diane Sare and Jose Vega.

Schlanger: Well, this is certainly an exciting period, and a fascinating period of time. I think one of the things Jose has said is pretty much parallel to what you’re saying: Jose said, “Vote for yourself. Make yourself a significant factor in shaping the election,” and I think that’s one of the best pieces of advice I’ve heard. So, Helga, thanks for joining us again today, and I assume we’ll have an International Peace Coalition call on Friday again.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, and obviously it will be important, because a lot is happening, in changes in Ukraine and Southwest Asia, so make sure you are on that call.

Schlanger: OK, so I’ll see you on Friday, then.

Zepp-LaRouche: On Friday—till then.