Schiller Institute Weekly Dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Stop the Wars and Lies:
Build the Oasis Plan

The following is an edited transcript of the Jan. 29, 2024 weekly Schiller Institute dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and leader 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. She is the founder and leader of the Schiller Institute. Today is the 29th of January, 2025. I’m Harley Schlanger, and I’ll be your host.

Helga, the confirmation hearings for the three leading nominees of United States President Donald Trump begin today, with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee. Tomorrow, it will be Kash Patel, Trump’s choice to head the FBI; he’ll appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And Tulsi Gabbard, nominated to serve as the Director of National Intelligence, who will oversee the work of 18 intelligence agencies, will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Our first question has to do with this directly. The questioner says, “There’s a concerted effort underway to defeat these nominees. In the cases of Patel and Gabbard, it’s ironic because Dick Cheney and John Bolton are making common cause with Democratic Party neocons like Hillary Clinton to defeat them. Your organization is supporting Gabbard and Patel. Why do you see these appointments as so crucial, and why is the opposition to them so fierce?”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Because obviously, based on previous statements by these two people, one has some hope that they will go after what is generally called the Deep State. That is not such an unclear question; it goes back to when President Eisenhower left office, and he warned that the military-industrial complex could become a very serious problem for the United States. It obviously is related to the question of President Trump’s decision to release the files concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the cover-up of that assassination, as well as the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr., which pertains to the same apparatus. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who is being questioned today in the hearing, basically said that he is convinced that what will come out is the role of the CIA in those assassinations. I think this is opening up a Pandora’s Box. It’s opening up who was behind Russiagate, and I think Trump has an account to clear on that point.

We, naturally, are extremely familiar with that apparatus, because that is exactly the same apparatus which went after my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and our organization in the United States in particular, but also internationally. So, this is the opposite of what America was supposed to be as a republic; this is the apparatus which is really behind and is also an instrument of all the policies which went wrong in the recent period internationally, including the interventionist wars, regime-change, color revolution. It’s a real hornet’s nest or Pandora’s Box as I said.

There is some hope that Gabbard and Patel, who are not coming from that pedigree, will act on behalf of President Trump to start cleaning out this apparatus. Without that, there is no hope that the United States will ever be a republic again and get off this war policy, which the Biden administration was pursuing. So, I just hope that all of these people will be confirmed. Kennedy was grilled quite a bit on his health policy; maybe Kennedy could also be a voice in respect to this Deep State apparatus, where he has a vested interest, because it’s related to his family history.

So, one can only hope that these nominations go through.

End of the ‘Special Relationship’?

Schlanger: We have a question from a supporter from the United Kingdom, who writes: “The United States intelligence community works closely with the Five Eyes [UK, U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand] intelligence operations of the British Empire. U.S. and NATO policy often seems to be steered by MI6.” He uses as an example the charge of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s electoral interference [in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections] or [Western] support for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; and he refers to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s 100-year agreement with Ukraine. “If confirmed, do you think Gabbard might challenge the continuation of the special relationship? And with Trump rejecting the choice for British ambassador to the United States, do you think he might challenge the special relationship?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I think there are hopeful signs. It is the apparatus which is behind the present geopolitical confrontation. I mean, if one makes a chronology of where these policies come from, you can find many instances where it was the British instigating the U.S. in pushing more confrontation, like Starmer going to Washington, trying to convince Biden to allow Ukraine to use the ATACMS missiles against Russia, which Biden first refused with the argument that it might lead to a big war. Then he capitulated and did give permission. Likewise, you had then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who went to Kiev in March 2022, ruining the possibility of a peace settlement which had been negotiated between Putin and Zelensky in Istanbul. That way, you can actually say it was this interference which is responsible for the probably one million dead people in Ukraine.

So, it would be good to end the special relationship, which was the British revenge so to speak for the American War of Independence; to undo the American Revolution by convincing the American establishment to adopt the model of the British Empire as the basis for the unipolar world being run by the special relationship between the U.S. and Great Britain. This goes to the core of what has been going wrong in the recent decades.

I only hope that these people [Gabbard and Patel] have the stamina and the courage to pursue that. There was, a couple of years ago, a meeting of the Privy Council in Great Britain, saying that under all circumstances a second Trump administration had to be prevented. So, the stakes are very high, and one can only hope this all will be clarified.

Schlanger: I have a question for you from someone who identifies as a “West Coast techie.” He says, “The big news from this week is China’s roll-out of its artificial intelligence platform, DeepSeek. It was called a surprise and compared with Sputnik. Why should it be a surprise that China is making technological advances? Are U.S. tech companies and intelligence agencies that blind when it comes to China?”

Arrogance of the Collective West

Zepp-LaRouche: We have seen again and again the arrogance of the West in thinking that they are the good ones; that they are the superior ones; that the world should be ruled by a unipolar order. Behind a lot of the absolutely blatant policy mistakes, is this arrogance. I think this will crash against the wall. The same arrogance is reflected in Trump’s initial rather wild statement—that people should love America with awe, and admiration—that’s not the reality in the world.

The reality is that Trump has to do a lot to undo what the previous administrations did with the interventionist wars in the Middle East which caused millions of people to die; with enabling what Israel has been doing in Gaza—It’s a view very far from reality right now—also on many other points. What we see is a fatal self over-estimation on the side of the collective West, which you also see in the EU. They refuse to recognize that all of their policies have failed. The Green Deal has failed; the liberal model has failed.

It should have been obvious to anybody that China has bypassed the West in terms of scientific and technological progress; in terms of the number of patents they register every year. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, out of 44 scientific and technological areas, China is leading in 37 of them. So, it’s just completely normal that there would be a Sputnik effect in the area of artificial intelligence, and one can only hope that this is waking people up in the West. But I don’t think the West will be able to wake up quickly, because its arrogance has led to incredible mistakes. And unless those mistakes are analyzed, and the axioms and method of thinking behind them are corrected, I don’t think it will be remedied easily.

Schlanger: You mention arrogance and liberal policies; the next question is about Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democratic Union candidate for German Chancellor. The person writes, “I was shocked by how arrogant Merz appeared in his interview in Davos. He said he will win; he will work with French President Emmanuel Macron; he will be able to find a coalition partner; and he will continue the war. Is this really the person who will solve the problems for Germany?”

Zepp-LaRouche: No, and I can only hope that something can be done to prevent him from becoming the next Chancellor. This person is notorious; he was the supervisory board chairman of the German subsidiary of BlackRock. That means he is absolutely identical with the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, and the City of London—things that really are the problem of this present system. He is full of himself. He may have already made a speech in the Bundestag to propose a migrant law which is, basically, against the German Constitution; it is against the Geneva Convention; it’s even against the EU law, because it would practically eliminate the individual right for asylum. That is one of the basic human rights if you want to name any of them. He already said that he doesn’t care if the AfD (Alternative for Germany) is supporting this. That just means that the AfD is in on the inhuman policy concerning migrants as well.

Merz Is No German Patriot

But that seems to be the new shaping of the consensus, because in Davos, Merz also said, well, if Trump complains about a trade deficit between the United States and the EU, we will solve it by just buying more liquefied natural gas (LNG) and more weapons systems from the United States. This is not a German patriot speaking; this is somebody speaking on behalf of BlackRock. LNG from the United States is one of the contributing reasons the German economy is in a free-fall. This is absolutely against the German interest, and I can only hope that at least some of the industries are waking up to the fact that Merz is not their representative, but that he will continue the downfall of the German economy. So, hopefully there will be a political earthquake. And if Merz counts on Macron, well, good luck! Macron is absolutely finished in France; he’s hated. The French government is completely unstable and has no perspective of reaching stability.

But, there is a danger that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s liberal-conservative, anti-migrant policy seems to be the new agreement among all of these people, which would not be in contradiction to what Trump is saying. That is not in the interest of the members of the European Union, as you can see from the centrifugal tendencies coming from Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, and as a tendency in Georgia, Bulgaria, and Romania. Serbian Prime Minister Miloš Vučević just resigned because there was a Maidan-like coup going on against Serbia. So, things are very turbulent and very far from being stable.

But the worst thing about Merz is that he said there needs to be a mobilization of the liberal democracies against the not liberal autocracies, and that China and Russia are the opponents. With that attitude, Merz is really the opposite of what is needed in terms of resolving the strategic crisis by finding a new memorandum of understanding with the BRICS, with the Global Majority. If Merz would succeed in becoming Chancellor, we are in for a stormy future, because he would cut the social system and cause misery in Germany for the population—and that will not last for long either.

It’s not a good perspective I know, but the election is not over.

Schlanger: We have another question about Europe from someone who asks: “Why do European citizens tolerate comments such as the German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius saying Germany must become “war-ready,” or NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling for a war-time mindset? Have they forgotten the consequences of war?” He points out that this week is the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and yet the people who march in these demonstrations allow war mongers to continue in power. How is that the case in Europe?

Zepp-LaRouche: I can only say that there is an enormous effort to nudge the German population—which nudging was called a policy method by Obama’s ghoul, Cass Sunstein [Administrator of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs]—to nudge the population into believing that they should get more war-ready—as if the German history did not exist. It really is an amazing phenomenon, not unnoticed by the majority of the world public. For example, today there were some speeches in the German Bundestag about the 80 years’ liberation of Auschwitz. People were reporting horrifying accounts: how people were being murdered, defenseless and so forth. I was thinking for a minute, maybe they are describing what happened in Gaza, when naturally they didn’t mention that. That they would say these things without mentioning Gaza is really an amazing phenomenon.

It is hard to say if it is the majority or not, because the statistics in the mainstream media do not really give you an accurate picture, and I know, for example, that the people in East Germany absolutely don’t buy this narrative about NATO. But even the West German people—have they forgotten what Germany did in the Second World War to Russia? Given that history, I always thought and still think that Russia was extremely generous in the period of the German reunification by not presenting that historical record of Germany but allowing Germany to be unified and become part of NATO, having just the two provisions that NATO should not expand to the east, and that foreign troops would not be stationed on the territory of East Germany. Both of these are being violated in the most blatant form. I can only think that this whole situation in Germany is not going to be peaceful. It will come to a point where people, hopefully, recognize that the only way Germany can survive is by joining with the Global Majority and becoming a voice of peace. So, one can only hope that many people are hearing that, and support us, because that is what we are trying to do.

Has America Become an Empire?

Schlanger: I have another question here from someone who writes: “I watched your discussion with Colonel [ret.] Larry Wilkerson last week with great interest. The topic was the decline of the American Empire. Do you agree with him that America in the last 60 years has become an empire?”

Zepp-LaRouche: There is no doubt about it. If you look at the security doctrine of the United States, which was again publicly talked about by Rear Admiral Thomas Buchanan in a meeting at the CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] in November last year, he said that the United States has the right to use nuclear weapons preemptively if the hegemony of the United States is threatened. If that is not the statement of an empire, I don’t know what is. It’s not my interpretation; Buchanan gave the world the absolute proof, and that unfortunately has been the American security doctrine essentially for the entire postwar period. But in the recent period it has become more emphasized and more virulent.

I do agree with Colonel Wilkerson that if you look at world history, all empires vanished because they all had the same flaw. By becoming an empire, they eventually overstretched and with that, they lost the ability to keep control. I think what President Trump seems to be doing is, he seems to want maybe not a global empire—maybe not for the U.S. to be a global policeman like the previous administration—but he definitely wants to change the border. In his inaugural address, he said that the United States is experiencing once again a period where it’s growing. Then he proceeded to say that the U.S. should annex the Panama Canal, and annex Canada, and buy Greenland, and rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. All of these things may not amount to a full-fledged empire, but he for sure has the idea not of Make America Great Again, but Make America Greater Again. I don’t think that will go so well, either.

Schlanger: Helga, I have one more question for you. It’s someone who writes, “I have been very heartened to watch the events on Fridays of the International Peace Coalition that you have initiated. It seems as though there are some people who are patriots and good citizens. But how do we get more people involved in this? I try to get my friends interested, and they say they’ve had it with politics.”

In answering that question, why don’t you give us a sense of what the topic will be this Friday on the next Zoom call from the International Peace Coalition?

Zepp-LaRouche: You have to keep at it, and join us also: not only talking to your friends and colleagues and so forth, but helping us to do outreach; to contact other organizations. We are definitely heading toward the danger of a chaos in the whole world. Obviously, this will be a topic at the next Friday meeting, where we will review where the world stands after 10 or 12 days of the Trump administration, which has brought dramatic changes already. Then we will for sure take a look at what the situation is in the Middle East, where Trump has now reiterated his proposal to simply change the location of the Palestinians; move them out of Gaza into Egypt and Jordan, and maybe even Indonesia. Apparently, none of these governments have been asked beforehand; they definitely have rejected it. This was the whole issue: that Egypt did not want the Palestinians in the Sinai Desert for example, because they fear this could become a permanent source of destabilization for Egypt. So, I don’t see in any way the likelihood that this will happen, because the very identity of the Palestinians, as they insist, is tied to their right to have their own land.

Time for the Oasis Plan

So, that will definitely be a topic of discussion. And, naturally, we do not look at this just as commentators; we are pursuing very aggressively the idea that this is now the moment when the Oasis Plan has to be put on the table. You need to have a completely different approach. If the countries of the region would agree to put the Oasis Plan on the international agenda, that would mean creating more fresh water by building canals; by building a lot of nuclear plants for desalination of large amounts of water so you could irrigate the whole region. China has proven that they can irrigate vast territories. They have irrigated an area the size of Germany in the northeast, which previously was a desert. These methods must be deployed to the Middle East, and in that way you create a vision for the future of cooperation.

You need a two-state solution; otherwise, I don’t think it will happen. Then you need to go for a massive industrial development plan for everybody; for the Palestinians, but also for Lebanon, for Syria, for Yemen, Iraq. The whole region is in urgent need to be built up. I think, hopefully, President Trump will agree to that. He has said repeatedly that he believes in building, and the Oasis Plan would be a unique chance. If he agrees with let’s say President Putin of Russia, President Xi Jinping of China, with Saudi Arabia—there is a new rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran—if all countries of the region agree, you can completely change the parameters and get real peace.

So, that will be for sure one topic at the Friday meeting. We are presently mobilizing to get as many forces as possible to endorse the Oasis Plan; to make it work. That’s one of the topics for sure.

Schlanger: Helga, this is a quick question. Do you have any indication yet that there’s motion toward a meeting between Trump and Putin, or Trump and Xi Jinping? It’s been brought up, but is there any concrete mention of it yet?

Zepp-LaRouche: I’m pretty sure that it’s being prepared. These summits are not usually happening out of the blue, but there is always a process where the experts on the two sides are starting to discuss the topics, and when they have reached a certain amount of understanding, then the Presidents meet. I do have indications, not 100% confirmed, but I do have indications that such a process is underway from both Russia and China. Putin said today or yesterday that the Ukraine war could be ended in a few weeks. And in any case, the Ukraine situation is heading toward a point of decision; even the head of the Ukraine military intelligence, Kyrylo Budanov, said that either there is peace for Ukraine by the Summer, or the very existence of Ukraine is at stake. This is the first time that a leading Ukrainian official is saying such a thing. And given the fact that Trump has said that he will contribute to bringing the Ukraine crisis to an end, one can only hope that the proposals being made to Russia by Trump will take into account the absolutely essential security interests of Russia, without which an agreement is not possible. But it’s a very tense situation. The short answer to your question is, I’m fully confident that these things are underway.