Feb. 21—The 90th consecutive weekly online meeting of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) was opened by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute, who provided an overview in which she surveyed the European responses—from the benighted London Economist to others—to three major developments: the phone call of United States President Donald Trump with Russian President Vladimir Putin; the meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Riyadh; and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance’s comments at the Munich Security Conference. Reactions have ranged from chronic “Trump Derangement Syndrome” all the way to “everything is completely rosy and Trump will fix it.” In the case of Vance’s comments, people are “freaking out in all directions.” In Zepp-LaRouche’s view, these events signify a strategic realignment and a “centrifugal tendency” in the European Union (EU), which is causing a panic-stricken French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to travel to Washington to manage the crisis and, in Starmer’s case, to try to salvage the endangered “Special Relationship” between the UK and the U.S. If NATO were to be dissolved and replaced with a “real security and development architecture,” that would be a step forward.

The Egyptian counter-plan to Trump’s “Riviera plan” for Gaza is reconstruction in three years and no displacement of Palestinians. This plan falls short of what is needed. We must continue to promote the Oasis Plan and encourage Arab nations to endorse it. Some people think that you must first have the two-state solution, but they don’t understand that this is part of a global organizing process, to change the paradigm for good: “The One Humanity must be first.” The Chinese have shown how to conquer the desert. There are reasons to be optimistic, she concluded.

Graham Fuller, a former U.S. diplomat, CIA official, and Islamic scholar, agreed with the Economist that this is an extraordinary geopolitical development, maybe greater than the fall of the Berlin Wall—an important missed opportunity. Europe’s leaders are almost incapable, it seems, of living without the psychological, ideological and economic backing of the United States. Currently, European leadership is weak across the board, except for Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary. “The Western mindset has constantly been one of a zero-sum game,” Fuller said, whereas the Chinese “win-win” concept is real and represents what is needed for the new paradigm.

Fuller recommended that we look to the Iranian issue, where there is immediate room for some work. We have heard hints from the Trump administration that openings are possible. Iran would be particularly open to the Oasis Plan—which Fuller characterized as a “brilliant plan” launched decades ago by Lyndon LaRouche—but fear and loathing of Iran have been an essential part of the American vision for the Middle East.

Toward a Non-Ideological Approach to International Relations

Fuller observed that diplomacy has suffered under the straitjacket of ideological categories. For example, the idea that there is an intractable antipathy between Shia and Sunni Muslims is nonsense. (IPC co-moderator Anastasia Battle later reported that there have recently been joint Sunni-Shia peace initiatives in Michigan, and Fuller was pleased to hear this.) The idea that the Saudis will block the participation of Iran “seems to be passé.” We should start with Iran, Russia and the United States, and this will open the door to other countries that are sympathetic to this sort of regional rapprochement.

Michele Geraci, former Italian Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Economic Development, further addressed this theme. He was in Munich last week where he spoke with participants at the Munich Security Conference, and observed that the reaction to J.D. Vance’s address was driven by ideology and partisanship; people were prepared to condemn or approve before hearing the speech. We need an open-minded, non-ideological analysis. The fact that Europeans announced new sanctions against Russia after Putin and Trump spoke shows that they need to catch up with reality. Geraci announced that he is “pro-Europe, and therefore anti-EU”: “Maybe the slap on the face that Vance gave to [EU Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen could be good.”

Sam Pitroda, an Indian-American innovator, entrepreneur and policy maker, said that the world is at a crossroads: this is the end of the colonial era, and this is a “transactional opportunity.” The rise of China as a major power is waking people up to the importance of the developing sector. The institutions created after World War II are, basically, obsolete; the world is connected now. “The focus has to be on macro-issues.”

Zepp-LaRouche endorsed this conclusion, noting that “with the help of airplanes, we can have pandemics traveling around the globe in one day.” She emphasized that discovering new principles and technologies is the key to solving problems, and that if used correctly, robots and artificial intelligence can help free people to move to life-long learning. She commented that the EU leaders “remind me of little puppies” running after their master.

IPC co-moderator Dennis Speed asked Fuller to develop further his comments on Iran. Fuller answered, “I fear that zero-sum thinking will not die easily.” He said that the Chinese have been wise to avoid the use of ideological arguments in international relations.

Pitroda urged that Western leaders should let go of the “command and control” model, “this fixation that ‘we have to be in control.’ ” Every attempt by the U.S. to impose its will on another country has had bad consequences.

The Migration Crisis

Fuller stated that we need serious investment into the Global South to create development so that people will stay in their own countries, in order to solve the migrant problem. Geraci added that the population in Africa will continue to grow: The problem is not the 50,000 migrants that will arrive on Italy’s shores next year, but the millions that will arrive over the decades to come. Zepp-LaRouche said that we need a Marshall Plan for South America, for Africa, for Asia, and reminded everyone that this is what we have been advocating with our reports such as “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” The Chinese were the only ones that pursued that policy, while “the Europeans generally freak out.” She stressed that we need the new security and development architecture. Not everyone is a war hawk; many are normal human beings. “We need a world where Americans can run their locomotives on railroads built by the Chinese.”

Fuller added that the more nations who join BRICS, the better; BRICS is the nascent future UN, a new order that will be far more inclusive.

Discussion

Timothy Rush, an organizer with the Schiller Institute, reported on an organizing tour of U.S. Senate offices conducted along with Doctors Against Genocide and other activists. The discussion from last week’s IPC meeting, which included South Africa’s former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Dr. Naledi Pandor, was circulated in leaflet form to various Senate offices. The organizers also circulated an important article from the April 15, 2005 issue of EIR, titled “How Wolfowitz and the Neo-Cons Sabotaged the First ‘Oasis Plan’.” A Doctors Against Genocide press conference was broken up by U.S. Capitol Police as an “unauthorized demonstration.”

A Brazilian participant expressed the view that Trump is playing a “bilateral game” with Putin, but we need multilateralism. In response, Zepp-LaRouche said that “even multipolarity is not yet the answer.” It still has the “germ of geopolitics” in it. We need a combination of universal principles, and the unique cultural contributions of different individual nations.

In concluding remarks, Fuller likened Trump to the Hindu god Shiva, who is the god of destruction, but also of creation. “This man may combine elements of genius with elements of craziness,” he said. Zepp-LaRouche posed the question, where do I want humanity to be 100 years from now, 1,000 years from now, 20,000 years from now? Think about the superstition-ridden 14th Century in Europe, which was superseded by the Italian Renaissance, where a new image of man emerged. We are on the verge of a similar transformation. People in the future will say, “People back then believed in geopolitics. Can you image how backward they were?”