EDITORIAL

Western Leaders Again Say,
‘Cursed Are the Peacemakers’

Sept. 27—As has become painfully obvious over the recent period, Western leaders, who have traded their souls for a place at the table of the Anglo-American imperium, are standing in opposition to peace. On Friday, Sept. 27, China and Brazil with more than a dozen other nations founded the “Friends of Peace” platform on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Centered around the Brazil-China “six common understandings” to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict, these nations are insisting that more fighting and weapons are not the pathway to peace. As China’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, said at the event: “It took time for other people to understand that other paths don’t lead to peace.” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lin Jian, claimed that fully 110 nations are supportive of their initiative.

Merely ten days earlier, the overwhelming majority of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a resolution ordering that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and must be ended. Introduced by Palestine’s Ambassador to the UN, H.E. Riyad Mansour, the resolution called for an end to Israel’s “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” within 12 months, and that all states should cease arms sales to Israel, among other things. It passed by a vote of 124 to 14, with 43 abstentions.

In less than two weeks, these events show—yet again—that the overwhelming majority of the world supports the cause of peace and disagrees with the Anglo-American policy of endless war. If it weren’t for the enraged geopolitical mindset by a minority in the so-called “democratic West,” these conflicts would have already been resolved. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, of course, called the China-Brazil initiative a giveaway to Russia, and similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the UN body itself a “swamp of anti-Semites”—sentiments that their Western backers have apparently signed off on.

Thus, the world continues to spiral towards ever-greater levels of danger. On Sept. 27, Israel launched perhaps the largest airstrike yet into Lebanon, leveling the headquarters of Hezbollah and a number of residential buildings surrounding it. This comes only a day or two after the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden had insisted that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire with Hezbollah. Not only did Netanyahu disregard the supposed promise, giving the lie to the claims of his U.S. enablers, but the U.S. then gave Israel another $8.7 billion in military equipment to continue the genocide against its neighbors. This conflict now stands poised to erupt into an all-out war across the region that many worry could go nuclear in an instant.

At the same time, the situation around NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine has never been more dangerous. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Sept. 25 that Russia would be changing its nuclear doctrine to respond to new threats and escalations from the West. The full statement, which was broadcast live, is in this issue of EIR.

Despite that bright, blinking warning sign, the war-hawks in the West continue to demand more and stronger weapons for Ukraine to strike into Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken continued the doublespeak on Sept. 26, calling Putin’s announcement “totally irresponsible,” while continuing to push Russia into a corner in which it will eventually be forced to respond. What clearer “red line” is needed to understand that it’s not worth bluffing about a nuclear war with Russia? A nuclear power cannot be defeated, and it is pure insanity to think otherwise.

The political and strategic situation is ripe for change and interventions. Election campaigns in the U.S. and Europe increasingly reflect this war danger, as seen in the recent losses of the pro-war Green Party in Germany and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s continued insistence that the Ukraine war must be brought to an end. Antiwar demonstrations are also growing, with major events taking place in New York and Washington this weekend. And while it’s not clear what has slowed down Washington’s rush to send Ukraine long-range missiles, it indicates that at least some reality is peeking through. Even more of a public outcry is needed to turn the tables for good.

During the International Peace Coalition meeting on Friday, Sept. 27, Helga Zepp-LaRouche noted that Putin’s announcement of a new nuclear doctrine proves that the world is on an “extremely dangerous path toward Armageddon.” While it’s welcome news that some in the Pentagon or White House have temporarily put the brakes on announcing long-range missiles for Ukraine, the problem is by no means resolved. She called on citizens around the world to get out into the streets and demand an end to the current madness pushing the world to the brink of war.

In addition, we need to expand the discussion on the more fundamental issues underlying the current policy. Zepp-LaRouche said:

“It would be extremely easy to resolve this whole situation if the West, starting with the U.S., would stop this geopolitical confrontation and respond to the Chinese version of my proposal to have a new security and development architecture. Because China has promoted a Global Security Initiative, a Global Development Initiative, and a Global Civilization Initiative—which is just another way to say we need a new security and development architecture and a renaissance of the dialogue of civilizations…. If the West were to say, ‘We’ll cooperate, we’ll stop the fight for supremacy, we agree that the world is a multipolar world, and we’re moving from confrontation to cooperation,’ all these conflicts would virtually evaporate overnight. If the large powers—the U.S. and China and Russia—were to enter such a mode of cooperation, all regional conflicts would become immediately extremely manageable.

“The way out is very, very clear. The IPC is mobilizing to educate people that there is a way out—the threat is enormous, it’s breathtaking, but the way out of the situation would be relatively easy.”