Article Search

The Russian government is shouting from every rooftop that their strategic red lines are about to be crossed, and that they will respond unless the U.S. and NATO start negotiating seriously. Yesterday’s expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board served as the forum for extensive comments about this by both President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Putin also spoke by phone on Dec. 21 with India’s Narendra Modi, Germany’s Olaf Scholz, and France’s Emmanuel Macron, and hammered on the same point with each of them. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also had blunt comments on the matter.These developments are being widely covered by live Russian TV broadcasts, while they are by and large blacked out in the West, whose population continues to live in the Valley of the Clueless as the world careens towards another Cuban Missile Crisis. TASS reported that, after listening to Shoigu’s report to the Defense Ministry Board, Putin stated: “They [the U.S.] simply do what they want [in other parts of the world]. But what they are doing on the territory of Ukraine now, or trying to do and going to do — this is not thousands of kilometers away from our national border. This is at the doorstep of our home. They must understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further.” Putin went on: “The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have them…. They will put hypersonic weapons in Ukraine, and then, under their cover—that does not mean that they will start using them tomorrow, because we already have Zircon [hypersonic missiles] and they do not—they will arm and push extremists from the neighboring state against Russia, including into certain regions of the Russian Federation, for example, Crimea, when they think circumstances are favorable…. Do they think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we are so weak-willed to simply look blankly at the threats posed to Russia? That is the problem: we simply have nowhere to move further, that’s the question,” Putin said. Sputnik further quoted Putin: “As I have already noted, in the event of the continuation of the obviously aggressive line of our Western colleagues, we will take adequate retaliatory military-technical measures, and react toughly to unfriendly steps. And, I want to emphasize, we have every right to do so, we have every right to take actions designed to ensure the security and sovereignty of Russia…. We are extremely concerned about the deployment of elements of the U.S. global missile defense system near Russia.” Putin then carefully explained: "We already see that some of our detractors are interpreting them [Russia’s draft treaty documents] as Russia’s ultimatum. Is it an ultimatum or not? Of course not…. Armed conflicts and bloodshed are absolutely not our choice. We do not want to see events go that way. We want to use political and diplomatic means to resolve problems but we want to at least have clearly formulated legal guarantees. This is what our proposals are all about. We set them down on paper and sent them to Brussels and Washington, and we hope to receive a clear and comprehensive response to these proposals. “There are certain signals that our partners appear to be willing to work on that. However, there is also a danger that they will attempt to drown our proposals in words, or in a swamp, in order to take advantage of this pause and do whatever they want to do.”

In her Dec. weekly webcast today, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the U.S., NATO, and the nations of Europe to immediately sign the two strategic treaties presented by the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, as an urgent first step to get the world off its current trajectory towards nuclear war.“I think it is an absolute, urgent necessity for NATO and the United States and European countries to agree to sign such a legally-binding agreement with Russia,” Zepp-LaRouche stated. “What Russia is now demanding in written legal terms is nothing more than what was promised to them in 1990 by the U.S. and NATO,” promises which were never kept. Instead, NATO kept expanding eastward up to Russia’s very borders; and defensive and offensive weapons systems, along with troops, have accompanied that expansion. “The situation is extremely worrisome,” she stated, “because there are people committed to this brinksmanship, hoping that Russia and China will back down. But I don’t think that that’s in the cards. The policy of encirclement of Russia and China is continuing, even though Russia has said that their red line has been reached… There must be a recognition that we are on a terribly dangerous road, and people must voice their opposition to this policy, loud and clear, before it is too late.” Zepp-LaRouche urged her listeners to use this Christmas period to help organize others to speak out against this looming disaster and related crises—such as the danger of starvation of tens of millions in Afghanistan as a result of British, American and NATO financial warfare—and to mobilize in favor of the policy alternatives long championed by Lyndon LaRouche.

As Putlin reiterated his warnings to the U.S. and NATO to not cross the clear "red lines" he has drawn, he said this is not an "ultimatum", but a necessary defense of Russia's national security. Are his American and NATO "partners" listening? Putin said there are "certain signals" that a diplomatic resolution is possible, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov affirmed that discussions will take place in the new year. Yet NATO, and especially the British, are continuing to move forces to the Russian border, leading to concerns that an attack into eastern Ukraine by Kiev neo-nazi units could provoke a Russian invasion. At the same time, energy prices in Europe are spiking, as part of an inflationary spiral which will only worsen, as the global Green New Deal is imposed -- though the Atlanticists will blame Russia for energy shortages and blackouts. There are real solutions, beginning with signing the treaties proposed by Putin; dismantle NATO; and adopt Lyndon LaRouche's economic program, which could turn 2022 into an excellent year!

Dec. 23, 2021 (EIRNS)—The EU Commission has proposed a new set of taxes to finance the grants extended by the Next Generation EU Fund to member countries. The new taxes will mostly be “Green Taxes” or “Climate Taxes,” plus a share of the new international corporate tax. The first tax is based on “revenues from emissions trading (ETS); the second draws on the resources generated by the proposed EU carbon border adjustment mechanism; the third is based on the share of residual profits from multinationals that will be re-allocated to EU Member States under the recent OECD/G20 agreement on a re-allocation of taxing rights (”Pillar One“). At cruising speed, in the years 2026-2030, these new sources of revenue are expected to generate, on average, a total of up to €17 billion annually for the EU budget,” says an EU release dated Dec. 22. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_7025 The new resources should also finance the Social Climate Fund, the handouts established by the EU to alleviate the “energy poverty” the EU itself has created with its climate folly. This is especially pertinent in view of the proposed extension of the Emissions Trading System covering buildings and road transport. Johannes Hahn, Commissioner in charge of Budget and Administration, said yesterday: “With today’s package, we lay the foundations for the repayment of NextGenerationEU and provide essential support to the Fit for 55 package by putting in place the financing of the Social Climate Fund. With the set of new resources, we, therefore, ensure that the next generation will truly benefit from NextGenerationEU.” In the future, emissions trading will also apply to the maritime sector, auctioning of aviation allowances will increase, and a new system for buildings and road transport will be established. Under the current EU Emissions Trading System, most revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances are transferred to national budgets. Now, the Commission proposes that in the future, 25% of the revenue from EU emissions trading flows into the EU budget. “At cruising speed, revenues for the EU budget are estimated at around €12 billion per year on average over 2026-2030 (€9 billion on average between 2023-2030).” (Both Poland and the Czech Republic have called for abolishing the ETS, which has become a sheer financial derivatives market and is seen as the main cause for energy price increases. Instead, the Potsdam Institute for Climate research, a key center for radiation of climate insanity, has insisted that derivatives are all well and good.) Through the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a tariff on imports with CO₂-footprint, there will be “a carbon price on imports, corresponding to what would have been paid, had the goods been produced in the EU. This mechanism will apply to a targeted selection of sectors and is fully consistent with WTO rules,” the release says. The Commission wants 75% of the revenues generated by this carbon border adjustment mechanism, estimated at around 1 billion euro on average over 2026-2030. Of the revenues from the International Corporate Tax, which now are reallocated to member states, the Commission wants to have 15%. “Pending the finalization of the agreement, revenues for the EU budget could amount to roughly between €2.5 and €4 billion per year.” That is not the end of it: the Commission will present a proposal for a second basket of new own resources by the end of 2023. The new taxes would bring between 15.5 and 17 billion Euro per year in the vaults of the EU Commission. The proposal shall now go to the European Parliament for scrutiny and eventually to the EU Council of heads of state and government for final approval. [ccc]

After 20 years of destructive, mindless wars, which benefitted no one but the contractors of the Military Industrial Complex and the War Hawks they fund, it is urgent that the west adopt a New Paradigm, of mutually beneficial, peaceful cooperation, to rebuild the targets of those wars. What better time than now, to act in the spirit of Christmas, exemplifying the ideal of Good Will toward All Mankind? The ecumenical spirit of generosity and love must replace the Satanic geopolitics of the "war of each against all", which has typified the actions of the Trans-Atlantic powers for at least four decades. This spirit is embodied in Operation Ibn Sina, Helga Zepp-LaRouche's proposal for humanitarian aid and economic development for the people of Afghanistan. Join us in our mobilization to realize the goals of Operation Ibn Sina

As we rapidly approach “the moment of truth” in the tense dialogue concerning the future of humanity involving the Presidents of the United States, Russia and China, consider the chilling remarks to TASS by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, spoken with respect to the Russian proposals regarding the securing of written guarantees against further NATO expansion eastward: “I said that we would find forms to respond, including by military and military-technical means [if NATO ignores Moscow’s concerns again]. I reaffirm this.” Consider, also, the briefing given by Defense Secretary Sergei Shoigu to Vladimir Putin documenting the intention of American private military companies (PMCs) to carry out a staged provocation in eastern Ukraine using chemical weapons. Finally, note that Vladimir Putin was President of Russia at the time of the attack of September 11, 2001, and was the first head of state to speak with President George W.Bush, telling Bush that he had directed the Russian nuclear forces to “stand down” in a situation that appeared to potentially involve even a possible illegal takeover of the U.S. Presidency.Where is the sane leadership response in the United States? Competent interlocutors, speaking on behalf of the once-cogent, but now no longer trustworthy trans-Atlantic world, have to now emerge from the “dark wood” of post-9/11 neo-con/neo-liberal war diplomacy. The British-instigated “American homeland defense strategies” that have resulted in the past two decades of unprovoked conflicts and destabilizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and many other locations, punctuated by the wanton killing of civilians in pursuit of dubious “geopolitical” ends, must stop. Take the unlawful, Victoria Nuland-managed “F..k the EU” Feb. 21-22 2014 coup in Ukraine. There, 100 casualties in the Maidan were the apparent prescribed “threshold level” for a public, full-throated endorsement of the Ukrainian “independence forces” by the United States and NATO, according to Professor Ivan Katchanovski, School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He investigated the Maidan Massacre for four-and-a-half years, and was interviewed in Oliver Stone’s 2019 Revealing Ukraine. "There were two interviews published in a recent book by a Ukrainian pro-Maidan journalist. And in this book they produced interviews of two far-right leaders of Ukraine…. And they and Maidan leaders met with some senior western officials. And this western official told them, basically, that killings of a few protesters is not enough for western governments to change support. “They said specifically, [the] end of recognition of the Yanukovych government basically would change only if the number of the victims would be 100. The western government policy changed immediately after the Maidan massacre. Not an accident, because you have exactly 100 people who were killed.” (The total list of those killed now totals 130.) Stone’s two documentaries, the other being Ukraine On Fire, contain extensive interviews with Putin, and several scenes of Biden in Ukraine, including Biden speaking before the post-coup Ukrainian parliament in 2015. How does this inform the demands of Russia for written guarantees from the United States today? Today, death, be it through pandemic, famine, flood, or war, including potential thermonuclear war, seems to be all around us. No efficient solution from institutions of government in the trans-Atlantic sector seems forthcoming. Yet the solution to this lower-order “entropy of doom” has been advanced in the form of the persistent call for a P-5 summit (Russia, China, the United States, France, and Great Britain), in the method called the “Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites,” and in the economic and strategic outlook contained in the World Land-Bridge and “Operation Ibn Sina.” Regarding the latter, a greater familiarity with the thinking of the great Islamic physician and thinker is essential to apprehend why his name is not attached to Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Afghanistan policy-initiative as a mere symbol. Here, we quote from section 36 of Ibn Sina’s Metaphysics to illustrate how, for example, the recent U.S. Congressional call for the unfreezing of Afghanistan’s assets, to be deployed by the national bank of that nation, in the name of the principle of justice, equity, and sovereignty, can be morally upshifted to ensure that it actually succeeds in that objective in the short term: THE ONTOLOGY OF HUMAN DIPLOMACY “Benevolence and usefulness come from one thing to another by means of transaction or by generosity. A transaction takes place in an exchange where something is given and something is received. What is received is not always concrete since it can be a good name, joy, or a prayer, or gratitude. Though the object of a transaction is called and recognized by the vulgar as merchandise which is exchanged with another merchandise, a good name or gratitude are not considered exchangeable in a transaction…. Generosity is that which is not the result of an exchange, of recompense, or of a transaction. From the will which directs generosity a good thing results, while no ulterior intention is associated with it. Since the Necessary Existent acts in this manner, Its act is characterized by absolute generosity.”—Ibn Sina, Metaphysics, Section 36 How can Ibn Sina’s philosophical outlook regarding generosity be applied, in this present moment, in Afghanistan? Linda Everett, a decades-long organizer for the Schiller Institute who played a central, most notable role in the creation of the Institute’s Club of Life (an organization created to counter the depopulation schemes of Aurelio Peccei and NATO’s Alexander King’s organization, the Club of Rome,) addressed this same matter in a recent strategy session of organizers, addressed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche. In response to Helga, Linda began by referencing the Schiller Institute’s December 18 Sunday Christmas concert, performing works by composers Antonio Vivaldi and Johan Sebastian Bach, and traditional Christmas music. “Why was the concert that we just gave so important? Because it went right to the soul of people. Some of us have lost loved ones in these last three weeks…. But for the people that we will be organizing in these several days before the holiday, when they also have losses such as this, it cannot be something that holds them back. In other words, they have lost part of their hearts. But as you have often said, we must adopt the world…. We must ask people to open, don’t feel so, as though a part of the heart has been taken. No, the heart is like the earth…. It expands to hold the necessities, the needs, of its children. Of the women, the children, the huge part of Afghanistan, and the rest of the starving that will die. The heart has to open up to that. It is as a dove, as a swan, as a crane that would open its wings to hold all of these needs within those that we are organizing. It is the fact that they have lost someone, as some of us have in these last few weeks—you can just be sure that that is out there among the people that we are organizing. It should not be something where they feel that they have no ability to celebrate, whether it is Christmas or whatever the holiday…. They are capable of doing it. Perhaps they have never had to, but they are capable. And we are the ones that have to ask…. We are able to expand our hearts, and open them to these people and move. The worst would be to say, No, I’m hurting, I can’t do it. No. The way to get beyond hurt, is to give, and that is what we need at this moment, when millions are dying.The heart has to open up to that….” It is that generosity, not only as a sentiment, but as a weapon against despair, that was the content of “the benefit of the other” policy of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. It is what informed General George Washington’s unique doctrine of treatment of captured Hessian and British soldiers in the American Revolution. It is the method of a truly human diplomacy, exercised especially in times of war. Lyndon LaRouche famously stated that “the content of policy is the method by which it is made.” While the State Department will obscure and dissemble, it cannot deny that to not act, now, in the Afghanistan crisis, is to condemn, unnecessarily, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, to death in the next weeks—not only in Afghanistan, but in other areas threatened by famine and disease. Is this being done in the name of “protecting the democratic rights of the people” we have condemned to death? The content of that policy toward Afghanistan, the present policy, is depraved indifference, the same indifference reported in the killing of more than 1,500 “civilian casualties” through “precision drone warfare,” and the withholding of medical assistance to the continent of Africa for the past 18 months in order to “make sure Americans [and Europeans] are safe first.” Reversing that depraved indifference is the most efficient way to signal to Russia and the world that those that broke their word, in pledging that “NATO would not expand one inch eastward” in 1990, have now shown a willingness, if not to reverse, to at least amend their behavior, in order to move away, at nearly the last moment, from what must otherwise be deemed a self-doomed debt-driven drive toward total, unwinnable war.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche made an impassioned appeal to viewers of her weekly webcast to use this Christmas period to join with us to mobilize for a New Paradigm. She compared "the commitment to brinksmanship" of Trans-Atlantic war hawks to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, describing this as"extremely worrisome," as it comes from a belief that Russia and China will back down in the face of threats from the U.S. and NATO. The Russians continue to deny an intent to invade Ukraine, and have submitted draft proposals, which they insist cover their minimum national security interests. That western leaders instead repeat their demand for Russian submission to planned NATO expansion which puts us on a course towards war. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche then turned her attention to what she described as the "heart-breaking, upsetting" story of the refusal of western nations to address the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, which is the result of the geopolitical wars fought in that country. While the OIC has made a proposal to set up a fund and coordinate international aid, western nations are continuing sanctions and refusing to release funds, even though it is clear this threatens millions of lives. The role of the U.S. and NATO in continuing this travesty is destroying "the credibility of the West." She spoke of her commitment to Project Ibn Sina for Afghanistan, as part of a broader battle to provide a world health system for every country. She ended the dialogue with an appeal to viewers to use the next days of Christmas to reflect on the moral responsibility of citizens to act at this moment of deepening crisis. Transcript The Brinkmanship of Trans-Atlantic Cannot Be Tolerated Weekly Strategic Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Wednesday December 22, 2021 HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s Dec. 22, 2021. And Helga, as we’ve been reporting over the recent weeks, the drumbeat for war continues coming from trans-Atlantic powers. The Russians are making proposals to try and address it. They seem to be getting little or no response from the West. What’s the latest that you have on this? HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, it is extremely worrisome, because it seems there are people committed to make a brinksmanship. Obviously, they hope that Russia, and China for that matter, will back down, but I don’t think that that’s in the cards. So two weeks ago, we spoke about this unbelievable statement by Sen. Roger Wicker, that he doesn’t want to take the first use of nuclear weapons off the table. Now, in the meantime, the whole thing has escalated. There was a CNN report, with an unnamed U.S. high-ranking official, the suspicion was that it was National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who said we only have a window of four weeks left before we have to get a breakthrough, and somehow referring to a possible plan of Russia to invade Ukraine. Which Russia has denied many times, emphatically. But if you look at the chronologically of the last several weeks—it started much earlier—but let’s take the visit of the Director of the Office of National Intelligence of the United States Avril Haines to Brussels, where she briefed the NATO ambassadors about so-called hard evidence intelligence that Russia would plan and invasion of Ukraine at the beginning of 2022. As I said, it was denied by Russia. Then there are obviously troops being gathered at the Russian side of the Ukrainian border, which has been commented on many times by Russia, that it’s their good right to do on their territory whatever they want. According to Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry, there are at least 10,000 troops from NATO in Ukraine, 4,000 from the U.S. and 6,000 from other countries; and in the middle of all of that—I mean, there was the discussion between Putin and Biden on Dec. 7 on videoconference—which again looked as if this would move forward. But then, immediately, the people around Biden went back to their bellicose statements, so one never knows exactly what the U.S. policy is exactly. And then Putin proposed two treaties, to the U.S. and to NATO. Now, these are not proposals for negotiations but ready-made treaties, one for the United States to sign, that they will basically not insist that Ukraine be in NATO, and the other one for NATO to sign, that NATO will not move any farther eastward. And the Russians, Putin, they said this is not negotiable; this pertains to the very national security interests of Russia, and they insist that these treaties be signed. Now the reaction from the West, from [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, from Lambrecht, the new German defense minister, various other people, they said, they will not let Russia dictate what to do, and so forth, but there was no serious response so far. And various Russian spokesmen, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Grushko, Lavrov, and various other people, they all said that this is very serious. If there is no response from the West, and if there is any more move to either move weapons into Ukraine, or to expand NATO in any way more eastward, there will be a military answer coming from Russia. And the bottom line has been reached, the red line has been reached. So we are sort of in a countdown, where it’s very clear that whoever is pulling the strings in NATO in the end, and sometimes one is not quite clear if it’s Biden or not, or rather not, they’re obviously set that this policy of encirclement against Russia and China continue. And Russia has said, the red line has been reached. Now, this is very, very dangerous, because — Oh yeah, then I think it was also Sullivan, said that if there is any move from Russia in respect to Ukraine, that they will punish the economy of Russia so terribly that it—anyway, so there are all these threats in the air. And there is now a very interesting statement by Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, a former Greek ambassador, who commented on all of that, by basically saying the West should not be so hypocritical (I’m now using my own words), but that the West should recognize that all Russia is demanding, in written, legal terms, is what was promised in 1990 to them by the United States, by NATO, in the negotiations concerning the German reunification. And this is actually a matter of record: There are now documents which everybody can look up, that on Feb. 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move “one inch eastward,” and this was also the content of the famous speech by then German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, in his speech in Tutzing, where he basically said the same thing. Naturally, everybody knows these promises, which unfortunately were not made in written form, but just verbally, they were broken almost immediately and altogether 14 countries of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact were integrated into NATO; and recently, and many times earlier, Russia has made the point that to have Ukraine and Georgia in NATO is unacceptable for the very simple reason that if you look at the border between Ukraine and Russia, it leaves only a few minutes, maybe as little as 5 minutes for a missile system to reach Moscow, which obviously is much too short a time to have an effective defense. So, Russia makes the point that its national security interest is absolutely threatened by these moves by NATO. So we are on a countdown. And we should just keep in mind, if it comes to any war between Russia and Ukraine, which would involve any kind of—even without Western involvement—and this would escalate, Germany would immediately be the target. And if you have such statements like that of Senator Wicker, that the first use of nuclear weapons cannot be taken off the table, people should be aware of the fact, that if it comes to this, Germany ceases to exist! So, this is one of the reasons why I have been saying NATO is no longer a security pact which is in the self-interest of Germany, because if in the case of any military conflict, Germany ceases to exist, obviously, this is not a good defense strategy. So, I think, first of all people must make themselves familiar with this danger. According to the reports, we are in a four-week countdown, and I think it is absolute, urgent necessity that NATO and the United States and European countries do agree to sign such legally binding agreements with Russia, even if Putin, in a just-conducted meeting with some of his top military people said that even a legally binding, signed document does not give full security, because the United States has now a very long record that they pull out of treaties without any problem, overnight. But there must be a recognition that we are on a terribly dangerous road, and people must voice their opposition to this policy, loud and clear, before it is too late. SCHLANGER: There have been some voices speaking out in the West, but not nearly enough, and then, instead, they’re drowned out by people like Sullivan, who said Russia must deescalate, when the escalation is coming from the West. And the U.S. has not even responded yet to this request for these treaties to be negotiated. Now, unless you have something more on that, I think we need to move on to the situation in Afghanistan, where there have been some developments with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation meeting over the weekend, a potential for possible motion on unfreezing the funds. I think 46 congress members have written a letter to Biden. What’s your sense? Is there some momentum building on this, especially given the reports of the danger to millions of people, including children, of starvation and freezing this winter? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, this is the second, absolutely heartbreaking and extremely upsetting story. You know, the West talks about moral values, value-based order, human rights, democracy, all of these beautiful words, but the reality is quite ugly. Because the World Food Program representatives, I think, the head Beasley and Mary-Ellen McGroarty in Afghanistan, visiting Kabul and Kandahar in the last several days, and they come back and say that 98% of the Afghanistan population is in dire poverty, more than 90% are food insecure, without medical supplies: 24 million people are in danger of dying this winter, 3 million children, babies are dying already—and this is the 21st century and the whole world should know about it, but if you look at the Western media, after the Taliban took over in August, there was a short period when Afghanistan was in the news, but since several months you hardly hear anything about it. Now, there was a very important conference over Friday, Saturday, Sunday in Islamabad, Pakistan, of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC); this is with 57 states, the second largest international organization after the United Nations, and they had a meeting which was addressed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. I listened to his speech and I was—not that everything was new what he said, but he said it very distinctly. He said, when the Taliban took over and the West withdrew, everybody knew that 75% of the budget of Afghanistan came from international aid, and since that aid was immediately cut—the donor countries cut the aid right away, because the Taliban had taken over—everybody knew that the entire budget of Afghanistan was all of a sudden practically nonexistent. Then you had the freezing of the funds by the U.S. Treasury, by European banks, so there was a complete cash crisis: People could not import anything, they could not pay salaries, the whole thing broke down, and this has been going on for four months, with the result I just mentioned before. But this is not the Taliban: When you hear the Western media, if they report anything at all, they say, “Oh yeah, the economy is now terrible, because of the Taliban.” It is not because of the Taliban! Because if you have, after 20 years of NATO war, NATO leaves, and the United States forces leave in a sudden fashion, the country in which they conducted war for 20 years: They leave the country, nothing has been built, no economy, no infrastructure, nothing is functioning, and then, they cut off the international lifeline, the donor monies, which make up 75% of the Afghanistan budget, they cut this off, they freeze the central bank’s funds, and then naturally a catastrophe erupts which nobody, not the Taliban or anybody else, can handle, because you have sanctions, and have a complete freeze of everything! And the West knows that! And they don’t react! I mean, this is unbelievable! If you look at the Afghanistan situation, this is the end of any credibility of the West, and just to think that because the Western media are not reporting that, people should not think that it goes unnoticed. For example, the 57 OIC nations noticed; all the neighbors of Afghanistan noticed; all the third world noticed. So I think if this is not reversed very, very quickly, this will be of a lasting impact of a demise of the West. This is why I have said that the fate of Afghanistan and the fate of humanity are much more closely linked than most people are willing to think through. I find this absolutely horrendous. What the OIC conference decided: they will set up a fund, I don’t know exactly the amounts that will be available, but they will set up an office in Kabul, and the OIC has offered to coordinate international aid. So something is being done, for sure, but the problem is so gigantic that it really requires all the neighbors of Afghanistan to cooperate, and I think that the United States and the European countries—I mean, they were for 20 years in this country, and then they walk away. This is from the standpoint of international law, completely unacceptable. So Europe and the United States have an absolute moral obligation to reverse that and cooperate with the neighbors of Afghanistan and not only have immediate humanitarian aid, to alleviate the hunger, the lack of medical supplies, but then, participate in the economic buildup of the country, which can only occur by integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road Initiative projects—you know, the CPEC corridor from Pakistan to Kabul to Uzbekistan; the building of the Khyber Pass, and other well-defined projects which would immediately start building up the economy. So that is what needs to be done. There are 39 congressmen who made an appeal to Biden to unfreeze the funds which are held by the Treasury: I think this is important. Obviously, this must immediately happen because the winter is already there. SCHLANGER: And toward that end of accelerated humanitarian aid, you made the proposal which you call “Operation Ibn Sina,” that is, while specific to Afghanistan, actually reflects the need for the whole world in the midst of the COVID crisis, the economic breakdown, which is the necessity for a world health system, as the front end of a massive infrastructure investment program, which could include the Belt and Road Initiative and so on. How does that look as a prospect from your standpoint? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Operation Ibn Sina, because one has to start with Afghanistan, and Ibn Sina comes from a place nearby Bukhara which is Uzbekistan, but his father was born in Balk, which is Afghanistan, and people are very proud of him. He’s probably the greatest doctor who ever lived, so there is no better name to give this effort to build a modern health system in Afghanistan, than to call it after Ibn Sina. And there already has been great interest in this idea coming from several places in the region. But more largely, we have now a new wave of the COVID-19, the Omicron variant, and, again, there is such an unwillingness by the establishment of the Western system to recognize that we have been on the wrong track, and I said in the very beginning, when it was clear this was a pandemic, in March 2020, I said we need a world health system or else this pandemic will not go away. Since then we’ve had all these mutations, and now we have Omicron, and there is no guarantee there will not be new mutations. And it’s also clear that the idea that the rich countries are producing and hoarding vaccines, and leaving the developing countries without is not helping anybody, because if you leave entire continents without vaccinations and without modern health equipment, then this virus will mutate, as it has done so far, and it will come back and may even make the existing vaccines obsolete. So, either we go in earnest, and say that the fact that billions of people do not have modern hospitals is unacceptable, don’t have clear water, don’t have enough electricity, this is something which could be done; there is no reason why we could not immediately start to build modern infrastructure, like we have it in Germany—it may be rotting, but it’s still there because previous generations were a little bit smarter than the present crop of politicians—but there is no reason in the world why not technically, why not technologically, we could not start building hospitals: We need about 30,000 new hospitals around the world. That would be easy! We could even make these hospitals prefabricated, in the United States, in Europe, and then ship the modules to the respective countries. The Chinese proved in Wuhan that you can build a modern hospital in two weeks. It could be done this way. We could start a crash training program for medical personnel. I have called for the youth, the young people in the world to be trained to help build such an effort, like it was done by Franklin D. Roosevelt with the CCC program in the New Deal. You can train young people on the job, give them a vision and a mission in life. And I think this is really something—you know, we cannot continue this way! The idea that every time something happens, the rich countries only take care of themselves, and the developing countries are left in the dark, that has to stop and we have to start to really think in terms of a new paradigm if humanity is supposed to come out of this crisis. And given the fact that we have now the Christmas period, the holiday season, people have some days to think. And rather than just going about your business as usual—I mean, this is a breaking point of civilization: Either we really can shape up as a human species, or it may not look so great for our perspective. SCHLANGER: I think your last point, that in the spirit of Christmas, of generosity and love of mankind, peace and good will toward men, this would be the time to move ahead with the shift to the new paradigm. Helga, thanks for joining us today, and I know you wish all your viewers a merry Christmas, as do I, and we’ll see you again next week. ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I wish you a Merry Christmas, and the first topic we discussed, I really want you to think about, because what we face in Europe between Russia, Ukraine, and Europe and NATO, is like a reverse Cuban Missile Crisis. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy pointed to the fact that an island which is only 160 miles from the coast of Florida, the idea that you could deploy nuclear missiles in such a close vicinity, obviously could not be tolerated. But nuclear missiles in NATO, in the Baltic, missile defense system in Poland, in Romania, and the idea to move lethal weapons into Ukraine, from the standpoint of the Russians, this is exactly like the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, I really want you to use this Christmas period to really work with the Schiller Institute, and help us to stop something which could really be fatal for all of humanity. And at the same time, there are all the resources, there are so many beautiful contributions to civilizations, Beethoven’s music, all the great poets, the great philosophers—read these things over these days and rethink how we should go about it, because we definitely need to change course urgently.

CNN reported a leak from the Biden administration that there is only a "four week window" to prevent a Russian invasion of Ukraine -- or perhaps, they meant to say to provoke an invasion of Ukraine! Some believe the leak came from well-known leaker Jake Sullivan, who has been exposed by special counsel John Durham as one who spread the false Russiagate story of Trump campaign links to Russia and Putin through a Russian bank -- a story exposed as a blatant fabrication. Is Sullivan pushing his anti-Putin obsession more aggressively for fear that further exposure of his role in the Clinton campaign in Russiagate could lead to his indictment?

The pace of intensifying U.S.-Russia tension over Ukraine increased over this past weekend, so that what seemed within hope of stabilization two weeks ago when Presidents Biden and Putin video-conferenced, now looks more and more like a countdown toward war in Europe involving the nuclear superpowers.A senior White House official, quite possibly National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, told CNN on Dec. 19, Sunday, that there is only a “four-week window” to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine. “What we have been doing is very calculated,” the official said. “But we only have about a four-week window from now.” The official said U.S. planned sanctions “would be overwhelming, immediate and inflict significant costs on the Russian economy and their financial system.” The next day, Dec. 20, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told journalists that the Biden Administration had not responded to President Putin’s on Dec. 15 proposed treaties on arms control, according to the EurAsian Times news site. They included the assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO and that further forward deployments of U.S. and NATO forces and missile systems toward Russia’s borders would stop. "‘No, they [the Americans] have not responded yet," said Ryabkov; “we are waiting, we will see what they answer. So far, we have seen only all sorts of public statements.” Among those public statements was a NATO general’s plan for U.S. troops’ forward deployment to Bulgaria and Romania, to NATO bases at the Black Sea. And both Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko and Arms Control Negotiator Konstantin Gavrilov ominously referred to “Russia’s military-technical and military means” as the only alternative to a negotiation on Russia’s treaty proposals. Ukraine’s own government continued, in the person of Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba talking to the Washington Post Dec. 19, to demand more “military means” and troops from the United States and the U.K., and to demand that the United States spell out publicly the “overwhelming and immediate” damage that the U.S. Treasury is preparing to do to the Russian economy and financial system, and do it with London whether the continental European allies agree or not. In October 1962 it was the U.S. southern border that was being approached, closely, by Soviet soldiers and missiles in Cuba, which threatened a devastating first strike. Today, it is the relentless march of NATO closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Sixty years ago President John F. Kennedy said, “Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island.” And, he said, that this, “in an area well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the U.S., is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country.” [emphasis added] Moreover, in 1962 U.S. military chiefs were demanding an invasion of Cuba to destroy missile and other forces, and President Kennedy was holding them back, with difficulty. Had Kennedy and Khrushchev not reached a negotiated resolution to the Cuban Missiles Crisis, what was likely to have happened? Hundreds of millions of people around the world were terrified of an imminent nuclear war. How were President Kennedy’s demands—that the Soviet Union remove, and never again try to place nuclear-capable missiles and aircraft virtually on the U.S. border, and “in an area [with] a special and historical relationship to the U.S.”—different from President Putin’s agreement proposed on Dec. 7 to President Biden, that the United States ensure that Ukraine would not join NATO and thereby have U.S. and NATO forces and missiles of various types placed right on Russia’s border? And “in an area with a special and historical relationship” to Russia, in fact for centuries part of it. Here is the difference: Kennedy and Khrushchev both wanted a solution, and not one in which the other President and nation were humiliated, or crushed by “overwhelming, immediate” national damage! That is what must be negotiated between Presidents Biden and Putin now, putting to the side the war-hawks—some of whom are clinically insane, to publicly propose a nuclear first strike on Russia as Sen. Roger Wicker did on Dec. 7. But it must and can happen if citizens now stand up to demand it, and remain optimistic that these two nations can block the ominous path of escalation and superpower war. Let them spend their efforts instead in providing food, healthcare and reconstruction to Afghanistan. Listen to Kenney’s Oct. 22, 1962 address here.

Dec. 21, 2021 (EIRNS)—This is an extended version of an article appearing in issue No. 51 of the EIR Strategic Alert Service weekly newsletter. On Dec. 13, Russia vetoed a UNSC resolution on “climate security” which would have been the first step in establishing a global climate police. India also voted against while China abstained. In motivating the vote, Russian UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said that the resolution would have empowered the UNSC with assessments and decisions that belong to scientists and that blaming climate change for all problems would have whitewashed responsibility for underdevelopment, wars, and terrorism.The draft resolution was introduced by Niger and Ireland after a two-month period of discussions at the UN, including an open debate at the UNSC Dec. 9 that focused on the situation in the Sahel. Typically, the drying out of Lake Chad has provoked a fertile ground for terrorist recruitment, but nobody in that debate said that a solution to the crisis in the Sahel is there: the famous Transaqua water-transfer scheme from the Congo basin, a project that was approved by all member countries of the Lake Chad Basin Commission but since than has stalled.The debate at the UNSC makes it clear that at least three nuclear powers, and even some African countries, oppose such a solution. Instead, social conflicts, migration, and terrorism are given as inevitable consequences of climate change, and they can only be managed through outside military intervention. Correctly, Ambassador Nebenzia said that Russia is against “establishing a new track of UNSC activities that asserts a generic automatic link between climate change and international security, thus turning a scientific and socio-economic problem into a political issue. Draft resolution’s provisions that suggest making this link the”central component" of UN conflict prevention strategies and mandates of peacekeeping and special political missions are fraught with a wide range of consequences." “What a graceful idea it was to blame greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the Sun and the Moon, for everything, while also shifting the responsibility to the developing states themselves,” the ambassador said. Making fun of those countries that adopt such ideas, Nebenzia quoted the great Russian poet Alexander Puskin who, in a poem about a person who was very much in love, has him saying: “Ah, it is easy to deceive me!… I long to be deceived myself!” “Perhaps, many of the countries in need who look forward to receiving donors’ assistance have a somewhat elevated image of their prospective saviors,” he said. As we have previously exposed, the plan of the British-centered oligarchy is to use military power to enforce climate policies and prevent development (see SAS 40/20). The discussion at the UNSC in the last two months, as Niger and Ireland were preparing their draft resolution, has been accompanied by discussions and recommendations at George Soros’s International Crisis Group. https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/can-un-security-council-agree-climate-security-resolution The issue was addressed in a side event at the Glasgow COP26 entitled “Climate, Peace and Stability: Weathering Risk Through COP and Beyond” on Nov. 2. Chaired by Munich Security Conference head Wolfgang Ischinger, the event prominently featured NATO secretary general Stoltenberg and British defense secretary Ben Wallace. “As defense ministers, … we will have to deal with the consequences of a failed climate change policy, if that happens,” Wallace said. “Without security we won’t have the mitigations we want to deliver to take on the effects of climate change and to reduce warming to 1.5 degrees.” NATO countries should develop strong partnerships, sometimes with non-traditional partners, to make sure that they deliver security and resilience around the world… part of the solution is defense going out and [creating] resilience." https://weatheringrisk.org/en/event/climate-peace-and-stability-weathering-risk-through-cop-and-beyond Reflecting on the implication of the Dec. 13 vote, the pro-Greta Thunberg International Peace Institute wrote that “countries that want to see stronger language on climate-related security risks in country-specific resolutions might well face more resistance, and new language on concrete operational action seems less likely in this atmosphere.” [ccc]

On Sunday, the Council of Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation met in extraordinary session in Pakistan, and agreed upon resolutions for coordinated humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and measures for economic functioning. Follow-up mechanisms were specified to implement the decisions of the OIC. Attending the meeting were 70 delegates, representing member countries, guest nations, international financial and UN aid agencies. The OIC, with 57 member nations, is the largest such world body after the United Nations. But even so, what determines what will happen for the Afghanistan people and nation, the greater region, and world situation, requires a shift in approach to abandon deadly geopolitics, and launch concerted positive action among major powers.This was stressed on Friday, the opening day of the three-day OIC meetings in Islamabad, by Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, appearing in a discussion on Pakistan’s national television PTV, which covered the OIC proceedings intensively. She said, “In a certain sense, to get all the forces internationally together to help Afghanistan is, in my view, one of the absolute, important historical missions. In a certain, I think the whole destiny of mankind is in a laser, concentrated on what happens in Afghanistan. So I would really hope that all the participating and affected countries would double and multiply their efforts to make saving Afghanistan an issue of the whole world, because right now it is. And I think all channels must be used: media, United Nations, conferences. There must be a drumbeat, a drumbeat of awakening the conscience of the world, because I think this is sort of a judgment of our ability as a human species: Are we morally fit to survive or not?” What is happening this evening is that pledges are starting from OIC nations, on what donations they will commit, for purposes of urgent relief operations. From preliminary reports, the framework that is to administer ongoing aid includes several features. A resolution was adopted unanimously that the OIC will set up a Humanitarian Trust Fund and a Food Security Program. The OIC meeting requested that the existing Islamic Organization for Food Security (IOFS) work with this new Food Security Program for Afghanistan, including using IOFS reserves, when warranted. The Humanitarian Trust Fund is to come into operation during the First Quarter of 2022, under the auspices of the Islamic Development Bank. In Kabul, the existing OIC Mission is to be reinforced with more logistical, financial and staff resources to enable it to coordinate operations with global agencies and partnerships. These include the obvious UN agencies, from UNICEF, to the World Food Program, and other organizations. A priority will be working with the World Health Organization for vaccines and medical supplies. There will be support for the Afghan refugees who have fled to neighboring countries, and for the internally displaced within Afghanistan. An estimated 665,000 people have been displaced just between January and September 2021, over and above the 2.9 million already dislocated within their nation. In brief, 60% of the population of 38 million people face crisis levels of hunger, and lack of necessities for life. The conference welcomed the offer by Uzbekistan to create, with UN efforts, a regional logistics hub in Termez city, to handle the shipment of humanitarian material into Afghanistan. The OIC meeting approved the designation of Ambassador Tarig Ali Bakhit Salah, Assistant Secretary General for Humanitarian, Cultural and Family Affairs at the OIC Secretariat, to be OIC Special Envoy to Afghanistan for the OIC Secretary General, to coordinate efforts, and provide reports to the OIC. The Humanitarian Trust Fund is to be up and running within the first quarter of 2022. It is reported by APP (AP Pakistan,) that there was an urgent appeal made for large-scale projects in the multi-nation region, to serve reconstruction and development. In general, this should include energy, transportation and communication projects. Two mentioned were the TAPI Pipeline, and the TAP (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan) electricity transmission line. Participants in the deliberation drew attention to the importance of the 15th Summit of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which met on Nov. 28, 2021, in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. The second area of OIC action, alongside the humanitarian, food-aid and anti-pandemic work, concerns creating the banking, credit and related conditions to serve a re-established functioning economy, and for reconstruction. The Council of Foreign Ministers decided, according to the report by APP, that exploratory talks “to unlock the financial and banking channels to resume liquidity and flow of financial and humanitarian assistance” should commence under the direction of the OIC General Secretariat, and the Islamic Development Bank. APP added that, participants discussed “exploring realistic pathways towards unfreezing Afghanistan’s financial assets.” Here is where the outright clash comes in with the networks in London, Washington D.C. and co-conspirators, which insist on wrongfully withholding $9.5 billion in Afghanistan state assets, sorely needed for government and economic functions. An especially ugly, duplicitous public relations campaign is going on in the United States, where two open statements were issued this past week, crying crocodile tears, asserting that some of the $9.5 billion should be unfrozen, and used to “directly help the Afghan people,” but only if allocated directly through non-Kabul government, non-Taliban, UN or other agencies. One letter was from former military figures, in connection with the infamous Atlantic Council, and the other letter was from a group of 39 Congressmen, either ignorant, gullible, corrupt, or all three. No nation exists without functioning institutions. There is no independence without economic sovereignty. Withholding the funds, or arrogating decision-making over their use means destroying a nation. This will do the job by genocide, that 20 years of military presence and non-development didn’t do in Afghanistan. This is a moral test for the West. What needs to be done with the funds, and in general in Afghanistan is presented in the newly-released EIR interview with Dr. Shah Mehrabi, for 20 years on the Board of Governors of the Da Afghanistan Bank, the central bank of Afghanistan. Our role is indispensable in getting out such policy interventions, along with getting out the truth on the scale of the emergency in Afghanistan, which is being blacked out severely in the Trans-Atlantic media. The Zepp-LaRouche call for Operation Ibn Sina to bring a modern healthcare platform to the country is a call for world action. Shining the light on Afghanistan and mobilizing for what must be done, spreads understanding of the necessity to end the grip of the imperialist foreign policy and globalist financial system everywhere, now in breakdown, and threatening nuclear war. Helga Zepp-LaRouche ended her remarks on PTV Dec. 17 by summarizing, “So in one sense, I think the fate of Afghanistan and the fate of humanity are much more closely connected than most people can imagine.”

The following is an edited transcript of the interview with Dr. Shah Mohammad Mehrabi conducted December 15, 2021 by EIR’s Gerald Belsky and Michael Billington. Since 2002, Dr. Mehrabi has been a member of the Board of Governors of the Da Afghanistan Bank, the Afghan central bank. Since 1992 he has been a professor in the Business and Economics Department at Montgomery College in Maryland and chairman of the department since 2003. [UPDATE, 12/22/2021 ― The Letter to President Biden referenced by Dr. Mehrabi below, calling for the release of the Afghanistan funds being held by the Federal Reserve, has subsequently been released with the signatures of 46 members of the House of Representatives. It can be read here.] Gerald Belsky: Dr. Mehrabi, could you tell us something about your background and your relationship to the current Taliban government? Dr. Mehrabi: Thank you, Gerry, and I want to thank also the Schiller Institute for all their efforts to be able to make a difference in releasing the Afghan reserves, and to be able to get a positive result in eradicating the poverty that has ensued and will continue unless concrete measures are taken by the United States and European countries who at this stage, hold the Afghanistan Foreign Reserves overall. Now, I’m an economist, and as an economist I have spent close to 20 years on what is called the Supreme Council, the governing board of the Central Bank of Afghanistan. I also served on the fiscal side as a senior economic advisor for two Ministers of Finance, and worked on generating revenue, and also dealt with government spending when I was at the Ministry of Finance. While in the Ministry of Finance, I continued my role as a member of the Supreme Council of the Central Bank, which is again a board very similar to that of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. It consists of seven board members, and I am also chairman of the Audit Committee of the Central Bank of Afghanistan. I have been extremely active in trying to bring reform, as we did when I went back, when I was first invited to Afghanistan, and tried to reform the financial institution, and more specifically, to at least make certain that we have a functioning and effective Central Bank. Prior to 2003 and 2004, the Central Bank had a dual function. It was both a commercial bank and also a government bank. The commercial bank function was given to the newly created commercial banks, and the Central Bank of Afghanistan, as an independent entity, was re-structured and started its function in early 2000, 2003, 2004 and 2005. Effects of Freezing Foreign Exchange ReservesBillington: The main subject that you have been dealing with, as have we, is that the U.S. Federal Reserve and several European banks have $9.5 billion in reserves which belong to the Afghan Central Bank. This money does not belong to the banks that are holding it, but it’s being frozen for political reasons and disagreements with the new government in Kabul, which makes it essentially a form of illegal economic warfare. Could you describe the impact of this on the people of Afghanistan and what actions you have taken to attempt to free these funds? Dr. Mehrabi: Here is an important point about freezing Afghan foreign exchange reserves. It has contributed to economic instability which I predicted back in September. I predicted a number of things would occur, and they have all come into being, because now there is data to substantiate what I had already predicted in September. At that time, I predicted the currency would depreciate—it has depreciated by more than 14% since August. I also predicted that food prices would increase to double digits—and double digit has occurred. The Price of wheat has gone up by more than 20%, flour has gone up by over 30%, cooking oil has gone up by 60%, and gasoline has gone up by 74%. In the banking sector, I also said at that time that it needs liquidity, and to bring liquidity, it is very important that the reserves must be released, I said, to stabilize prices and to prevent a further collapse of the afghani, which is the national currency. The 14% currency depreciation hits mostly consumer purchasing power. It puts people in a position where they cannot buy the basic necessities of life. Also, the asset prices of all these goods have gone up. Also, I said that imports would decline, and that has occurred. There was a reduction in demand for these imported goods, and consumption has declined significantly because people have no access to their own money in the bank. On the top of that, they don’t have jobs. Many lost their jobs; they did not earn any income and then higher prices further suppressed the demand for buying goods and services. So that’s what you see: hunger and starvation has come into being. I also said that trade clearly is not taking place. As a matter of fact, imports from Pakistan were 46% lower than during the same period last year. Exports are very meager—dried fruit, carpets, and so on. That has remained somewhat stable but has not been generating adequate foreign exchange reserves. Wages have declined. Getting back to the impact of this freezing of Afghanistan’s reserves, we already see that has created immense poverty. What I propose is that we should allow the Central Bank of Afghanistan a limited, monitored, and conditional access to their own reserve. This is Afghanistan’s reserve, it does not belong to anybody else, but to Afghan people. They should be allowed to have access to their reserve, and this foreign exchange reserve should be used for the purpose of auctioning. Why? Because auctioning is designed to prevent the depreciation of the afghani against the dollar and other foreign currencies, and also to increase the purchasing power of afghanis and prevent it further from declining day in and day out. The Central Bank of Afghanistan will not be able to maintain domestic price stability without auctioning. Price stability will not come into being unless these reserves are released. One of the main functions of the Central Bank of Afghanistan is to maintain price stability, and that they cannot do. What I suggested at that time and still suggest, is that access [be given] to $150 million—now I’m saying $200 million, because Afghanistan’s reserves have dwindled significantly—per month out of the $7.1 billion [held in the U.S. Federal Reserve], which is roughly half of the reserve that is required monthly to stabilize the economy. I also said that the United States will be able to verify that these funds are used exclusively for the purpose of stabilizing the currency. The auctions are conducted electronically and the transactions between the Central Bank and commercial banks are automatically recorded. But in addition to this, I suggested that the use of funds could be audited by an international auditing firm that is currently operating in Afghanistan. If there’s any misappropriation, then they could cut off the funds. An important point here is that we want to be able to try to use the funds to prop up the value of the afghani, to allow people to buy essential goods and services. People are calling me constantly who say they cannot afford to buy bread, which is the mean staple for everyone. My own brother is dean at the university. He’s being paid, but even he cannot afford to function without our help through remittances—he is not able to purchase the basic necessities. There are many other Afghans who are constantly talking about the fact that they cannot buy ordinary goods. So, we need to be able to help meet the needs of ordinary Afghans, because, again, higher prices of food. And that can be handled without any difficulty by allowing this reserve to be released. The important point is that we know, based on empirical evidence, what we have done in the past with regard to the release of the funds. Every time that we wanted to engage in an auction, we were able to stabilize the currency and move to price stability. As a matter of fact, the record of the Central Bank is very clear. The Central Bank was able to maintain a single-digit increase in prices for most of the two [past] decades. Further, look at empirical evidence: the Taliban just about three weeks ago auctioned off $2.5 million out of the $10 million they had proposed to auction, and that auctioning off during the same day resulted in the appreciation of the currency. The value of the afghani went up and then it stayed there for two days. But $2.5 million is not adequate. The Central Bank has to intervene continuously to be able to maintain this price stability. If they don’t do it, you’ve got the crisis that you see right now. Higher prices, people are going to be starved to death, and then, famine is going to come as a result of drought as well. People are going to move out of Afghanistan, and there will be banging on the European doors trying to be admitted. Proposed Modification of the Sanctions PolicyBelsky: You have called for the release of $150 million a month from the frozen reserves, to engage in dollar auctions to stabilize the value of the currency. We think that would allow these western countries to justify their continued holding of Afghan funds, which they have no legal nor moral right to do. Wouldn’t you agree that they must release all the funds as a matter of principle and moral obligation? Dr. Mehrabi: I have said that the United States Treasury needs to clarify and modify their sanctions law. Whether the U.S. Treasury can legally withhold another country’s reserve is not clear in my mind. So that needs to be clarified. They have shown some degree of flexibility in the area of humanitarian aid, but it has to be broader than humanitarian exemptions. There are concerns from the Treasury Department about terrorism financing, and others have raised the issue regarding the competency of government and its leaders. I think all of those issues can be discussed. We have a lot of models that the United States has used in the past. Iran was allowed a release of funds to be used for the purpose of trade. The U.S. Office of Foreign Asset Control will have to allow some degree of flexibility, to be able to make certain that exceptions are made, not only for humanitarian related issues, but also for allowing the Central Bank to get access to their reserves. I think you cannot punish Afghans. We talk about the issue of women and so on—women and children are the first people suffering from this. They are not able to buy goods and services. On the one hand, if we argue, that we want to provide humanitarian aid, but we are going to choke off the economy as well—those are two opposite arguments. The arguments do not really make sense. On the one hand, you say, I want to help with humanitarian aid, but I’m going to choke off the economy so that the ordinary Afghans will not be able to have access to food and basic necessities. Humanitarian Aid Is Good, but Not a SolutionBelsky: You’ve answered my next question implicitly, but I’m going to ask it anyway. The World Bank, as you know, is now planning to restore about $230 million in aid. But even this small amount, they’re saying, has to go through UNICEF and the World Health Organization instead of going through the Afghan banking system. What is your view of this? Dr. Mehrabi: I don’t know where UNICEF is going to use it, for what purposes. I said that before. Or WHO, and even the World Food Program. If they are for the purpose of purchasing grains and other basic necessities, that is good. But humanitarian aid is not a solution to rekindling the activities of the economy. Humanitarian aid, as I have said all along, while it is necessary, it’s a stop gap measure, it’s not a complete measure to get the economy overall to move to a point where they could get an increase in aggregate demand, which is very essential if the economy is going to function and generate enough revenue for daily economic activity. Billington: One of the sanctions, or some of the sanctions, have, as I understand it, denied Afghanistan access to the SWIFT money transaction system. What is the impact of this on the country? Dr. Mehrabi: This is what commercial banks have been complaining about. The commercial banks had a window where they could engage with corresponding banks. And that has been stopped. That has been blocked by Treasury. The Treasury Department would not allow it. And the correspondent banks are hesitant and reluctant to engage in any activity, unless they get a clearance from Treasury. Unless the Treasury relaxes, to ensure some degree of flexibility, allow some exemptions from sanctions, and allow this SWIFT entity to allow the transactions to take place, we’re again going back to the same situation. Liquidity is not going to be there. We’re going to be choking off the economy overall. Do Not Bypass the Central Bank!Belsky: Dr. Mehrabi, there’s been a recognition by many individuals and organizations of the point you’re making, that humanitarian aid will not work if there’s no banking system. However, one individual has floated a proposal. In 2019 Alex Yerden, the former financial attaché for the Treasury Department in Kabul, put forward a proposal that may be being discussed behind the scenes. His proposal is to bypass the Central Bank in order to avoid giving money to the current government, and to set up a private central bank, or to use a commercial bank like the Afghanistan International Bank or some other bank, to which some of these funds can be channeled which are being illegally held. The proposal is to set up a private bank that would carry out some of the functions you’ve described, such as the auctioning of money to prop up the currency. What is your view of this idea of setting up a private central bank to bypass the current Central Bank? Dr. Mehrabi: We have invested about 20 years in modernizing, in establishing a Central Bank that is able to administratively, based on the law, perform all the functions that a central bank is to perform. That includes supervision of the Central Bank, issuing of banknotes, being able to be the lender of last resort, and to provide liquidity to the commercial banks. Those functions cannot be taken over by a commercial bank. A commercial bank is there to be able to earn profit, while a central bank’s main function is not profitability. Also, a commercial bank cannot be relegated with the responsibility of a central bank. A central bank has personnel that are well trained, who have the education and experience that they could perform all their particular duties based on the law. That is still not revised, it still is in practice. To allow another entity, or a parallel institution, to a great extent is going to result in a situation where it will create a lot of confusion, and in one way or another, it will result in the credibility in the Central Bank being eroded in the mind of the public at large. The issuing of currency is the domain of the Central Bank. A commercial bank does not have the authority, legally or otherwise, to be able to engage in issuing currency or injecting liquidity, or afghani, into the system. It cannot issue currency as a medium of exchange. The currency issued by the Central Bank, however, is accepted because the people trust that particular currency to use as a medium of exchange or store of value and use it as a unit of account Remember here, it’s not only U.S. dollars, it is also Afghanistan’s currency that is an important element in bringing about liquidity into the economy. So, establishing a parallel institution, if it’s designed for dismantling the Central Bank, as some of these people have advocated, is not a move that will rescue the poor people, ordinary Afghans, from the misery that, out of no fault of their own, they are experiencing. The Prospect of a Banking CollapseBillington: The UN has addressed the crisis in the banking system. The U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, gave a report to the UN Security Council Nov. 17, saying: “The dire humanitarian situation in the country is preventable as it is largely due to financial sanctions that have paralyzed the economy.” Also, in November, the UN Development Program said that “the commercial banking system is critical to continue even the humanitarian and other basic programs that are supported by the UN and some of the NGOs and other partners. So, the economic cost of a banking system collapse, with the concomitant negative social consequences, would be colossal.” That’s what the UN Development Program said. Has the UN taken any significant steps to stop this disaster, which they are describing? Dr. Mehrabi: That’s a good question. Let’s look at what we know. I want to mention also that UNAMA, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, was able to bring in $16 million in cash, as a part of the humanitarian aid for Afghanistan. So, they have taken that measure. Even UNAMA, however, does not have a very good record in the mind of many Afghans—their record of performance in the past, as far as efficiency, credibility and accountability is concerned. But anyway, $16 million has been brought in twice. So, there’s been about $32 million in cash, almost all of it directed toward humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. It was not brought in through the Central Bank. While the UN clearly talks about the collapse of the system—and I think in talking about a financial sector and the constraints that the financial sector is faced with—they realize that the liquidity of both commercial banks and the Central Bank have been eroded. But still they have not taken enough measures to be able to address the channeling of these funds to the Central Bank for the purpose of auctioning. So, you know, we say, talk the talk, but walk the walk. I think it is an issue that needs to be brought up on this UN position. But the statement by the UN Special Representative, they clearly realize that, and understand that a banking system collapse could come into being. But you have to take concrete measures to prevent the banking system from collapsing. And what do you do in this case? It is not going to happen by only addressing humanitarian aid. Firms and households will be unable to access bank deposits. To begin with, right now they are not able to get access to their bank deposits. The Central Bank has put strict limits on withdrawals because they don’t have enough liquidity in the system. So, when you look at these international transactions that were mentioned before, SWIFT and all that—that has been blocked to a great extent. Firms are unable to transfer funds overseas to pay for imports. Bottlenecks are created in every direction that you can think of. The outlook, obviously, is very bleak unless measures are taken by the United States—in this case to release these particular funds and to allow them to be channeled to the Central Bank. At this stage, the depletion of international reserves has created a quagmire here. I would hope that the UN Special Representative would look clearly at what we have suggested in this case. Look at a very simple thing—economists usually look at the costs and benefits. What is the cost of a collapse of the banking system, and what are the benefits of making certain that it is rescued? How much would we—that is, Europe and the United States—gain by making certain that the economy functions in a normal way by allowing them to have access to their reserve, and then also inject other liquidity in terms of cash to the people who were funded by ERDF [European Regional Development Fund]. ERDF has a lot of funds, and that could be used for the salaries of these people who are not being paid, so that when they have their salary, they could spend it in order to buy goods and services. That will help. The aggregate demand, or the total demand, would be activated and the economy will be able to use the multiplier effect to generate economic growth. A Direct Appeal to President BidenBelsky: Dr. Mehrabi, you have been meeting with members of the Congress to urge them to call on President Biden to release the Afghan assets. I know that a letter is being circulated. In fact, I received an email from the Maryland Peace Action Group, and I know peace action groups all over the United States are circulating an appeal to people to call on their congressmen to sign on to this letter. The letter is being circulated by representatives Pramila Jayapal, Sarah Jacobs and Jesús García, to urge President Biden to release the $9.5 billion in frozen Afghan reserves. What can you say about your efforts in the Congress and with the news media to promote this policy? Dr. Mehrabi: This letter is an effort we jointly wrote back, I think, in October, but then the Congress was very busy. Our meetings have continued with congressmen and senators. Through those meetings and efforts, we have been able to get a number of sponsors for this particular letter. So far, we have 23 people who have signed it. Initially, Jayapal, Jacobs, and García signed. But now we have other Congress members who have joined the bandwagon and have signed. I had a meeting today with the staff of the Congress and the Senate, where I made a presentation and pitched the notion of this letter, and got signatures by more people. We were hoping to get more signatures, and then present this two-page letter to President Biden. We are highlighting what needs to be done and why it should be done, and how important it is to make certain that people in Afghanistan are not going to suffer from starvation, and to make certain that we do not have famine and universal poverty. This is in the national interest of the United States. The argument has been made that the United States has lost a lot of sweat and financial resources in making certain that these institutions were established. And now we should not be dismantling this particular institution. The Afghans deserve to have access to their foreign reserves. They deserve to have a life that is lived in peace and prosperity, in a country that has suffered from 40 years of war. So, all those arguments are clearly spelled out in the letter to President Biden. It will be submitted to President Biden soon, most likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Operation Ibn SinaBillington: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, as you know, the founder of the international Schiller Institutes, stands very strongly against this policy of genocide that is being waged against Afghanistan by the U.S. and the allied NATO nations. What is needed beyond the immediate aid, she insists, is the launching of a modern health care system with all that that entails, meaning clean water, electricity, transportation as well as the medical facilities. Zepp-LaRouche has called this project for international cooperation Operation Ibn Sina, after the famous 11th century medical genius, poet, astronomer, and philosopher, who was in fact born in the region of today’s Afghanistan and is much beloved across the entire Islamic world. What do you think about this effort, and what can you say about Ibn Sina? Dr. Mehrabi: I thank you for the question again. Here it is that we are looking at the current Afghanistan, a collapse of a government that is coming into being, and Afghanistan is faced with economic and development challenges, and daunting economic and political challenges. Any effort to bring about development and to be able to bring economic growth is welcome. I think the effort by Mrs. LaRouche in terms of making certain that the health issues [are met]—Afghanistan, has a very high mortality rate—is a move that will at least expand the life of many of those people who are suffering shortened lives because of the ailments that they suffer from, and because of not having access to health care. And also, obviously, access to clean water and electricity. Right now, Afghanistan cannot import a lot of electricity and cannot pay for it because of, again, the shortage of currency. I think these are all moves that we should all support, and we should all be able to at least in one form or another, be very appreciative of. In the health area, Afghanistan is experiencing a third COVID-19 wave that started back in April. Infection rates have reached a very high level. Coupled with a drop in foreign aid, the government is not able to generate enough money to address the health issues. At the top of it is the World Bank, which was paying the employees of the health sector—they stopped the payments. All of this combined has really brought about a catastrophic situation for the economy of Afghanistan. So, a move like this, brought about by Mrs. LaRouche, is a welcome move. And I think Ibn Sina obviously, as you mentioned clearly, is well known in that part of the region as well as in Afghanistan. [There is an] Ibn Sina Hospital right in the heart of Kabul that many patients visit. Modernizing that particular institution, with the help of Mrs. LaRouche and others would be highly valued and appreciated. Large-Scale Infrastructure for Economic DevelopmentBillington: The other major issue, which we at the Schiller Institute and EIR have promoted is large-scale infrastructure development, especially with the help of the Belt and Road Initiative. We’ve just learned that Pakistan has now begun constructing a rail connection from Quetta to Kandahar, and we know that starting last February, there was a plan approved between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan to develop a rail link from CPEC, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, from Islamabad through the Khyber Pass into Kabul and then on to Tashkent, as part of the Belt and Road, which would give all of the Central Asian countries access to the Arabian Sea for the first time, and also transform Afghanistan. What is your vision for Afghanistan’s development, and do you think it’s possible that these projects can continue without fixing the banking crisis first, getting cooperation from China and other neighboring countries? Dr. Mehrabi: I think we should. Besides humanitarian aid, this Belt and Road Initiative from China could provide Afghanistan with long-term economic viability. I think that is an important point to keep in mind. One possibility is obviously Afghanistan joining the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is a central part of that Belt and Road Initiative. I think Beijing has pledged over $60 billion for infrastructure in Pakistan. Initially, Afghanistan was not allowed to be a part of it, but now I think it has been invited. This initiative, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, is a good option for the development of Afghanistan. It is also important to keep in mind that we talk about the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline. TAPI could generate quite a bit of money for Afghanistan—transit fees I think have been projected at over $400 million. This pipeline clearly is also an important work. But we also have other areas for development purposes that have been addressed or talked about, but have not been fully explored and materialized, such as minerals. When I was in Afghanistan in 2008 at the Ministry of Finance, a contract was signed with the Metallurgical Corporation of China to develop the Mes Aynak Copper Mine, but because of the security situation, it has not really been able to produce much. Then we had the Hajigak iron ore mine as an important one to explore. We have oil basins that China is trying to explore as well. So, there are many other opportunities. Also, Afghanistan has a large reserve of lithium besides other minerals that could be generating quite a bit of foreign exchange reserve, if these were active. Belsky: Are there any other thoughts you would like to convey? Sanctions Only Hurt the Ordinary PeopleMr. Mehrabi: Well, I am a firm believer, as I have said all along, that the reserve has to be released and we should be able to make certain that ordinary Afghans are not put in a position where they could be forced to not have adequate food. As an economist, as an Afghan-American, I am deeply concerned about the fate of the 35 million people in Afghanistan who have known little more than war and suffering their whole life. And now for another country to suffocate those particular people—you know, the result will only be a new refugee crisis, a new refugee crisis of the kind that we saw in 2014 in Syria, or even worse. Afghans will flee on foot. They will carry their babies in one hand and whatever belongings they have in the other, and they will go to the west, to Iran, in hopes of making it into Turkey and then into Europe. I think it is a failure—not only shortsighted—for the United States, but also the final abandonment of the Afghan people. I think it’s very important that the United States, which negotiated the evacuation with the Taliban, which was negotiating how they could attack IS [Islamic State terrorists], could engage fully in those activities, but does not want to get fully engaged in releasing these particular funds. You see these policies, the kind that are now in force. They never hurt the people who they are intended to. It will not hurt the current government. We know that, by the evidence in many other areas. It hurts the ordinary Afghans who deserve to have access to their particular money. They deserve to not have their life savings become worthless, worthless because inflation is going to eat them, the value of their money, in a blink of an eye. They deserve to be able to feed their families. So again, that failure to provide access, as I said before, I think it’s shortsighted. Let’s try to act in a way where indeed we help these people. The United States invested a lot of money. Try to avoid the spiral of price increases and food shortages and currency depreciation and bank closures. Let’s try to avoid the complete collapse of the economy. Billington: Well, thank you very, very much, Dr. Mehrabi. We appreciate it. We will do everything we can to get your message out with our effort and others who are joining with you and trying to prevent this atrocity, and to at least make up for the destruction that has been waged against your country over all these years. Dr. Mehrabi: Thank you very much. Thank you, Gerry, and thank you, Mike, for all your help and efforts in this area. I’m very appreciative of your dedication to this area. I’m an optimist. It took a while to get this letter out, but we finally did it, with meetings almost twice, three times a week, or sometimes four times, for different groups. We have got to a level where at least we have 23 co-signers today. Hopefully, the number will increase. I would like to get this letter out before Christmas and before the congressmen disappear, rather than bringing it out in the new year. We’ll try to do that. We will keep you apprised of what is going on, and we’ll keep in touch. And thanks again very much. Belsky: And thank you for your efforts, Dr. Mehrabi.

The following is an edited transcription of an interview with Justin Yifu Lin conducted December 20, 2021 by EIR Editor Michael Billington. Dr. Lin was the Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank from 2008 to 2012, and is now the dean at several institutes at Peking University: the Dean of the Institute for New Structural Economics; the Dean at the Institute for South-South Cooperation and Development; as well as a Professor and Honorary Dean at the National School of Development. Subheads, footnotes, and embedded links have been added.EIR: This is Mike Billington, I’m with the Executive Intelligence Review, the Schiller Institute, and The LaRouche Organization. I’m speaking here with Dr. Justin Yifu Lin. Dr. Lin: Thank you very much for the opportunity to have this conversation with you. What Prevents China-U.S. Cooperation for Development?EIR: As you probably know—I sent you some of this—there are several senior diplomats and intelligence professionals in the United States—including Ambassador Chas Freeman, who has great experience in China, and former CIA official Graham Fuller—both of whom have warned that the U.S. foreign policy has been “weaponized,” that diplomacy has been lost, and that this is driving the danger of war between the U.S. and China, as well as with Russia. You have argued in the past for what could be called “economic deterrence,” that as China’s economy becomes significantly larger than that of the U.S., that “the United States’ own development could then not ignore the opportunities brought by the Chinese market,” and that this would bring about a “peaceful and common development between China and the United States.” What in your mind is preventing that peaceful and common development now? Dr. Lin: Thank you very much for this very important question for our world today. First, we need to understand that cooperation between the U.S. and China is crucial for many global challenges, because the U.S. is the largest and the strongest country in the world, and China is the second largest economy in terms of economic size. Their cooperation will be the foundation for combating climate change, containing the pandemic, and to help the other countries to get rid of their poverty in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. So, the cooperation is important, and our cooperation certainly is good for the U.S., for China, and for the whole world. But we did not see the cooperation come along. We see a lot of tensions in the recent years. I think it is because the U.S. has lost confidence in itself. The U.S. was the largest economy in the world throughout the 20th century. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China overtook the U.S. in 2014, but the U.S., for her own interests, tried to maintain its dominance, economically, politically and so on. And so now there are some involved in the strategy of the U.S. who try to contain China. And certainly, that kind of strategy reflects in the U.S. diplomatic and foreign relations policy with China. Certainly, that will threaten the stability of the world, because, first, we need to have cooperation to address global issues, but also because that kind of tension is a threat to the foundation for cooperation; that will add to the uncertainty of the world. That’s very bad. How To Resolve the Difficulty How can we improve that? Well, one way is that China could reduce its economic size. If China cut its GDP by half, then the U.S. would not feel threatened. But it’s not possible, because development is a human right. That is in the UN constitution, and that is a constitution has been advocated by the U.S. and many other countries for decades. So, there’s no reason why China would need to cut our income by half or more to please the U.S. The other way is to continue to have development, to have growth. I wrote an article arguing that if China can reach half the per capita GDP of the U.S.—I think that’s very moderate, only half of the U.S.—I think the U.S. will accept China by that time, for three reasons: First, [even] if China’s per capita GDP is half that of the U.S.—and certainly we would still have some internal differences—our more developed regions, like the major cities, Beijing and Shanghai, and the more developed areas, our coastal provinces, like Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian and Guangdong, have a combined population of a little bit more than four hundred million. Currently, the U.S. population is around three hundred and forty million, but certainly the U.S. population will continue to grow. In those more developed regions in China, per capita GDP will be about the same as in the U.S. Both per capita GDP and the economic size will be about the same as the U.S. We know that per capita GDP reflects the average labor productivity of that part of the economy, and the average labor productivity reflects the industrial achievement, the technological achievement. So, by that time the U.S. will not have the technological superiority that they could use to choke off Chinese development. Currently, you see, the U.S. has put a lot of high-tech companies in China on its so-called Entity List,1 without actually having any concrete evidence for their accusations. That is only because the U.S. wants to use their technological superiority to choke off China’s development. But if at that later time, if the more advanced regions in China had the same income level, the same technological level, then the U.S. would not be able to do that. Second, our population size is about four times that of the U.S. If our GDP is half the U.S., then in fact China’s economic size will be twice as large as the U.S. No matter how unhappy the U.S. is, the U.S. cannot change that fact. It’s a fact. And third, China will be the largest economy by that time, and China will continue to grow. For the U.S., for example, if those companies on the Fortune 500 list, want to stay on that 500 companies list, they cannot lose the Chinese market. And also in trade, certainly it’s a win-win. But we know that in trade, the smaller economy gets more than the larger economy. By that time, China’s economy will be twice as large as the U.S., so in trade with China, the U.S. will gain more. So, for that reason, certainly, if U.S. politicians really care about their own people, then, to have friendly relations with China will be necessary. It would be necessary for the U.S. to improve the well-being of their own people and to maintain their companies’ leadership in the world. Countering Economic Suppression by the U.S.EIR: You argued once before that the U.S. intentionally suppressed the Japanese economy in the 1980s and 1990s to, as you said, “prevent them from threatening the U.S. economic status.” And, as you’ve just said, they’re doing pretty much the same thing now towards China, having suppressed these Chinese companies with accusations and so forth. How has China countered this today? You’ve already said what you propose will come in the future, but how can China counter this attack on Huawei and other companies today? Dr. Lin: I think the first thing we need is to remain calm and open. We need to move our economy to further improve its market efficiency. The U.S. today has some superiority, an upper hand in certain technologies, but the U.S. is not the only country which has those kinds of technologies. The advanced countries in Europe—Germany, France, and Italy—and Japan and Korea—also have many advanced technologies. China should remain open, to have access to the technology from other advanced countries, as long as it’s not technologies in which the U.S. has the monopoly. Advanced technologies require their own heavy R&D—it’s a bit expensive, and once they get those kinds of technological breakthroughs, the profitability of these companies depends on how large the market is. Measured by purchasing power parity, China is already the largest market in the world. Every year since 2008, China has contributed about 30% to global market expansion. So as long as China can open the Chinese market, I figure that other high-tech companies will be ready to fill in the gap that is due to the U.S. restricting its companies from exporting those kinds of technologies to China. China only needs to focus on a few technologies, for which the U.S. is the only supplier in the world. By that we will not be choked off. Second, we need to continue to develop our economies. Currently, if you measure by purchasing power parity, our GDP is about 25% that of the U.S., and by market exchange rate our GDP is about one sixth of the U.S. As I said, if we can maintain the growth momentum, I think the dilemma will be addressed. ‘Industrial Policy’ vs. ‘Free Trade’EIR: You’ve written for years about the fact that the advanced industrial nations reached the point they are at today by using government directed credit, and what you call “industrial policy,” to protect and support emerging industries and the research that’s necessary for that kind of development. But now these advanced sector countries are denying the same measures to today’s emerging economies, under the demand of “free trade.” The Korean economist Chang Ha-joon called this “Kicking Away the Ladder.” Lyndon LaRouche has pointed to this as the primary difference between the British System of “free trade” and the original American System of protection and directed credit. I have also written that the Chinese economic model today that you promote is closer to the American System—people like Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List and Henry Carey—than is now practiced in the U.S. itself. How do you see this? Dr. Lin: I fully agree with it, no question. Actually, not only did the U.S. protect her own industries during the “catching up” stage, but Britain practiced the same. Before the 17th Century, Britain was in a process of trying to catch up with the Netherlands, because at that time the Netherlands’ wool textile sector was more advanced than Britain. The GDP in the Netherlands was about 30% higher than the GDP in Britain. So, Britain adopted similar strategies to protect its own wool textile industries, and created all kinds of incentives to smuggle the equipment from Netherlands to Britain and provide incentives to attract the craftsmen in the textile sector in the Netherlands to come to Britain. Exactly the same process, like what Hamilton argues, and List argues. Britain only turned to free trade after the industrial revolution. Britain was then the most advanced country in the whole world, and their industry was the most advanced in the world. They wanted to export their products to other countries, so they started to advocate free trade. At that time, the U.S. wanted to catch up, so the U.S. used exactly the same policy as Britain had used in the 17th century, when Britain wanted to catch up with the Netherlands. If you look at history, only a few countries were able to industrialize and catch up. You can see in the catching-up process, they all used the government’s active facilitation to support their industrial upgrading. Britain and the U.S., after they became the most advanced countries, on the one hand, they argued free trade for their electorates, but at the same time, they also actively supported research and development to further improve their technology. And that’s how they can continue to upgrade their technology, and also develop new higher-value industries. Because at that time, their technologies were on the global frontiers, so if they wanted to have new technologies, they would have to invent the technologies by themselves. The invention of technologies has two parts. One is basic research, the other is the development of new products based on the breakthroughs in basic research. Private firms, certainly, have the incentive to develop new technologies and new products, because if they’re successful, they can get patents, and then they can have a monopoly for up to 17 or 20 years in the global market. But at the same time, if they do not have breakthroughs in basic research, then it would be very difficult or even impossible for them to have the development of new products and new technologies. But you know, basic research, you’ll find, is a public good, and so the private sectors do not have the incentive to do basic research. If you look into the high-income countries, their governments all support basic research. That is a necessity for them, to continue to have a new stream of technology, a new stream of products and so on. They are still using the industrial policy. But the difference is that they are on a global frontier [of new technologies], and that’s how an industrial policy in the advanced countries, to address market failures, will be different from the type of industrial policy to address market failures in a developing country. In nature it is the same, but actually the areas that the government is required to contribute its efforts will be different. Recently, there’s a famous book called The Entrepreneurial State, by Mariana Mazzucato. Her theme is: In all of the major and competitive industries in the U.S. today, they are the result of the government’s active support in basic research in the previous period. So, the area in which a country requires the government to put its efforts will be different, depending on the stage of development. Hamilton vs. Jefferson In the U.S., there are two traditions: One tradition is the Hamilton tradition, to argue that the government should provide support to overcome the barriers for further development. The other tradition is the Jefferson tradition, to say the government should do nothing, should leave the market to function—the government should be minimal. In fact, in practice, the U.S., since the founding of the nation, has been following Hamilton. But in rhetoric, it is totally dominated by the Jefferson tradition. I think you have a split between the reality and your rhetoric, but unfortunately your rhetoric has been so powerful, and it’s all over the developing countries—they are advised not to do anything by their government, and as a result—except for a few countries whose governments followed the Hamilton tradition and were able to industrialize and catch up—but other countries were misguided by the Jefferson tradition to not do anything, and so they were unable to narrow the gap with the advanced countries. Money Accounting’ vs. ‘Wealth Accounting’EIR: You and other Chinese officials, including Premier Li Keqiang, have called for a new means of accounting the strength of nations, arguing that looking only at the GDP and the debt—which are the money side—is what you call “severely flawed,” for considering only monetary data and leaving out the underlying national assets, including human capital, natural capital and produced capital. You call this alternative method “wealth accounting.” How far has this idea been developed and put in use in China or anywhere else? Dr. Lin: First, I’m delighted to see an increasing recognition for change in some nations. GDP is a flow concept—how much you produce every year. But the production every year depends on the stock of the wealth, including human capital, natural resources, biodiversity, as well as the produced capital: the equipment, the machinery, and also the infrastructure. All those are the wealth of that nation and the foundation for producing goods and services to generate the GDP. In the past, we only looked at the flow concept, the GDP, without paying attention to the condition of the foundation to generate the flow. The foundation should be based on the wealth—the assets we just described. I’m delighted to see now, increasingly, there is a recognition of the necessity to change the concept, including in the IMF recently, which has produced a paper saying that if the government can use debt to finance an investment in infrastructure, it generates assets; and it is different from the government using that debt to finance consumption—those are pure debts. So, if we calculate debt according to whether the government used the debt to support infrastructure or other improvements in human capital, then it will contribute to the ability for the nation to generate new streams of income and thereby enhance the ability to pay back its debt. In the past, when we talked about the debt-sustainability framework, that framework only calculated the gross debt, without paying attention to the asset side. The IMF today called for a revision in its debt sustainability framework. So, we are delighted to see now this more inclusive concept has been increasingly recognized and put into the policy consideration. EIR: Were you and other Chinese economists involved in that change at the IMF? Dr. Lin: When I was at the World Bank, I started to advocate that. I wrote policy notes to advocate that. To change peoples’ beliefs, people’s ways of behaving, certainly takes time. I was the Chief Economist of the World Bank from 2008 to 2012. The proposal to change to the new framework came only after about four years after I left! So, I think that if we want to change the world, conversations like this one with you and me, and people with a better concept, a better idea, should not stop advocating for that. And the more people understand, then I think that gradually, in the end, I’m sure the world will change for the better. EIR: You are attacking neoliberal orthodoxy. But while you were at the World Bank between 2008 and 2012, you were face-to-face with that as the dominant ideology at the World Bank and the IMF. I guess you are explaining now how you dealt with it then, and how it’s having a longer-term effect from your arguments. Does that sound right? Dr. Lin: Yes, that’s very true. For example, when I first arrived at the World Bank, I started to say, okay, structural transformation is the foundation for inclusive and sustainable development in any country. But if you look into the structural transformations, you not only need to rely on the entrepreneur in order to have innovations, but entrepreneurs, if they are to be successful, need to be provided with adequate infrastructure. You need to provide adequate financial support. You need to have an improvement in infrastructure, improvement in the financial structure, institutions, and so on. Also legal institutions. All those things that individual enterprises will not be able to deal with. You need to require the state to do it. But the state’s capacity and resources are limited. You need to use your limited capacity and resources strategically. That means you need to pick certain areas that you want to do. And those certainly require so-called industrial policy. At the beginning, industrial policy was a taboo in international development organizations, including World Bank. But I started to advocate for it. I’m delighted to see, increasingly now, people accept that it is necessary to have industrial policy, including the U.S. government, which now openly says we embrace industrial policy for our future development. Right? For example, infrastructure. In 2008, I started to advocate investing in infrastructure, on the one hand, to cope with the necessity for counter-cyclical intervention, but at the same time to lay the foundation for long-term development in the developing world. So, it’s one stone killing two birds. At the beginning, people were also very reluctant. At that time, the counter-cyclical intervention was mostly providing rescue packages to laid-off workers and so on. I see, certainly, that to stabilize the economy would be essential. But if you only provided, let’s say, unemployment benefits—it’s about the consumption, yes, but you do not contribute to enhancing the growth potential in the future. If you invested in infrastructure, you [not only] create jobs, but you reduce the need for unemployment benefits, and at the same time you lay the foundation for long-term growth. At the beginning, people were very reluctant. But I’m delighted to see now, the World Bank, the IMF and the European Union, and to some extent also the U.S., accept the idea, and have started to advocate the need for infrastructure. Recently, the Biden administration proposed to the Congress for funds to support infrastructure investment. Those kinds of ideas. When I was at the World Bank, when I started to argue for that, it was so foreign to many people. They thought, well, infrastructure is an investment, so the market will take care of that. But as we see, the market could not do it, and so we need to have an active government participation. Gradually, people started to embrace many ideas I had started to advocate at the World Bank, and put them into their programs. EIR: On the other hand, the U.S. and Europe are continuing to deal with their huge debt crisis by simply printing money—Quantitative Easing [QE] and other programs. So, while they’re acknowledging the huge deficit in infrastructure, and they’re making some small efforts in that direction, they’re continuing with the QE, which is threatening hyperinflation today, which I think even the inside gurus of Wall Street and the City of London are acknowledging, that there’s a grave, grave danger of a hyperinflation. What is your view on that? The Power of Great IdeasDr. Lin: Yes, I think that in order to change their policies it will be essential to change their ideas, their policy orientations. For this, I agree with Keynes. In the last sentence of his General Theory, he said: “But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.” In the past, the world was influenced by those kinds of inappropriate neoliberal ideas, so the government policy was shaped by those kinds of misguided ideas. And so, it’s very important for your Institute and for scholars like me to advocate and present alternative ideas which can address the issues, and also improve our way of doing things in individual countries, and also in the world. In the end, people will see the benefit and they will start to make some changes. At the beginning, maybe a very small step. But once they see the power of the right interventions, the power of the right policy, I’m hopeful. I think that the world will move for the better. I do wish the right idea will win the debate in the end. EIR: When I looked at your idea of “wealth accounting,” going beyond the monetary figures of GDP and debt, I thought about Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of a non-monetary measure of economic progress, which he called “relative potential population-density.” His view was that these measures were ratios determined by the transformation of the physical economies through the rates of development of new physical principles, discovered in nature, and then applied to the productive process through new machine tools using those new principles. Do you see that as similar to your idea of “wealth accounting”? Dr. Lin: Yes, I think that that idea is very close to the idea that we just discussed, what I have been advocating for a long time. And we do see, you know, we share the same wisdom and our ideas, our proposals, converge on the same directions. And so, we need to join hands to propose the right ideas, through your Institute and my Institute, and to convey it to more people. EIR: You recently wrote an article, “Development Begins at Home,” with your associate, Dr. Wang Yan, who has also spoken at one of our Schiller Institute conferences, comparing the approach of the IMF and the World Bank to the development of Africa, to that of the Chinese approach, using your “wealth accounting” idea. In that article, you said that despite many decades of aid from the West, the infrastructure bottlenecks were not addressed, and that this was the primary reason that the African countries very much appreciate Chinese investment, which emphasizes infrastructure as the means to lift the productivity of the entire nation and escape from poverty The Belt and Road Initiative As you know, the Schiller Institute and EIR have strongly promoted the idea of the New Silk Road, since the 1990s—actually, following the fall of the Soviet Union—as a means of achieving peace through development. Of course, the Belt and Road Initiative, launched by President Xi Jinping [in 2013], is very much in that light. How would you evaluate, so far, the progress of the Belt and Road Initiative in Africa and elsewhere? Dr. Lin: I’m delighted to see that these new ideas have been welcomed and also joined hands in practice. For example, the Belt and Road Initiative—there are already 145 countries and more than 30 international organizations which have signed the Strategic Cooperation Agreement with China. I am delighted to see this idea has been widely accepted in the world. China also has continued to support infrastructure and infrastructural improvements in the world in spite of the pandemic situation, and those kinds of investments certainly provide the foundations for the future, but at the same time, improve jobs and economic developments, even during these pandemic times. I am also delighted to see the European countries now proposing a similar strategy, like the European Gateway, as a way to improve the infrastructure, to link to other countries. I think the world is moving towards the same direction. The infrastructural gap is so huge, that no one country can accomplish all of this. So it is desirable to join hands, with all the initiatives, by China, by European countries, by Japan, by the U.S., because fundamentally we care about humanity, we care about the future of the Earth, the future of human beings. As long as we contribute to that, we should join hands. We should not, in each individual country and for our political purposes, put up barriers to our cooperation. A Modern Global Health Care SystemEIR: In that same article about African development, you directly blame the IMF and the World Bank for what you called “neoliberal orthodoxy,” and that the result of that was that many low- and middle-income countries continue to suffer from fundamental deficiencies, such as the lack of health care personnel and resources. You noted that even after 70 years of development aid, still “there is the inability to deliver clean water, electricity and sanitation.” As you know, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche has formed what she calls the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites—based on an idea of the 15th-century genius Nicholas of Cusa—calling for a global mobilization to address the health crisis that you’ve identified, to provide a modern health system in every country, if the pandemic and future pandemics are going to be defeated. I know that part of what China has launched is a Health Silk Road. So, what are your thoughts on global cooperation to achieve this kind of health system in every country? Dr. Lin: I think that there is a need, and a huge need, as this pandemic shows up, and China certainly contributes to what you mentioned about health care overall. China already provided two billion doses of vaccine to Africa and other parts of the world—one third of the doses of vaccine in the world excluding China. But that’s not sufficient. So, we need to work harder, to work together. Otherwise, the COVID-19 pandemic may linger, and the longer the pandemic is there, the harder it is to deal with, because there are going to be other new mutations coming out all the time, making the vaccines become less effective. So, we need to join hands to contain it, and the sooner, the better. We also need to set the foundation to cope with similar challenges in the future. When this kind of threatening virus appears, at the beginning, we should cope with it. We should repress it immediately. And with that, we need to have global cooperation. So, I think the call [for a modern health system in every country] is very important, and we should join hands to promote that. Operation Ibn SinaEIR: Let me bring up the horrible situation in Afghanistan, where, as you know, 40 years of war, and now the freezing of that nation’s very scarce reserves by the U.S. Federal Reserve and several European banks, and the imposition of sanctions and even cutting off the aid from the IMF and the World Bank, which has created a threat of what has to be recognized as genocide through starvation and disease in that country. In particular, the World Bank was supporting the nation’s health care system for the last 20 years of the U.S./NATO warfare and occupation there, but that’s been completely cut off, leaving the country with virtually no public health system at all. In this case, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has launched another project—she calls it Project Ibn Sina, named after the 11th century Persian medical genius, who came from that region, of Afghanistan. Our proposal is demanding not just emergency aid, and the release of these funds—but also to build the nation’s infrastructure, as you have been emphasizing. By integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road, and in particular, extending the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, the CPEC, into Afghanistan. Do you think this is possible? Dr. Lin: I think it’s possible, if we really care about humanity. I think that the support in the health care, in the medical situation, should be unconditional. Conditions in Africa and in Afghanistan and other developing countries will be improved once they have improvement in their health, and improvement in their economic development. Then the socio-political stability there can be maintained. I’m sure that it’s not only good for the individual country, but also good for the global communities, because then we will be in a better situation to work together and to have more collaboration, and it will also reduce the refugees, legally and illegally, to the high-income countries. And you know, that will also be a big challenge for the high-income countries. So, in some areas, the support should be unconditional, because only that will get you humanity. If we really care about human beings, then no matter under what consideration, we should support those basic needs. Prospects of a ‘Greater Harmony’ and PeaceEIR: Right. As you know, the U.S. and China signed a “Phase One” trade agreement in January of 2020 between the U.S. and China. [Vice Premier] Liu He was in attendance at the White House and President Xi Jinping was on the telephone with President Donald Trump. At that time Trump announced that he would soon make a second visit to China, and said he looked forward to what he called, in his words, “continuing to forge a future of greater harmony, prosperity and commerce,” which would lead to an “even stronger world peace.” Now, clearly, that never happened. As the U.S. failed to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump eventually fell into adopting the antagonistic approach to China expressed by his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, blaming China for virtually every failure in the United States. And although the current Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, has the same hostile attitude toward China, President Biden has had several long calls with President Xi. Do you see some chance of restoring that “greater harmony” coming out of this cooperation between Presidents Biden and Xi? Dr. Lin: I think that China’s door is always open, and, as we said at the beginning, cooperation between China and the U.S. will lay the foundation to address many of the global challenges that we encounter today. So, it will be essential. As to why it did not occur: I think it is because there are some problems in the U.S. If you look into the past, the U.S. always liked to use other countries as the scapegoat for its own domestic problems. That may gain some kind of political interest for the politician in the short run, but it will make the issue become worse for the long term. So, I hope the politicians and the intellectual communities in the U.S. will have the wisdom to understand the roots of its own problems, and it should not use other countries as the excuse or scapegoat for its own problems. Short-term political gain is for a few politicians, but at the cost of the well-being of the whole nation. I hope that this kind of situation will be improved. If those kinds of using other countries as a scapegoat for its own domestic problems, is removed, then certainly U.S. and China cooperation will be good for the U.S., for China, and for the world. Creating a Culture of Science and ArtEIR: In his own work, Lyndon LaRouche very much focused on the quality of creativity, which distinguishes Man from the Beast, as the same in scientific investigations as it is in artistic discoveries, especially that of classical music. In that light, he insisted that scientific education and aesthetic education must go hand in hand in order to allow for the full development of the creative powers of our youth and our population. I personally have very much taken note of the fact that there is a new appreciation in China, following the dark days of the Cultural Revolution, to honor the classical traditions in China, of Confucius and Mencius and the great minds of the Song Dynasty Renaissance, people like Zhu Xi and Shen Guo, and that this is going on simultaneously with the incredible economic and scientific developments taking place in China, as well as China’s increased acknowledgment of the great cultural developments in Western culture and Western classical music, and so forth. How do you see the relationship between economics and science, and the aesthetic side of cultural development? Dr. Lin: I see that science and art—they are complementary to each other, they are both [areas] in which all human beings unleash all of our potentials. So, we should not just focus on one thing and neglect others, if we want to have a better society. We also want to allow the people to develop themselves with greater potentials. And, as you described and you noticed, China now has tried to bring in our traditional culture—appreciation of art, music, classics, not only from China, but from other civilizations—into our programs, educational programs. That’s a good sign. I’m sure that will further the rejuvenation of China to a higher stage, not only materially, but culturally, spiritually. EIR: Thank you. Are there any other thoughts you would like to convey to the readers and supporters of The LaRouche Organization? Dr. Lin: I am delighted to have this opportunity, and I hope our voice will be heard in more corners of the world, because fundamentally, we all care about human beings, and we all want to have a better society for every country in the world. And so I hope that our message will get momentum, traction in the world. EIR: Thank you very much. I hope that we can in fact build on this cooperation. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has always insisted that if we are going to bring about a new paradigm for mankind, it’s going to mean that each culture reaches back to its greatest moments, and that we work together to bring about a truly human renaissance, rather than just a European Renaissance or a Chinese Renaissance or an Islamic Renaissance, but that we bring mankind together to address our common humanity. That is the one basis on which we can end this descent into conflict and war and depression. Dr. Lin: Very good. Thank you very much.

On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy said in a televised address, that the build-up of Soviet missiles in Cuba "in an area well-known to have a special and historical relationship to the U.S....is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country." A very similar message has been sent by Russian President Putin to Trans-Atlantic leaders regarding the ongoing efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO, and place offensive weapons on the borders of Russia. Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko said on Saturday, "We have reached our red line....The moment of truth has come." The Soviets responded to JFK by removing the missiles, and opening a back channel for discussion, thus avoiding war. What will U.S. and NATO leaders do today? Read JFK's Address at this link: https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-during-the-cuban-missile-crisis

Today in Islamabad, representatives of most of the 57 member nations of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation were gathered for the pre-meeting to the extraordinary meeting of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers on the Humanitarian Situation in Afghanistan, which will be held tomorrow. In a statement to today’s opening session of senior officials, the OIC Assistant Secretary General of Humanitarian Affairs, Ambassador Tarig Ali Bakhit Salah, stressed, as reported on the OIC website, “that after decades of war, suffering and insecurity, the people of Afghanistan need relief and peace. ‘It is crucial for the international community to take swift action to ensure that the people of Afghanistan have unimpeded access to life-saving assistance, and that humanitarian support is scaled up. The OIC humanitarian office in Kabul will assume its responsibility in coordination with the various international agencies in delivering the required assistance to the millions of people in need,’ said Ambassador Tarig.”The registered participants at this weekend’s sessions number 437, and many non-OIC delegations are present, including guest nations, UN and other international agencies. The Afghanistan Taliban government delegation arrived today from Kabul, headed by Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi. He met today with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. On Dec. 17, the opening day of the OIC events, David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Program, gave a stern interview to the U.S. National Public Radio, describing the Afghanistan situation. Speaking from the WFP headquarters in Rome, he said, “I was just in Kabul … out of 42 million people, 23 million are marching towards starvation. I mean, they’re in serious trouble … 95% don’t have enough food to eat. [Out of the 23 million] about 9 million are on famine’s door as we speak. It is Hell on Earth. And now the winter months are here.” He spoke of mothers "having to choose, ‘if I have any money at all, do I buy cooking fuel or heating fuel? Do I freeze my child to death, or do I starve my child to death?’ That’s what they’re facing now…. “What we’re looking at now is a 40% loss of wheat production because of droughts and then COVID economic deterioration. Then on top of all that is the lack of [financial] liquidity because the international community has frozen all the assets that the country normally would have….” The situation within Afghanistan cries out for concerted action, and the scope of what needs to be done—not only here, but throughout Central and Southwestern Asia, has been presented by Schiller Institute, in four different guest TV appearances on Pakistan national television PTV, in its gavel-to-gavel coverage of the OIC events over the past 24 hours. Yesterday, Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche powerfully reiterated her call for Operation Ibn Sina in Afghanistan, named after the great Islamic thinker and physician. Also yesterday, Hussein Askary, Southwest Asia Coordinator for the Schiller Institute presented what stretching the Belt and Road Initiative throughout the region will mean. Today, Harley Schlanger, speaking from Germany for the Schiller Institute, spoke on a PTV panel, which opened with a short documentary on Afghanistan, including the report from David Beasley. Schlanger commended Pakistan for its leading role to organize relief action, and the OIC for its efforts, then he called for three steps: 1) unfreezing the Afghanistan government funds; 2) mobilizing emergency aid; and 3) launching a long-term commitment for full economic development. He pointed out that, after spending trillions of dollars for a war, which caused this crisis, the U.S. and Europe must make a major effort to provide food and medical supplies, using the logistical capacity of the war machine to airlift necessary material. Karel Vereycken, speaking from Paris, with the Solidarity & Progress Party, participated in PTV’s next segment, this one an hour-long panel discussion. He drew attention to the potential significance of the meeting of the “Extended Troika”—the United States, Russia, China and Pakistan—to take place on Dec. 20, following the Dec. 19 OIC meeting. The Schiller Institute is collaborating with individuals and efforts internationally for the needed action in Afghanistan, and for a decisive end to foreign relations based on the neo-British Empire model of perpetual confrontation, and economic subjugation, now pushed in the name “climate emergency,” “rules-based order,” and “democracy.” There are videos in preparation for mass social media use, and other initiatives in rush preparation. Today, an EIR interview with Dr. Shah Mohammad Mehrabi, on the governing board of the Central Bank of Afghanistan (Da Afghanistan Bank), was posted in video and text, in which he addresses in depth what is needed for economic functioning in Afghanistan. The interview is titled, “U.S. Policy Is ‘Suffocating the Afghan People.’” (It will appear in EIR’s issue dated Dec. 24, 2021). In Washington, D.C. this coming week, a group of Congressmen is planning to announce their initiative for the U.S. to unfreeze the $9.5 billion of Afghanistan government funds, wrongfully withheld by the U.S. Federal Reserve and Treasury, on U.S. orders. It is also of note, that the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, co-founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, in late summer/fall of 2020, has issued a press release this weekend, on its 2021 aid initiative to Mozambique, in the spirit of demanding collaboration among the major powers, for both emergency action to save lives, and for full-scale development everywhere, beginning with modern health care systems.

In the course of his 50-minute press briefing yesterday on the draft strategic treaties which Russia presented to the United States and NATO this week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said at least three times that Russia is ready to open negotiations now, “immediately,” “tomorrow,” in some third country on those treaties, if the U.S. accepts. Members of the Russian team which will participate in the negotiations have already been selected, he reported.From the outset, he cautioned that the two drafts “are not a menu from which one can pick and choose this or that. They are complementary and must be considered as a whole,” in full knowledge that the drafts contain articles excluding NATO expansion to the east and deployment of threatening weapons in the proximity of Russia, which Western capitals, thus far, reject. But discussions are required, when peace between nuclear powers is at stake, he reminded. “We urge the American side to regard the Russian proposals with the utmost seriousness…. The global situation remains rather tense, and it is in our best interests to find ways to resolve this [problem].” Russia and the U.S. are “great nuclear powers,” and therefore have “a special responsibility for security in Europe.” What responses has Russia gotten? We haven’t heard a yes, but we haven’t heard a no, he answered at one point. At another, “for the moment we are ready to give them time.” Asked what the Americans may request in turn, he replied, “I have no such information. We have to wait; it is a work in progress.” He refused to entertain any “scenarios” of what could happen should Russia’s request be ignored. “I do not want to fuel tensions; I want to take a fire extinguisher in the form of those two draft texts, and using this fire extinguisher, I would like to douse certain embers.” But, he also made clear there are limits. NATO’s flagrant refusal to acknowledge Russia’s legitimate concerns can only lead to further dangerous escalation, and “we cannot tolerate this anymore…. Washington and NATO allies should stop hostile activities directed against our nation, including unannounced military exercises, dangerous approaches and maneuvers of warships and warplanes, and stop the military development of Ukrainian territory.” Asked how Russia could stop the U.S. from dragging out the negotiations, Ryabkov emphasized reality; the current opposing security interests between the U.S, NATO and Russia require negotiations and “a creative approach and responsible policies.” If the negotiations start, we will take stock of the progress as the negotiations proceed. He noted wryly, we have done part of the job for our American colleagues. We have stipulated everything with contractual language cross-references. There is even a translation, and the translation has been improved with the sources, so everything has been given. They have only to sign the document. It can be done, he said. “I would propose they take our proposals seriously, and use them as the basis on which to begin negotiations.”

by: Harley Schlanger Dec. 17 -- Following the implosion of the COP26 climate summit and the farcical nature of last week's "Summit for Democracy", it is becoming increasingly evident that the power of the Trans-Atlantic alliance to enforce a unipolar order through false narratives, backed by military and financial intimidation, may no longer function. The alliance has generally succeeded in imposing its will on the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union, arrogantly assuming the role as the ultimate arbiter of what its defenders call the "Rules-Based Order" (RBO). Give up your sovereignty and play by the rules -- even when they undermine the development of your nation -- and you can be part of the club. But step out of line, and you will face the full fury of an international war machine, steered from the City of London and Washington. Just ask Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi, Yanukovych or Assad what the future has in store for you, if you defy the rules of the post-Cold War order!Yet, in spite of the devastation and destruction which can be unleashed on those nations and leaders which refuse to submit, the unilateralists been unable to successfully conclude the wars launched since the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. The most recent example was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces were unable to crush an insurgency, and left a nation in disarray, with a majority of its population facing possible starvation, as the "nation building" which had been the ultimate announced goal built nothing which could be sustained. While the alliance still possesses the power to withhold funds to starve millions who have the misfortune to live in a country targeted as a rules' breaker, this is hardly a positive advertisement for the RBO. The willingness of nations to stand up against the drive for a unipolar world undermined the efforts to impose a global "green" dictatorship at Glasgow, and provoked derision from many towards the idea of a summit to enforce democracy, through threats and bullying. Yet the same institutions and individuals who were the architects of this policy seem to have concluded that they can still use their unilateral power to force the world to submit to their continued dominance. In the last weeks, following the retreat from Afghanistan, the Biden administration, with full backing from Boris Johnson's teetering government and NATO, moved ahead with its "Pivot to Asia", a containment strategy against China, and threats of military and other war-like acts against Russia, over Ukraine. In both cases a narrative was produced, which accused the two nations of aggressive intention and behavior towards Taiwan and Ukraine; a movement of weapons and troops followed, and the narrative was reinforced by allegations presented at various institutional settings, including at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga, Latvia on November 30-December 1. Then, in spite of what appears to have been a useful exchange between Presidents Biden and Putin during their video summit on December 7, the rhetorical assault escalated, as key figures, among them U.S. Secretary of State Blinken, British Foreign Minister Truss, and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, warned of "painful" measures against Russia, should they invade Ukraine. This, despite a pledge from Biden to host a dialogue with Putin and leading NATO members on Russia's concern over the eastward expansion of NATO, and Kiev's refusal to abide by the Minsk agreement. The belligerent attitude against both Russia and China was amplified at the so-called Summit for Democracy, which was a blatant attempt to divide the world into two warring camps, those of the "democratic" states against the "bullying, authoritarian" nations, headed by Russia and China. Sleepwalking Into Nuclear War The Schiller Institute's founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche has repeatedly warned that the proponents of the RBO are risking a nuclear war, with their threats to expand NATO in the Indo-Pacific region, to counter the alleged threat from China, and through their buildup of forces on Russia's western border. She said that western media complicity, through a constant barrage of lies backing up the hostile narrative, is blocking recognition of the danger, leading to a population "sleepwalking" into a nuclear war. She called on officials to have the courage to speak out, and for citizens to mobilize to head off this danger. Saner voices are now emerging, provoked into action in part by comments from Sen. Wicker of Mississippi, the number two ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Wicker, on December 7, said that in the event of "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, "I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don't rule out first use nuclear option." Later, in a clumsy attempt to backtrack, he still insisted that we should "not take anything off the table."

On Friday, Dec. 17, Russia released to the public two draft agreements it had proposed to the United States on Wednesday, Dec. 15: a Russia-U.S. treaty and a Russia-NATO agreement. These documents, written as full and designed to be ready to sign, are designed to address Russia’s security concerns.These agreements make sense for anyone who wants to assure peace on this planet. Those speaking out against them, rejecting the agreements and dialogue with Russia out of hand, will reveal themselves to be war-mongers. The release of these documents comes amidst a mounting drive for war, driven, for example, by efforts to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, something Russia has very clearly stated would be crossing a bright, flashing red line. But crazed geopoliticians, intent on maintaining a unipolar world order directed from the British Empire and the United States, are pursuing a policy that ineluctably leads to nuclear warfare that would destroy global civilization. The documents call for recognizing a principle of “non-interference in the internal affairs” of each other, acknowledge that “direct military clash between them could result in the use of nuclear weapons that would have far-reaching consequences,” reaffirm “that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” and recognize “the need to make every effort to prevent the risk of outbreak of such war among States that possess nuclear weapons.” The operative part of the U.S.-Russia treaty calls for refraining from taking actions “that could undermine core security interests of the other Party.” Cognizant of the drive for NATO-ization of Ukraine, Article 4 states: “The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of NATO and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former U.S.S.R.,” and “The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former U.S.S.R. that are not members of NATO, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.” It goes on to state that the Parties (the U.S. and Russia) will not take military actions outside their own borders that threaten each other’s national security, or fly bombers or sail warships outside of their territorial waters in ways that would threaten each other. On the U.S.’s expansion of its nuclear weapons to include those stored in such locations of Germany, the treaty states, “The Parties shall refrain from deploying nuclear weapons outside their national territories and return such weapons already deployed … to their national territories.” The Russia-NATO agreement states that “The Parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries.” It essentially calls for rolling back NATO to its 1997 status (at the time of the signing of the Founding Act of Mutual Relations between Russia and NATO), and insists that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.” It also calls for all Parties to agree not to conduct “military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level” within a certain range of the borders of NATO and Russia and its military allies. The conditions describe a reasonable state of affairs among allies, and reads like a peace treaty recognizing that the Cold War ended decades ago. A development and peace plan is also desperately needed In Afghanistan, where a two-decade U.S.-NATO military adventure ended just months ago. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is holding a two-day extraordinary meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, on the subject of developing a humanitarian and development perspective for Afghanistan, where millions of people face starvation and disease due to two decades of warfare and ongoing economic sanctions and the withholding of billions of dollars of central bank reserves. There is a potential for this conference to conclude with a broad aid and reconstruction/development proposal for Afghanistan, which the nation sorely needs. Schiller Institute Founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Schiller Institute Activist Hussein Askary appeared on Pakistani PTV World’s coverage of the OIC ministerial on Friday to discuss their views of the potential for the event. Zepp-LaRouche denounced the failure of the West to take human responsibility for the situation it has created in Afghanistan, and decried the withholding of billions of dollars of the Afghani people’s funds as shameful. Money is withheld based on the excuse that the Taliban mistreats women and children, but look at the devastating conditions created by economic warfare! She promoted the Schiller Institute’s Operation Ibn Sina as a path forward in creating a health and development path forward for Afghanistan, a proposal that could be incorporated by the OIC in its final resolutions. She appealed to the entire world to choose the side of humanity over barbarism. In fact, the crisis presents an opportunity, to those willing to do good, to overcome geopolitics through a commitment to a higher principle. If the United States could be induced to make a positive contribution, this would be of absolute world historical importance in shifting the world paradigm: “I think the whole destiny of mankind is concentrated like a laser in what happens in Afghanistan,” she said. It must become an issue of the whole world. Is humanity fit to survive? “In one sense, I think the fate of Afghanistan and the fate of humanity are more closely connected than most people can imagine.” Askary further developed these themes, laying the blame for the current situation in Afghanistan not on the Taliban, but on 20 years of destructive Western policy. He concluded with an optimistic note on the power of truth over lies: Although narratives may appear to have a certain power, it is reality that ultimately has the upper hand. (Their remarks are transcribed for this briefing.) Reality is asserting itself in Europe, where EU deliberations on its energy sector broke down due to the inherently enormous physical costs of an energy “transition” asserting themselves. Although its use has been marketed as a warm and fuzzy pleasant act of benignant goodness, “green” energy’s intermittent nature and extremely low energy density mean that non-nuclear attempts at decarbonization will unavoidably be extremely expensive. Poland and the Czech Republic want to totally jettison the EU’s CO₂ Emissions Trading System, while ideological lunatics in Austria cheer the potential to remove nuclear from the EU’s “Taxonomy” list of “green” power sources. But ideology will not heat your home, and wishful thinking will not propel your bus or car. The Malthusian worldview of limited resources, overpopulation, and geopolitics is a narrative: both false and devastating to those foolish enough not to overcome it. Will we choose to allow the reality of the anti-entropic nature of the universe and the limitless perfectibility of our beautiful species to inspire us to achieve great things, under a paradigm of economic, scientific, and cultural growth?

Answering your questions: Is there any way Biden would be allowed to respond positively to Putin's proposals from their video summit for a de-escalation over Ukraine? Is Putin still conducting diplomacy based on his desire for a P5 summit? Is there something we can do to encourage China and Russia to create an alternate financial system? Where is John Durham and his investigation when we need him?

As the blatant insanity of the war party is increasingly apparent to anyone with an ounce of concern for humanity, the perpetrators are becoming even more reckless, but some courageous souls are stepping forward to sound the warning and demand a return to diplomacy to prevent a holocaust and a new dark age.On the insane side: Sixty members of Congress have issued a letter calling on President Biden to recognize Tibet as a separate nation, invite the Dalai Lama to the White House, and treat him as a head of state. They assert that China’s insistence that Tibet is part of China is an “obstacle to dialogue.” Perhaps these Malthusian fanatics would prefer that Tibet be returned to its condition under the Lama’s rule, with life expectancy of 35 and illiteracy at 95%. Then there is Tony Blinken, who toured Southeast Asia this week, giving a policy speech in Indonesia on his plan to NATO-ize the Indo-Pacific—perhaps he should say “NAZI-ize.” America is here to counter “Beijing’s aggressive actions,” he said to a nation whose vast majority of infrastructure developments are joint projects with China. He said that the U.S. will work “to connect our relationships in the Indo-Pacific with an unmatched system of alliances and partnerships beyond the region, particularly in Europe…. At NATO, we’re updating our strategic concept to reflect the Indo-Pacific’s growing significance, and address new threats, like the security implications of the climate crisis.” What happened to the “Atlantic” in NATO? He also called for the further militarization of diplomacy, promoting “a strategy that more closely weaves together all our instruments of national power—diplomacy, military, intelligence—with those of our allies and our partners.” On the sane side: Senior U.S. diplomat and China expert Chas Freeman, and senior (former) CIA official and Islamic expert Graham Fuller, have stepped forward to conduct interviews with EIR and the Schiller Institute, both issuing extremely stern warnings, from a highly informed perspective, that emergency measures must be implemented immediately if we are to avoid global war and possible nuclear annihilation. Both assert that the U.S. must come to terms with the fact that it is no longer the “only superpower” which can dictate terms and policies globally. There is a new reality, as China and Russia are offering peace through development to the world, rather than the economic and social decay of the degenerating trans-Atlantic powers, through the Belt and Road and respect for national sovereignty, so long ignored under the British “responsibility to protect” doctrine used to assert a new colonialism. Also on the sane side, a call was issued by President Sauli Niinistö of Finland for a new Helsinki Summit of the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 2025, the 50th anniversary of the 1975 conference which launched the institution. This was a key part of the détente process which kept the peace in Europe and allowed some level of cooperation between the Soviet Union and the Western nations. Following discussions with both President Biden and President Putin, Niinistö said this was a “good time to bring the spirit of Helsinki back to the world. Once again, a positive spiral is needed, a precious foundation of the OSCE,” posing this as a way to defuse what he sees as growing tensions among major powers such as the United States, China, and Russia. Beginning the negotiations now for such a conference can and must break through the madness. Schiller Institute President Helga Zepp-LaRouche added a profound call for sanity in an interview on China’s CGTN TV today. Asked to make suggestions for today’s youth in a moment of great peril, she responded that the fundamental issue is the image of mankind, with two opposite views being contested. The one is that of the Malthusian and oligarchical view, that man is a parasite, polluting Mother Nature, and the fewer people the better, a view most evident in those promoting the climate scare. The other view is that which perceives that every person is sacred, blessed with the power of reason, capable of making discoveries of new principles of nature which can be applied to enhanced production and higher standards of living for all. She said that it is time for all of humanity to unite behind this elevated view, to form a common party of mankind which unites citizens of all countries in a common mission, without contradicting the interests of the diverse and beautiful cultures of the world. To start this process, she said, mankind must unite behind the urgent need to end the pandemic, and all future pandemics, by building modern health facilities in every country. This would create a potential branching point for the human race, building the basic infrastructure required for the health of all people, and ending once and for all the idea that poverty is an unavoidable part of civilization which can not be eliminated. In 100 years, she added, when we have become a space faring species, national boundaries will be less important.

To mark the 251st birthday of composer Ludwig van Beethoven, the close of delayed celebrations and commemorations of the 250th anniversary of his birth, and the role of Beethoven’s life and music in the thinking of economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, musicians David Shavin and Fred Haight will join the Thursday Night Fireside Chat.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping held what amounted to an emergency summit meeting today by video conference. Announced only two days ago, the summit directly addressed two distinct kinds of “nuclear war” being threatened against the two countries by the bellicose and bankrupt U.K.-U.S. financial Establishment: The Dec. 7 call by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) to consider “first-use nuclear action” military strikes against Russia, using the Ukraine crisis as justification. Wicker is the second ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Despite the storm of protests from the left and the right that his remarks unleashed, the Senator has yet to retract his demented provocation. Moreover, the NATO drive eastward, along with the arming of Ukraine and other nations on Russia’s very border, is continuing relentlessly—a drive which Russia continues to warn is crossing a red-line and will lead to a Russian response. The repeated call to carry out the “nuclear option” in financial warfare against Russia—expelling them from the SWIFT global financial payments system. This would be tantamount to laying financial siege to Russia, to try to starve them into submission, as is being done against Afghanistan. This “nuclear option” was called for just last week by U.S. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the architect of the 2014 Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine, and it was publicly threatened by Secretary of State Tony Blinken right after the Dec. 7 summit talks between Biden and Putin. Similar threats were voiced by President Biden himself immediately before his June 2021 meeting with Putin. What did Putin and Xi discuss today when the cameras for the press were turned off? They clearly reviewed the danger of war, and their commitment to help strengthen each other’s security in the face of threats surrounding both Ukraine and Taiwan. Otherwise, the public account provided by Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov provides further insight: “Particular attention was paid by the two leaders to the need to intensify efforts to form an independent financial infrastructure to service trade operations between Russia and China,” Ushakov reported. “We mean creating an infrastructure that cannot be influenced by third countries.” Does this mean that Russia and China are about to announce that they are breaking with the dollar system, and decoupling their economies from the West? Probably not. Does it mean that they have put in place defensive measures to deal with a financial “nuclear option” launched against them? Probably so. Helga Zepp-LaRouche commented today that if Russia and China are driven to adopt full-scale countermeasures against the SWIFT system, this could well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back of the entire bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system. Fortunately, the potential of China’s Belt and Road Initiative is available to take its place, and to replace today’s Malthusian policy of deindustrialization and depopulation with a new system focused on high-technology physical economic growth. Take a step back and consider Putin’s recent diplomacy—the same Putin whom Lyndon LaRouche frequently described as a “strategic genius” who should not be underestimated. Putin made sure to flank his critical Dec. 7 summit with President Biden: before, with a Dec. 6 summit meeting in New Delhi with India’s Prime Minister Modi; and after, with today’s emergency summit with President Xi. Another topic raised between Putin and Xi, according to Ushakov, was the intention of holding a three-way summit of Russia-India-China in the immediate future. And the United States? President Biden, along with circles that might be described as “realists” in Washington, seems inclined to seek a negotiated solution to the crisis surrounding Russia and Ukraine. But his policy palace guard—Blinken, Sullivan, Nuland et al.—is not, and for now they are dominant in Washington. Nor are the owners of the Western speculative financial system in a mood to negotiate—they can’t. Their system is in a breakdown collapse, and their only hope is to force through a transition to a fascist, Malthusian order. America, to survive and prosper, will have to adopt the pathway long-recommended by Lyndon LaRouche, of establishing a four-power alliance with the power to usher in a New Paradigm of global development—an alliance among the U.S., Russia, China and India, acting on behalf of all humanity.

In the last ten days, there has been a flurry of diplomatic discussion prompted by the U.S.-U.K.-NATO insistence that Russia is about to invade Ukraine. Putin has been busy, making the case that it is the Trans-Atlantic nations which are the aggressors, that they are launching provocations in the Ukraine-Black Sea region, and in the Indo-Pacific. The dream of some deranged geopoliticians, that they could replay the efforts of Henry Kissinger in the 1974-76 period, to pit Russia and China against each other, suffered a probable fatal blow with the Putin-Xi summit yesterday. While Blinken, Stoltenberg and Truss are huffing and bluffing, an alliance of sovereign nations, committed to peaceful economic cooperation, is growing. Can the American people outflank the London-Wall St. corporate geopoliticians, and bring the U.S. in on the side of the alliance of sovereign states?