Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

          The world economic forum has given its annual meeting the title “Cooperation in a Fragmented World,” and shortly before the Forum published their Global Risk Report, in which they present the results of the latest Global Risk Perception Survey.  In that, they consider the current crisis, then the expectation of what many experts think will come out in the short term (two years), the most severe in the long term (ten years), in terms of the economy, the environment, society, and those geopolitical and technological risks that could become tomorrow’s crises.  Then they consider how these different crises could evolve into a “poly-crisis” by 2030. 

          Concerning the methodology used to come to their evaluations, they report that they interviewed over 1200 experts from academia, business, government, the international community, and civil society between September 7th and October 5th, 2022.  In other words, this Global Risk Report is not based on scientific methods, but rather on an Aristotelian method to arrive at the common denominator of the opinions of selected experts. 

          While there will also be attendance from countries of the Global South, who may try to set different accents, the World Economic Forum represents a good portion of the top global corporate establishment; and they clearly try to continue to push their agenda, which is an acceleration of the Great Reset, that they have been pushing before.  It completely leaves out the optimistic perspective, for example, of the circa 150 countries working with the Belt and Road Initiative and their optimism that through investments in infrastructure, agriculture, industry, and international scientific cooperation, etc., most of the problems they insist will dominate the next years can be overcome.

          Instead, there is a lot of talk about “progressive tipping points” and “catastrophic outcomes,” which are all designed to motivate the assembled business leaders and beyond, to adopt the program fitting the financial interests of the main financial players of the neo-liberal system.  For example, in the section called “Natural Ecosystems; past the point of no return” they write:

          “Human interventions have negatively impacted a complex and delicately balanced global natural ecosystem, triggering a chain of reactions.  Over the next ten years, the interplay between biodiversity loss, pollution, natural resource consumption, climate change, and socioeconomic drivers will make for a dangerous mix. 

          “Given that over half of the world’s economic output is moderately to highly dependent on nature, the collapse of ecosystems will have far-reaching economic and societal consequences.  These include increased occurrences of zoonotic diseases, a fall in crop yields and nutritional value, growing water stress exacerbating potentially violent conflict,” etc., etc.

          The deep Malthusian pessimism reflected in such a statement makes clear that this report is more a program of their intent than a scientific prognosis.  Because of human interventions, the world population has increased from a few millions after the last Ice Age to 8 billion.  If there will be a fall in crop yields, then [it will be] only because of the Green demonization of modern agriculture.  And if there will be a violent conflict, then only because the necessary development of new fresh water resources will be blocked by the Malthusian environmentalist agenda.

          Economic Risks in 2023

          Unfortunately, I think that 2023 will see an escalation of the financial and economic crises.  The central banks have tried to curb inflation by raising the interest rates rather rapidly.  Then, as we could see for example in Great Britain, they had to suddenly go from quantitative tightening to quantitative easing again, because of the danger of a chain reaction of over-indebted firms; thus going back to the inflationary money pumping.  Since the tendency towards hyperinflation is the result of ever more monetarist policies going for profit maximization at the expense of physical economy and the reckless liquidity injections following the systemic crisis of 2008 by the trillions of dollars, euros, and pounds, only an end to the casino economy could solve the problem.

          What should be put on the international agenda is the reintroduction of a Glass-Steagall banking separation, which puts the commercial banks under state protection, but forces the investment banks to straighten out their balance sheets on their own without taxpayer money.  Then, each country must create their own national bank, because credit creation must be under the sovereign control of the governments.  These national banks must then cooperate to create a new credit system, which is only devoted to investments in projects serving the common good of the people.  There are already efforts going on in this direction among many countries of the Global South — also, to create a new international currency.

          While it is very difficult to predict the exact time when the systemic crisis of the neo-liberal system will come to a head, it cannot be excluded that the decision to have a complete reorganization of the international financial system could force itself on the agenda in this year of 2023.

          Geopolitical Conflict Triggering a Chain of Reactions

          Right now, unfortunately, the crisis over Ukraine — which is not a crisis between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and Russia — is accelerating in a dangerous way.  I think it is extremely urgent that a diplomatic solution is found quickly to end the war.  There are various efforts, like Pope Francis has offered the Vatican as a venue for negotiations, and I and a group of Latin American legislators have written an open letter to the Pope to mobilize people around the world to support this idea.  We are also asking people to sign that letter.  Also, President Lula from Brazil has been asked to mediate by several countries from the Global South; and also President Erdogan from Turkiye has made some efforts.

          I think all of these proposals should be merged, because too much is at stake.  But, I think because the crisis around Ukraine is so dangerous, the initiatives made by President Xi Jinping with the Global Security Initiative, together with the Global Development Initiative are probably the most important angle to solve the crisis.  The Global Security Initiative is really a proposal for a new international security architecture, and obviously that must take into account the security interests of every single country on the planet for it to work. 

          I am aware that right now it does not look very likely that the countries of the so-called West would be willing to discuss such a new international security architecture, given the fact that NATO is trying to become Global NATO, and Japan and Great Britain have just signed the so-called “Reciprocal Access Agreement,” and the US, the UK, and Australia have signed the AUKUS pact.  But the BRICS countries already have a higher GDP than the G-7; and 17 countries of the Global South are applying for membership in the BRICS.  So, they are in the process of representing the vast majority of the human species.  And the countries of the Global South have made it quite clear that they don’t want to be drawn into a geopolitical conflict between the West on the one side, and the China and Russia on the other side.

          I think it is therefore quite possible that in the course of 2023, the financial crisis erupts even more dramatically, and that that will be the right moment to put the combination of the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative on the international agenda.  I think President Xi is very right that security can only exist if there is development.  So, I am sure that the vast majority of the countries who are striving to overcome the relics of colonialism, and who really want to develop into become modern and prosperous countries, would support such an intervention.

          And then hopefully, the countries of the West can see that it would be in their best interest to cooperate with the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Belt and Road Initiative.

          Global Risks in the Next Two Years

          There are policy initiatives which can overcome the inflation by reorganizing the financial system, by addressing the root causes for the crisis.  The excessive profit orientation at the expense of the physical economy clearly did not work.  And what the World Economic Forum calls the geo-economic confrontation can be stopped the moment these CEOs recognize that win-win cooperation with the majority of the countries in the world would also be in their best interest; since to cooperate with growing markets with billions of people with growing buying power is for sure better than to go bankrupt in a crash.  And the best way to cope with natural disasters and extreme weather events is to invest in basic infrastructure, water management, and scientific and technological progress in order to develop the technologies to have early warning systems, secure housing construction, and other means of adaptation.

          Disagreements on Cybersecurity in Major Countries

          There have been various attempts to have agreement between major countries on cybersecurity.   There was an agreement for example in 2013 between Russia and the United States to establish a secure phone connection, and a working group to mitigate cybersecurity threats.  In 2017, in light of the allegation of election interference made against Russia, Trump and Putin agreed to create a cybersecurity unit to prevent election interference and other cyber threats.  Trump praised it as a big step forward, but was forced to backtrack only 12 hours later, due to massive pressure from Congress and the mainstream media.  Then, in preparation work for the 2018 meeting in Helsinki between Trump and Putin, Russia offered the United States cooperation in the field of preventing cyberattacks on critical infrastructure — power plants, water supply and transport management systems, hospitals, banks, and so on.  The corresponding provision was included in the joint statement of the Presidents of the two countries prepared by the Russian side for adoption at the summit in Helsinki.  While the summit between the two Presidents worked well, all hell was unleashed against Trump afterwards by the same forces, and the agreement was not signed. 

          At this point, the trust between the West and Russia and China is at an historic low point.  Under these circumstances, an isolated agreement on cybersecurity seems very unlikely.  Therefore, a great vision is required on how a solution can be put on the table which addresses all the major problems together, such as a new, just world economic order based on such concepts as the Global Security Initiative in combination with the Global Development Initiative.

          I think that we have reached a point in the history of mankind where we really must get serious about the international order of relations among nations, and how we can organize them in such a way that we can self-govern as a species which is gifted with creative reason.  In an existential crisis, [such] as the one we are experiencing right now, and which is very likely going to get much worse, it is not the amount of money one owns that counts; but it is the quality of political leadership of exceptionally wise and moral men and women who have the ability to shape the future for the benefit of all humanity.

          In Davos, there will be a great number of billionaires, millionaires, and hangers-on to power.  It will be very interesting to watch if they are also up for the larger job required.

May 26, 2022 (EIRNS)–The economy today is becoming more and more humanitarian. This was stated today, May 26, during the thematic session “Eurasianism as an Idea to Unite People. A Look into the Future” of the Eurasian Economic Forum 2022, by EEC Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics Sergey Glazyev. According to him, the new technological mode is different from the previous one, as the leading areas of the economy are health care, education, science, culture and art. The meeting is in Kyrgyzstan.

“The economy today is becoming more and more humanitarian. We must admit that issues of humanitarian cooperation and culture are not given enough attention in our Eurasian construction. We are passionate about building a customs union, discussing customs tariffs, customs and technical regulation, and forming a common labor market. And at the same time, we constantly face problems of people’s correct perception of the idea of Eurasianism,” explained Glazyev.

The Minister believes that it is difficult to achieve economic success without a common understanding of where the “Five” countries of the EAEU are moving in humanitarian directions. “The classics of Eurasianism foresaw the difficulties of reintegration of our space, saw the threat of nationalism and Nazism, which today, unfortunately, we are also facing,” Glazyev added.

Despite the difficulties now the union countries, according to the minister, are building partnerships with the brotherly CIS countries, building preferential trade regimes with India, creating free trade zones with Serbia and Iran, signed a large-scale agreement with China. “This is how the work is done to form a new world economic order,” Glazyev said.

XU: That’s a good point, John. Helga, what do you think about this Ukraine issue somehow playing a part in the relationship between China and the European Union? Is there a way they can deal with the issue that will enhance or bring the two sides together? Is that affecting their relationship?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Obviously. The EU had on their website beforehand that they wanted to have the Ukraine issue practically the only issue. They want China to mediate and influence Russia. But I think it is very clear that China did not want to take a side. However, given the fact that EU economy is in free fall; as a matter of fact, the accumulation of COVID, the sanctions, Europe is not in a strong position at all. And I think China has a conception which I think lends itself to a mediation role, and that is President Xi Jinping’s idea of a shared future for a joint humanity. I think that is the most important conception right now, given the fact that we are in a situation strategically which is more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Therefore, what we really need, and I think China would be uniquely in a position to do that, is to propose a new international security architecture which would take into account the interests of every single country on the planet. Because the reason why we have the Ukraine crisis is because NATO expansion to the East for 30 years, which the West does not want to even discuss anymore. But the question is, how do we get out of it? We need a new security architecture, and I have proposed it to be in the tradition of the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the 150 years of religious wars in Europe. The situation today in face of the danger of nuclear war is much more dangerous than even then.

I think the Europeans, they totally are ignoring the fact that a new system is emerging, based on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRICS, the Russia-India-China combination. India refused to be drawn into the camp of the United States, but wants to stay neutral, also. I think the only way how we will get out of this is if the Europeans—and finally also the United States—would understand that it is in their best interest to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, in addressing the real issues which concern all of humanity: Which is, the pandemic is not over, we have a hunger crisis. I think one Chinese economist recently said that as a result of the sanctions against Russia, 1 billion people are in danger of dying of hunger this year. So, I think if China would play a mediating role, and say that all of these issues have to be addressed simultaneously. And then, Ukraine could become a bridge rather than being a geopolitical tool between the EU and Russia, it could become a bridge in the cooperation on the Eurasian continent.

XU: That’s a good point, Helga. China stressed very much cooperation, win-win cooperation. China also takes pride in being the source of peace and stability. When it comes to China-EU cooperation, we know the two sides are great civilizations, they are two of the largest economies. They represent the two largest markets. So, if you look at their cooperation against this background with emerging ascendity, even an emerging Cold War. How important it is, Helga, for the EU and China to further cooperate in multiple fields?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think for the EU it is much more existential than they admit, because there are two possibilities. Either the EU finds a way of cooperating with China, and that way the conflict can be solved; or, there are some people in the West—especially in Great Britain and in the United States—who want a complete decoupling of the West and the so-called authoritarian regimes. In this case, I think the West would suffer, because their values are much more based on monetarist values, as let’s say China and the countries cooperating with the BRI, because they are putting much more focus on physical economy. So, if they would go for a complete decoupling, the West would suffer. Hopefully, the European Union understands that it is not in their own interest to go this way, even if Victoria Nuland was just there and told Europe to side with the U.S. completely.

So, I think that a lot depends on the initiatives proposed by China, because China right now has the only policy which is a way out: And that is the shared community of the one future of humanity. And I think more and more people realize that.

……

XU: Helga, to further cooperation, we know there is a very important trade agreement, a comprehensive investment agreement between China and the EU. So, are we going to see any headway during the summit, or after the summit? Should we probably re-energize that kind of cooperation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think obviously it is an agreement which would benefit both sides, so it should be pushed. But I’m not so hopeful that, given the geopolitical tension right now that that will be accomplished at this summit. However, I think the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is collapsing—look at the hyperinflation; this was there long before the Ukraine crisis erupted. So, the question of a new financial system, a new credit system maybe in the tradition of the New Bretton Woods system, should be put on the agenda; because there is the danger of a repetition of the 2008 crisis, but much larger. The Federal Reserve does not dare to increase the interest rate much to fight the inflation, because of the indebtedness of the whole system. So, a new credit policy should be put on the agenda, and in that context, then you can increase the EU-China trade agreement, and that will all be beneficial. But I think the problem is much more fundamental than it even can be addressed through that agreement.

XU: Well, many thanks to you, Helga.

However, Beasley’s imperative about keeping in our minds what is important about Afghanistan—the value of human life—is what applies across the board to the crises we now face. Think it through. We are capable of mobilizing the physical resources and logistics to stop mass death in Afghanistan. It takes concerted action. The Schiller Institute will host another conference in mid-January (date to be determined soon) on action in Afghanistan.

Look at the pandemic in the same way. The same principle applies. In China, concerted action has kept the COVID-19 case rate and death toll very low, with massive testing and contact tracing, as well as localized lockdowns. In contrast, the pandemic virus is now surging in multiple locations elsewhere in Asia, in the trans-Atlantic, the Americas and Africa. On Jan. 4, the daily case count was 2.594 million cases officially reported worldwide (a big undercount), of which 35%, 885,500 cases, were in the United States alone.

The Schiller Institute/Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites is preparing an emergency statement of action points required to save lives and roll back the virus. The outline and principle are the same as in prior statements, but with measures specific to the unfolding events. (Prior statements: “LaRouche’s ‘Apollo Mission’ To Defeat the Global Pandemic: Build a World Health System Now,” April 11, 2020; ‘Global Health Security Requires Medical Infrastructure in Every Country—Major Industrial Nations Must Collaborate Now!” May 14, 2021, submitted to the Global Health Summit in Rome; “Open Letter to Virologists and Medical Experts Around the World To Address the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, Nov. 23, 2021; and others.)

There are initiatives in the needed direction. Yesterday, for example, the importance of rapidly expanding medical staff, by calling back into action retirees, was stressed by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, when he declared an official state of emergency. There are many measures that are clearly bipartisan and nonpartisan, overriding the non-stop partisan shouting going on in the U.S. For example, use the Defense Production Act, as was done under Trump, to get all needed items, from material for construction of hospitals and medical materials, to COVID-19 therapeutics in quantity. Ramp up production of antiviral medications and all kinds of monoclonal antibodies, currently scarce.

Mobilizing for emergency action and a world health platform, with a focus on Afghanistan, are entirely consistent with the drive to stop the nuclear war danger. The meetings set for next week, on the initiative of Russia, are critical for that: Jan. 10 in Geneva, between the U.S. and Russia; Jan. 12 in Brussels, between NATO and Russia; and Jan. 13 in Vienna, with Russia and the OSCE. But there are countermoves underway.

Circulate everywhere the Schiller Institute Memorandum, Are We Sleepwalking into Thermonuclear World War III?

In her intervention, Zepp-LaRouche praised Pakistan for hosting the OIC conference on Afghanistan, given the failure of the West to take responsibility for the enormous risk to life of millions of people in Afghanistan. The withholding of Afghanistan’s funds by Western banks is shameful. She promoted Operation Ibn Sina as a path forward in creating a health and development path forward for Afghanistan, and hoped that the OIC would incorporate it into its proposals.

The American-NATO defeat by the Taliban was a humiliating experience, but this does not end the responsibility to the well-being of the people of Afghanistan. The given reason for withholding funding is the Taliban’s mistreatment of women and children, but creating the conditions for mass starvation is essentially genocide, and this is what the economic blockade does. Withholding funds may also cause Afghanistan to turn to drug production, which the Taliban opposes. She appealed to the entire world to choose the side of humanity over barbarism.

Responding to another question about the discussion of Afghanistan and the OIC meeting in the West, Zepp-LaRouche emphasized the potential of the human impulse to do good could overcome geopolitics. As an example, she cited the coordination between India and Pakistan of Indian supplies going to Afghanistan via Pakistan. Another example is the collaboration of the Central Asian Republics with Russia and China. 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.” 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 praised Pakistan’s efforts to support the people of Afghanistan, both to release the billions of dollars held by American and European financial institutions and to end sanctions. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Qureshi has made commendable efforts to these ends. The release of funds is essential, but more is required. The crisis in Afghanistan was not caused by the Taliban, but by twenty years of failures of Western military action. The current situation in Afghanistan will cause the rise of terrorism and of immigration, outcomes that Western nations supposedly oppose. The geopolitical game must be ended, replaced by the new paradigm exemplified by the Belt and Road Initiative. The immediate crisis must be addressed, but the way must be paved to the long-term solution provided by infrastructure, including health infrastructure. The Schiller Institute’s Operation Ibn Sina is a proposal that allows for international cooperation across the geopolitical divide to provide for the common well-being of the people of the world. This is the opportunity presented by the current crisis, an opportunity that must be fought for.

Askary explained that Afghanistan had fallen off the media in Scandinavia as well. Although there are many Nordic organizations pushing for humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, this receives scant coverage. But with the push among institutions to oppose China and Russia, there is little room to support useful efforts.

He emphasized that Muslim nations have been pitted against each other by British geopolitics, as happened in Libya, Syria, and Yemen. But, the age of geopolitics has ended with the failure in Afghanistan and a new paradigm beckons, based on economic cooperation. Muslim nations should join this new paradigm. He also spoke to the importance of India taking its rightful position as an Asian nation rather than an Atlanticist one, working with Pakistan and other neighbors of Afghanistan like China.

He closed by stressing that although narratives may appear to have a certain power, it is reality that ultimately has the upper hand. {The link to watch it is here.}

Dialogue Weekend

LI QIUYUAN: Welcome to this edition of Dialogue Weekend: I’m Li Quiyuan.

In the fall of 2013, while on visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia, Chinese President Xi Jinping unveiled the plan to build the Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, otherwise known as the Belt and Road Initiative. Eight years on, how is the project progressing, and how has it helped all those involved? And what obstacles have been overcome during the construction? To review the last eight years of the BRI, I’m glad to be joined by Prof. John Gong from the University of International Business and Economics; and Miss Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute. Great to see you both.

Why don’t I start with Professor Gong first? Explain to us some context here: Why try to propose this, building this New Silk Road in the very beginning, and also why did the President announce this while travelling abroad? And also, eight years on, eight years into this project, where are we now, as far as its construction?

PROF. JOHN GONG: Hi Qiuyuan, you’re nice to have me here. It’s a long question, but let me first start by saying what the Belt and Road Initiative is not: It is not a geopolitical play, it’s not a geostrategic play, it’s not intended to seek a spread of influence. It’s mostly an economic play. There are several reasons why China started this initiative. I think the broader context is that this is a time when Chinese companies started to expand overseas, started to build a global supply chain, and in this course, Chinese companies quickly started to discover that the markets they’re mostly activating, these are the developing countries, the third world countries, they are handicapped by basic infrastructure for things like railways, port facilities, electricity network, telecom network—all these things are lacking for the Chinese companies to operate properly in these markets. And there’s a mutual benefit in developing these countries’ basic infrastructure. And this is also the time, when there was an access capacity in the basic building materials, mostly useful infrastructure buildouts for things like cement, steel, those things. We’re talking about a time in 2013, 2012.

And I would also mention this is also a time when China’s foreign exchange reserve was at an all-time high, and we would like to see the foreign exchange reserve at close to $4 trillion at the time, mostly sitting in the United States, buying American government’s Treasury bills and bonds.

So all these reasons combined contributed to the very natural evolution to using that money, using that excess capacity, and using the capabilities of Chinese companies of building infrastructure to help those developing countries to develop those projects. And I think this is the broader context: it work for both ways, and it works in particular in a way to benefit the host countries where the Chinese companies are operating, and these infrastructure projects are taking place.

LI: Helga, let me get your take on this: How do you evaluate the progress being made in the past eight years regarding this initiative?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it’s the most impressive infrastructure project in the history of all of mankind. And China for the first time has given the developing countries the chance to overcome poverty and underdevelopment. And if you look at the progress, there is now the China-Laos high-speed rail project, which is fantastic. It will be extended to Thailand, and beyond. And soon, the previously not so developed country, like Laos, will have a high-speed rail system, which Europe and the United States can only dream of!

Then you have the [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] CPEC treaty, the Middle Corridor, all these projects in Central Asia, all these investments in Africa. So I think it has brought in an incredible shift in the strategic situation, by overcoming underdevelopment, for the first time, for all of these countries. So I think, despite all the opposition, I think it’s a great success.

LI: But now after all of China’s investments in Africa, we once again are hearing criticism or accusations of China setting so-called “debt traps” for the countries participating in the BRI. This is the most frequent criticisms we’ve heard about this initiative. Professor Gong, talk to us about it: Beijing has made it clear that this initiative is by no means a debt trap. What has been done by China to support its claim?

GONG: We have to go back to the origin of the so-called “debt trap” theory. I think it originated in India with respect to, in particular, the port project in Sri Lanka. The idea is basically conspiracy theory….

LI: Now, we’ve seen the pandemic COVID-19 causing massive disruptions and damage to economic activities all around the world including the global supply chain, such as thousands of containers sitting on the Los Angeles docks, waiting for truckers and warehouse personnel to transport and deliver goods. It would seem that the world desperately needs an economic boost now, more than ever. But, Helga, do you see the BRI being it, providing great opportunities for corporations, for countries involved? Could they benefit from a smoother and more efficient global trade infrastructure?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Oh, yes. You have already all the countries of Asia, many in Africa, even of Europe—you have Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece, the 16+1 East European countries that all are absolutely onboard of the BRI. But I think some of the so-called advanced countries like Germany, they would benefit the most if they would stop thinking in terms of geopolitical prejudices, because, for example, if they would join hands with China right now in the development of Afghanistan, which suffers the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, and urgently needs to be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative if it wants to ever have stability. So Germany, for example, is very concerned about the refugee crisis, and rather than building a wall around the EU outer borders, which is what the EU is considering right now—like the old Limes in the Roman Empire—I think the European countries, and hopefully also the United States, join hands; and they have a moral obligation because NATO countries were for 20 years in Afghanistan and they left the country in complete shambles. So, to reconstruct Afghanistan—and Haiti, and Syria, and Yemen, and all of these other countries that are in dire condition—if Germany and Europe would help and cooperate with China and the Belt and Road countries to develop Southwest Asia and Africa, there would be no refugee problem.

And I think we need a rethinking of this very, very urgently, because we have a tremendous moment in history. The Western financial system is not in good shape: You have signs of hyperinflation; the supply chain problem, you mentioned. So I think we need a rethinking. And the Schiller Institute is doing a lot of conferences and activities to convince the industrialized countries that it would be in their absolute self-interest to cooperate with the BRI and play a positive role in history.

LI: Helga, thank you for taking the time to talk to us. We appreciate your perspective.

Professor Gong, a final question on this part to you: Certainly great steps have been made on the BRI over the last eight years, but what lessons can we draw from these experiences? And what challenges has the project faced as it reaches out for wider cooperation?

GONG: Well, let me first supplement your previous question. Helga actually knows my position on this issue. I wrote a paper several years ago, talking about how America can actually benefit from the Belt and Road Initiative. The article’s title is “Make America Great Again—with Chinese Money.”

As a matter of fact, I actually as an opportunity to make a keynote speech at a conference organized by Helga, the Schiller Institute. [Create a New Epoch for Mankind • February 16, 2019, Morristown, NJ]

There could have been greater opportunities between China and the United States to address the infrastructure problems you have just mentioned. You talk about the supply chain hiccups, or these clogs at Los Angeles and Long Beach ports, all of these things can be substantially addressed by combining the capabilities of infrastructure buildouts, in China, together with investments in the United States. But unfortunately, that’s not going to happen.

Now, back to your question about lessons in the past, I think this is a perfect example to show that there are opportunities if China and other countries will just come together and cooperate, and purely think of this from an economic perspective and setting aside all these, you know, these talks about geostrategic, geopolitics lens, not seeing these things through that lens, I think there could be huge opportunities. There are tons of countries out there who indeed benefit from these infrastructure investments. So, I think the biggest lesson is, this is a purely economic play, and there will be mutual benefits deriving from this. And that let’s have both sides going to this in cooperative spirits should generate benefits for both countries.

And as well as the better exchanges, through human to human, people to people exchanges, and also economic benefits as well. So I think that’s the biggest lesson. And United States could have—I emphasize again, could have—benefitted immensely, if we go into this with, as we say, with a cooperative spirit. But unfortunately, it’s not happening.

Global Business

ANCHOR: For more on the Belt and Road Initiative, I want to bring in Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute, who’s now in Wiesbaden. Helga, welcome to the program. You know, President Xi Jinping saying the BRI is really about finding the biggest common ground for all, and I think it’s interesting to contrast that with what we hear oftentimes, from the West in terms of only working with like-minded countries. This is about working with all countries, large and small, to find their greatest common denominator.

So, Helga, at a time of such uncertainty, how important do you think is the BRI in terms of growing the economic pie for all?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is, for sure, the most important strategic initiative on the planet right now. Because you say “uncertainty,” I mean, these uncertainties show for example, in the form of a hyperinflationary tendency: You see the energy prices skyrocketing, food prices, and we may actually head towards a hyperinflationary blowout of the entire system. And at such a moment, to have the Belt and Road Initiative which focusses entirely on the physical side of the economy, can actually become the absolute important savior for the world economy as a whole. So I think the existence of the Belt and Road Initiative is the most important initiative on the planet.

ANCHOR: And Helga, of course, one big topic that we are all talking about these days, from the public sector to the private sector, is how we can collectively tackle climate change. How do you see the Belt and Road Initiative really promoting sustainable and green development, especially for developing economies, who need more help in terms of making that green transition?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, you know, in the Glasgow COP26 summit, it became very clear that behind a lot of this climate policy, is also a Malthusian effort to prevent the developing countries from developing, and that has been expressed very clearly by India, Indonesia, Nigeria, which all did not go along with the program of Glasgow.

So I think China, on the other side, is offering especially cooperation in nuclear energy, which has a very high energy flux-density and therefore, is potentially the energy source for more developed economies. So I think the role of China and the BRI countries which all are going in the direction of promoting nuclear energy, also for the developing countries, are representing a very, very important alternative to the Malthusian policies coming from the financial centers in London and Wall Street.

ANCHOR: Hmm. So we have growing the economic pie for all, energy cooperation, green development, and of course, one other extension. Helga, of the BRI, is the Health Silk Road, and this is China aiding Belt and Road partner countries, by sharing medical knowledge about the coronavirus; last year providing medical aid as well, last year and this year. Help I believe will be a critical part of BRI cooperation going forward. How do you see this element of the Initiative developing, post-pandemic?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it is very clear that China right now is helping many African countries to build vaccine production, so they can develop their own vaccine. I have been saying, since the outbreak of this pandemic, that it will only stop if we build a world health system: That means a modern health system in every single country. Because the idea to only take care of the rich countries with vaccines, and modern hospitals, does not work, because then the poor countries are left behind, and then the virus is mutating, and will come back and hit the entire human population.

So I think we have to have a very big emphasis on a modern health system in every single country: Which means modern hospitals—China has proven you can build a modern hospital in two weeks in Wuhan—but the developing countries need encouragement and help. They need energy, they need clean water, in order to do that. I think the most urgent ones right now are Afghanistan, Haiti, Syria and Yemen: These are the countries that need, urgently, international cooperation to build modern health systems, if they are supposed to survive. I have proposed something called “Operation Ibn Sina” which named after the great universal thinker of the Afghanistan region, from around the 10th century. And that could become the spearhead for a health system in every country in the Islamic world, but also for all the developing countries. And that’s the only way how the pandemic will stop, and future pandemics.

ANCHOR: Yes. And speaking about closing gaps all around in terms of the development gap, closing the energy and green development gap, what about the digital connectivity gap? The digital connectivity benefits provided by the BRI down the road can be absolutely huge, in terms of getting especially emerging and developing economies, really into the digital sphere. The pandemic, we’ve seen, has really accelerated digitization. How do you see the BRI boosting digital connectivity, and really helping to narrow the digital divide between developing economies and advanced economies?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the fact that China was able to deal with the pandemic so much better than almost every other country on the planet has to do with the fact that the health sector is largely digitalized, and contact tracing, smart cities integrated—I think that’s future.

The problem is, the West is opposing that because there is a difference: In China the population for the most part trusts the government, and thinks that these measures are being applied for the common good. In Western Europe, for example, or the United States, there is a deep mistrust between the population and the government, and therefore, there is a lot of opposition. But look at Germany, right now, or many European countries: The pandemic is exploding again. And that is, for sure, they are still using photocopy machines, and very archaic means to trace the pandemic. And if Europe would have the kind of digitalization like China we would be in much better shape.

So I think that is clearly the way to go, and hopefully, people start to rethink and correct a lot of prejudices which do not come from facts, but they come—for example, the U.S. Senate just agreed upon a strategic act, which spent several hundred million dollars every year to counter the so-called “influence” of China! If that money would be spent on building hospitals and building real infrastructure for the benefit of the people, the United States image would gain much more than from these kinds of measures!

So again, I can only hope there will be a rethinking and a lot of the prejudices which have been spread should be put into the garbage pile.

ANCHOR: Yeah, instead of spending trillions of dollars on never-ending wars in foreign lands, I think definitely that money, at least for the United States, can be better put towards working with other countries in terms of boosting development around the world. And of course, that’s what the BRI is about, is really focussing and emphasizing cooperation, especially in the world that we live in today, and our future generations will need that cooperation. We must see that through the BRI. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, Helga. That’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the Schiller Institute.

In a statement from Uzbekistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Yusup Kabulzhanov told TASS on Oct. 16: “‘At the meetings, representatives of a number of ministries and agencies discussed trade and economic cooperation, border security, cooperation in the fields of energy, international haulage and transit.’

“The talks are reported to have focused on the implementation of infrastructure projects, which include the construction of the Surkhan-Puli-Khumri transmission line and the Termez-Mazar-i-Sharif-Kabul-Peshawar railway,” TASS reported.

The Afghani English-language online daily 8AM also reported that “In the meeting, the two sides have appointed a joint technical team to provide instructions for the implementation of projects. After 10 days, the team is supposed to complete strategy and instructions on how to implement these projects and present them to the officials of both sides.”

Termez is becoming a hub for humanitarian aid. The UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) said this week that three consignments of humanitarian aid would be airlifted to Termez in the near future before entering Afghanistan by truck.

Radio Free Europe reported that last month, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev told the UN General Assembly that his country has resumed the supply of oil and electricity to Afghanistan. “It is impossible to isolate Afghanistan and leave it within the range of its problems,” RFE quoted him as saying.

In related news, AFP reported that acting Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi met in Ankara on Oct. 14 with Turkey Foreign Minister Mevlüt Cavusoglu: “Cavusoglu called on governments to unfreeze Afghanistan’s foreign accounts to ease the growing humanitarian crisis but said Turkey was not yet ready to recognize the group.”

Palkovics elaborated that with the renovation of the Budapest-Belgrade railway, Hungary will offer the fastest transport route for Chinese goods between Central and Southeast Europe, extending from Budapest to Belgrade, into Skopje, North Macedonia, and extending to Athens. He also thanked the Chinese people for their help in supplying medical and other equipment to Hungary, as it was hit by COVID-19.

Xinhua reported today: “For his part, Ning said that the railway project will promote the connectivity between Hungary and Serbia and other European countries, help the two countries build a regional transport and logistics hub, give a strong boost to European infrastructure and economic growth along the route, and enhance the well-being of the European people.

“The project is also of great significance for the connection of the Belt and Road Initiative to European development strategies and the deepening of mutually beneficial cooperation between China and Europe, Ning added. ‘It could be said that the railway is beneficial to our three countries, to Central and Eastern European countries, and to the entire Europe,’ he said.”

Kiskunhalas, Hungary is about 20 miles north of the Serbian border, and is 122 miles from Belgrade. During July 2021, Hungary celebrated the 175th anniversary of the Hungarian Railways. A short clip of the ceremony was posted by “Built by China”