Connect with us

DIPLOMACY

On the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary

Published

on

On December 7-8, 2024, the Schiller Institute, founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche 40 years ago, convened a two-day international conference titled, In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren!” The event brought together a remarkable panel of diplomats, former heads of state, prominent scholars, and defense experts to address what they termed the planet’s most urgent crisis since the Cuban Missile standoff: the threat of a new and possibly final world war, versus the possibility of forging a new paradigm of peace and mutual development.

The opening panel, held on Saturday, December 7, focused on the theme: “The Strategic Crisis: New and Final World War, or a New Paradigm of the One Humanity?” It featured prominent figures from across the globe.

The panel was moderated by Dennis Speed of the Schiller Institute, who opened the session by referencing the anniversary of the Institute’s founding and the extraordinary peril the world now faces. Speed reminded the audience of the significance of December 7 for the United States—Pearl Harbor Day—invoking the profound transformations wrought by past conflicts and suggesting a parallel with today’s dangerous global escalation.

Among the key speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder of the Schiller Institute; Naledi Pandor, former Minister of International Relations of South Africa; Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Donald Ramotar, former President of Guyana.

Keynote by Helga Zepp-LaRouche: A choice of paradigms

Helga Zepp-LaRouche set the tone: “We are coming together in an extremely dangerous moment,” she said, “one that may be even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis.” She warned that the global strategic environment, marked by NATO’s expansion and the ongoing war in Ukraine, has created a climate in which nuclear weapons could be used again, possibly ending human civilization.

Zepp-LaRouche challenged the prevalent assumption that financial and geopolitical constructs must be maintained at all costs. She recalled the late economist Lyndon LaRouche’s insistence that “money is not value,” arguing that the physical economy—productivity, technological progress, and infrastructure—must guide policy. She called for a return to the principles of the Peace of Westphalia (1648), urging major powers to cast aside revenge and geopolitics, and instead embrace cooperation for mutual development. “It is urgent,” she said, “that we establish a new security and development architecture, a paradigm that meets the interests of all nations.”

Dmitri Trenin: Rejecting the old Cold War frame

From Moscow, Professor Dmitri Trenin offered a Russian perspective on the evolving crisis. “We are not in Cold War II,” he insisted. “The analogy is wrong.” Trenin stressed that today’s world is far more complex, with multiple power centers and no functioning arms control mechanisms. He warned that the old tools that kept the Cold War ‘cold’—communication channels, treaties, and a shared fear of nuclear weapons—have eroded.

Trenin pointed out that globalization under Western rules is over. The world, he said, is becoming truly multipolar, with regionalism on the rise. He cautioned the United States against attempting to preserve its hegemony at all costs, noting that “attempts to salvage [unipolar dominance] are as dangerous as they are futile.” He urged Washington to learn the lesson the Soviet Union once did: overextension leads to collapse. Now, it is time for nations to realign their priorities, focusing on domestic economic health rather than a vain bid for global supremacy.

Voices from the Global South

Former President Donald Ramotar of Guyana spoke forcefully about the global inequalities driving conflict. He noted that in recent years, the Global South—representing the majority of humanity—has begun to straighten its back and assert its interests. Ramotar criticized policies that keep developing countries locked in poverty and underdevelopment. “The transatlantic powers have made humongous profits from wars,” he said, calling these conflicts “wars for profit” that enrich weapon manufacturers and financiers.

Ramotar praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative and cooperation with the Global South as a model of “win-win” relations that uplift entire regions. He contrasted this with the IMF and World Bank’s conditionalities that perpetuate underdevelopment. “If the West joined in some of these initiatives,” Ramotar concluded, “we might end poverty in our lifetime.”

Ján Čarnogurský: A European perspective

Slovakia’s former Prime Minister Ján Čarnogurský delivered a stark evaluation of European policy. He recalled that in the early 1990s, promises were made not to expand NATO eastward; these were broken. He criticized the West’s reneging on the Minsk Accords, drawing parallels with the deceitful handling of the Yugoslav crisis.

Čarnogurský questioned who truly leads U.S. policy and lamented Europe’s subservience to Washington and London. He noted that European states are suffering under U.S.-imposed policies, losing industries to American soil. Stressing that Russia has no interest in marching west, Čarnogurský argued that the Ukraine war should end in negotiations, not endless escalation. “If the West lost the war in Ukraine,” he said, “it might simplify problems” and pave the way for stable peace negotiations.

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr.: Diplomacy abandoned

Ambassador Chas Freeman, a seasoned American diplomat, reminded the audience of the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship. “The humane world order after World War II has expired,” Freeman said. Now, egregious violations of international law occur with impunity. He pointed to the absence of meaningful diplomacy, noting that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken had not once visited Moscow, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has not been welcomed in Washington for years. “There are no functioning arms control agreements,” he warned, “and no communication lines.”

Freeman highlighted the urgent need for an Austrian-style solution in Ukraine, referring to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty which established that country’s permanent neutrality. “Such a Ukraine,” he said, “could serve as a buffer and a bridge,” ensuring Russia’s security concerns are met while guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and prosperity. “Diplomacy must replace demonization,” Freeman concluded, “or we face a nuclear Armageddon.”

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian: Iran and the nuclear dilemma

Ambassador Hossein Mousavian of Iran brought the Middle East dimension into view. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, he said, points to the urgent need for a region-wide approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), abandoned by the U.S. under President Trump, had established robust verification measures ensuring no Iranian nuclear weapon would emerge. Mousavian argued for expanding these principles regionally, applying similar restrictions and verifications across the Middle East, including Israel, to achieve a region free of weapons of mass destruction.

“There is a solution,” Mousavian maintained. “We can have permanent restrictions if all parties agree to uniform standards.” He suggested that if Iran’s neighbors like Saudi Arabia also accept rigorous inspections, everyone would gain security and stability. This approach, Mousavian said, could become “the best objective guarantee” against nuclear proliferation in the entire region.

Professor Zhang Weiwei: Asia’s peaceful development model

From China, Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University noted that while Europe slides into lose-lose scenarios, the China-ASEAN region has achieved a remarkable “win-win” story. He credited Asia’s success to its focus on development, infrastructure, and respect for civilizational diversity. “China and ASEAN have enjoyed peace and prosperity for nearly five decades,” he said, pointing to the emphasis on building roads, railways, and ports—trademark features of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Zhang contrasted this development-oriented model with the West’s approach, which he described as zero-sum. “China stands for unity and mutual benefit,” he said, “not divide and rule.” He recalled the influence of Chinese strategic culture, including Sun Tzu’s ancient wisdom, which emphasizes achieving goals without resorting to war. “The solution to Europe’s problem is clear—join in the Belt and Road Initiative, invest in infrastructure, and build a community of shared destiny,” he concluded.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: From the Pentagon’s perspective

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, spoke bluntly: “The U.S. today is fighting the inevitable shift of global power back to the East,” he said. Wilkerson criticized what he called “the empire’s example”: an American foreign policy trapped in arrogance and ignorance of history.

Wilkerson warned that if a conventional conflict escalated between the U.S. and Russia or China, the United States might quickly find itself losing badly and thus tempted to use nuclear weapons first. “We are so broken conventionally,” Wilkerson said, “we might be the first to use nuclear arms because we’d be taking horrendous casualties.” He stressed that any nuclear exchange would end civilization. The solution? End the empire logic, he urged. Seek balanced and rational diplomacy while we still can.

Scott Ritter: The unthinkable becomes probable

Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, in a pre-recorded statement, underscored the grim reality: “Today’s situation is more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis because there is no communication,” he said. Ritter warned that the U.S. provisioning of advanced missiles to Ukraine and talk of a ‘limited’ nuclear war by some U.S. strategists is gambling with planetary survival.

Ritter pinned hopes on a diplomatic shift with the incoming U.S. administration. “We must help ourselves by helping Russia understand that these reckless policies will not continue,” he said. In other words, a strategic reset is urgently needed. If not, the world might stumble into nuclear war by miscalculation.

Proposed solutions

Throughout the session, panelists offered concrete proposals. Helga Zepp-LaRouche suggested reviving the spirit of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Bretton Woods, focusing on global development and infrastructure rather than financial speculation. She also recalled Lyndon LaRouche’s old proposal of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), not as a weapons scheme, but as a joint effort by major powers to make nuclear weapons technologically obsolete through new physical principles and massive scientific cooperation.

Dmitri Trenin and Chas Freeman both stressed diplomatic channels. Trenin called for a return to stable negotiations on arms control. Freeman recommended a European security architecture that includes Russia and respects its interests. Both noted that genuine dialogue, free from demonization, is the only realistic path.

Donald Ramotar and Professor Zhang Weiwei pointed to economic development as a peace strategy. The Belt and Road Initiative’s “win-win” framework can uplift the Global South and transform war-torn regions into hubs of commerce. Economic corridors might replace battlefields if the West abandoned zero-sum thinking and joined cooperative ventures.

Ján Čarnogurský and Hossein Mousavian highlighted specific frameworks, such as making Ukraine a neutral state and building a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Čarnogurský’s reference to the 1955 Austrian State Treaty and Mousavian’s concept of region-wide nuclear verification both illustrate how carefully crafted treaties can diffuse tension.

Larry Wilkerson and Scott Ritter underscored the urgency. Without a massive shift in U.S. strategic thinking—from seeking hegemony to embracing multipolarity—the world risks stumbling into global conflict. They urged immediate steps: cease unrealistic objectives like “strategic defeat” of nuclear-armed adversaries, open channels of communication, and reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war.

A call for a cultural shift

A recurring theme was the idea that cultural values must underpin policy shifts. The conference’s motto, “In the Spirit of Schiller and Beethoven: All Men Become Brethren,” evoked the notion that moral uplift and aesthetic education could guide politics. Zepp-LaRouche invoked classical composers and poets to stress that universal human values transcend power politics.

The Schiller Institute’s emphasis on great art, classical music, and poetic drama is not ornamental. As Zepp-LaRouche reminded participants, Schiller believed in improving citizens through culture, enabling them to think of humanity as one family. Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” from the Ninth Symphony embodies the ideal of universal brotherhood—an ethical vision that stands in stark contrast to nuclear brinkmanship.

The panelists agreed: to avoid catastrophe, citizens must pressure their governments to return to reason, respect international law, and prioritize human development. Helga Zepp-LaRouche urged that the ten principles her Institute has advocated—centered on sovereignty, development, and the common aims of humanity—be taken up widely. She called on people worldwide to reject the Carl Schmitt-type friend-enemy distinctions and adopt a principle of the “One Humanity.”

In the words of Naledi Pandor, who was unable to speak fully at this panel but whose excerpted statements were acknowledged, “BRICS and the Global South can forge a more just multipolar order.” As developing nations rise, they demand a seat at the table. This could be the key: integrating new powers into a cooperative framework for security and development.

A last chance for humanity?

The grim warnings of these statesmen, diplomats, and scholars spoke to a moment of profound danger. Nuclear arsenals loom, conflicts rage without dialogue, and powerful states push brinkmanship to extremes. Yet, the panel also projected a sense of hope. A new paradigm—one that rejects zero-sum geopolitics and embraces mutual respect, economic cooperation, and cultural renaissance—was the through line connecting all speakers.

“We have a choice,” Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded. “Either we continue down the path to a final world war, or we rise to the occasion and build a new paradigm of the One Humanity. Let’s choose life, not death.”

DIPLOMACY

US proposes controversial ‘colonial’-style agreement to Ukraine

Published

on

The US is pushing to control all future major infrastructure and mining investments in Ukraine, veto the role of Kyiv’s other allies, and undermine its goal of European Union membership.

According to a draft document obtained by Bloomberg, the Donald Trump administration is demanding the “right of first refusal” on investments in all infrastructure and natural resource projects under a revised partnership agreement with Ukraine.

If accepted, the partnership agreement would give the US enormous power to control investments in projects in Ukraine such as highways and railways, ports, mines, oil and natural gas, and the extraction of critical minerals.

The agreement would give the US first claim on profits transferred to a special reconstruction investment fund controlled by Washington.

The most crucial point of the document is that the US considers the “material and financial benefits” it has provided to Ukraine since the beginning of the war as a contribution to this fund.

In effect, this means the Trump administration would force Ukraine to pay the cost of all US military and economic support provided since the start of the war before Kyiv receives any income from the partnership fund.

According to the draft document, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) will control the investment fund by nominating three of the five board members and holding a “golden share” giving it special voting rights to block certain decisions. Ukraine will appoint the other two members and will be prevented from interfering in the fund’s daily management.

The Kyiv government will be required to deposit 50% of the earnings from all new natural resource and infrastructure projects into the fund. The draft states that the US will be entitled to all profits until its investment is recouped, plus a 4% annual return.

Ukraine will be obliged to submit all projects to the fund for review “at the earliest possible time,” and the DFC will gain board membership or oversight rights in all funded programs.

Kyiv will also be prohibited from offering rejected projects to other parties on “materially better” terms for at least one year.

Furthermore, according to the draft, the US government will have the right to purchase Ukraine’s metals, minerals, and oil and gas on commercial terms before other parties, regardless of whether the fund finances the project.

The agreement, which has no time limit, also prohibits Kyiv from selling critical minerals to countries that are “strategic rivals” of the US.

The US presented a revised agreement to officials in Kyiv last weekend after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s plans to sign an earlier deal fell through following a tense discussion with Trump in the Oval Office last month.

The White House said last week that the administration has moved beyond the previously negotiated agreement covering critical minerals in Ukraine.

Negotiations between the two sides are ongoing, and the final draft may include revisions to the terms. A person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that Ukraine would respond to the US document with its own changes this week.

Speaking to reporters in Paris on Thursday, where he traveled to attend a summit with European leaders, Zelenskyy said the full agreement proposed by the US requires “detailed study” and that the terms are constantly changing during negotiations.

While it is too early to say an agreement has been reached, he said, “We support cooperation with the US, we do not want to send a single signal that could cause the US to stop helping Ukraine.”

In response to a request for comment, a US Treasury Department spokesperson stated that the US remains committed to the swift finalization of the agreement and securing a lasting peace for Ukraine.

National Security Council spokesperson James Hewitt said, “The minerals agreement offers Ukraine the opportunity to establish a lasting economic relationship with the US, which is the foundation for long-term security and peace. This agreement will strengthen relations between the two countries and benefit both sides.”

Ukraine gained EU candidate status in 2022 and is set to begin accession talks for full membership, which could take years to complete. This situation is likely to become more complicated if the US gains effective control over investment decisions covering large areas of the Ukrainian economy.

Ukraine had previously stated that an agreement with the US should not conflict with its association agreement with the EU. It had also previously rejected the US demand that Washington’s past support for Ukraine be included as a contribution to the joint fund.

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

EU to continue funding Türkiye despite İmamoğlu concerns, Politico reports

Published

on

Protests following the detention and arrest of Istanbul Metropolitan Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu seem to have put Europe in a difficult position.

In an assessment published in Politico titled “EU faces a billion-euro dilemma in Türkiye crisis,” politicians and officials cited say that regardless of what happens on the streets of Istanbul, Ankara is too important an ally to alienate.

The report states, “The European Union will continue to transfer billions of euros to Türkiye despite President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s extensive crackdowns on political opponents.”

Recalling that European officials warned their southern neighbor to “uphold democratic values” following Ekrem İmamoğlu’s arrest, Politico writes, “But Türkiye’s strategic importance means the bloc will likely look the other way. Erdoğan knows this too.”

Dimitar Bechev, a lecturer at Oxford University, says, “Whatever the Turkish leader does, the EU will have to follow suit.”

Two European officials, speaking to Politico on condition of anonymity, said that Türkiye’s EU candidate status requires it to protect democratic values and that Brussels would respond to violations. Although one of them stated, “We are following the developing situation in Türkiye with great concern” and “Recent developments contradict the logic of EU membership,” they also acknowledge that given Türkiye’s importance in migration, trade, energy, and defense matters, any reaction from the EU is unlikely to disrupt relations between Brussels and Ankara.

Pointing out that although Türkiye’s EU membership negotiations have stalled over the past decade, the country still receives billions of euros in accession funds, Politico notes, “Ankara has also received about 9 billion euros in aid to host refugees from the Middle East and is in line to receive large sums to support European defense industries.”

Highlighting that Türkiye, which has become a major hub for oil and gas exports, has a trade flow with the EU exceeding 200 billion euros annually, the publication writes, “Türkiye has also played a key role in controlling access to the Black Sea and enforcing sanctions against Moscow since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Recently, its potential significant contribution to a possible peacekeeping mission in Ukraine has been discussed.”

Bechev says, “The status quo before İmamoğlu’s arrest was comfortable for the EU because there was enough democracy,” and suggests that recent developments are not dire enough to change this.

According to the “Readiness 2030” plan presented by EU leaders last week, Türkiye, as an EU candidate country, has the potential to access 800 billion euros worth of joint procurements from funds designed to increase the bloc’s defense spending.

However, Greece and Cyprus, both long in conflict with Türkiye, are pushing for restrictions. Diplomats speaking to Politico said they intend to enact a clause requiring the defense move to occur “without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defense policy of certain Member States.”

Arguing that Athens and Nicosia, which were in the process of normalizing relations with Ankara before the recent crisis, now have to perform a “delicate balancing act,” Politico quotes a senior Greek official admitting that “even Athens cannot go too far.”

The Greek official involved says, “Of course, we will support a firm stance condemning the current developments in Türkiye, but without being provocative. The defense industry remains a major gap for Europe, which paves the way for this policy of trade-offs that we see happening.”

Even Cypriot MEP Michalis Hadjipantela, calling for “targeted sanctions” by stating “Effective pressure from the EU is essential,” also said that “sanctions should be targeted and linked to progress on the above issues to prevent further alienation of the country.”

Continue Reading

DIPLOMACY

Fidan and Rubio discuss Syria, Gaza, and defense in US meeting

Published

on

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hakan Fidan and his accompanying delegation began a two-day visit to the US.

During the visit, Fidan met with US Senator Marco Rubio. According to a statement attributed to US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce, the two discussed cooperation on key issues in security and trade.

Rubio requested Turkey’s support for peace in Ukraine and the South Caucasus, while appreciating Ankara’s leadership in the “Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS.”

According to the spokesperson, the American senator reiterated the need for close cooperation to support a “stable, unified, and peaceful Syria,” stating they do not want Syria to be “either a base for international terrorism or a pathway for Iran’s destabilizing activities.”

Rubio also highlighted recent progress in bilateral trade and encouraged an even greater economic partnership moving forward.

Finally, the Senator expressed concerns regarding the recent arrest of Ekrem Imamoglu in Turkey and the subsequent protests.

Turkey has not made an official statement: AA reported based on ‘foreign ministry sources’

According to Turkish Foreign Ministry sources cited by AA, Fidan and Rubio emphasized the “importance of engaging with the Syrian government” during their meeting on Tuesday.

The sources stated, “Both sides emphasized the importance of engaging with the Syrian government and expressed their determination regarding the stabilization of Syria and the fight against terrorism.”

According to the sources speaking to AA, Fidan and Rubio discussed a range of regional and bilateral issues, including the need for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, deemed essential for “regional peace.”

The sources also mentioned that the issues discussed in the phone call between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US President Donald Trump on March 16 were followed up on during the meeting.

The two sides also discussed preparations for upcoming presidential-level visits and expressed their determination to remove obstacles to defense cooperation.

The report added, “Both sides clearly expressed their political will to remove obstacles to cooperation in the defense industry. Technical meetings will be held to resolve existing issues.”

The two sides also discussed efforts to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with Turkey expressing support for recent US efforts in this direction.

The talks also covered the ongoing peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the importance of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s stability for the entire Balkan region.

Is Hamas on the table?

Meanwhile, Trump, during a White House meeting with a group of US Ambassadors confirmed by the Senate, referred to Turkey and Erdogan as a “good country, a good leader.”

The new US Ambassador to Ankara, Thomas Barack, was also present at the meeting. Barack, known as a close friend of Trump and a real estate magnate, thanked the President for appointing him to Turkey, “one of the ancient civilizations.”

In an article penned by Murat Yetkin in Yetkin Report, it is alleged that Trump might engage in bargaining over Hamas and Gaza in exchange for steps such as lifting CAATSA sanctions against Turkey.

Yetkin relays that CHP leader Ozgur Ozel, in a statement on March 18, referred to the Trump-Erdogan phone call, criticizing the lack of mention of Gaza and Israel, and accused Erdogan of “selling out the Palestinian cause for Trump.”

Recalling that Trump’s special representative Steve Witkoff told Tucker Carlson in an interview that they expect “good news” from Turkey, Yetkin underscores that Witkoff also stated elsewhere in the interview, “A terrorist organization cannot run Gaza; this is unacceptable for Israel. But their disarmament is possible. Then they can stay for a while longer and even get involved in politics.”

Yetkin asks, “Is Trump supporting Erdogan because of a plan to disarm the PKK and Hamas together?” while also noting that the Secretary of the PLO Executive Committee, Hussein al-Sheikh, met with Foreign Minister Fidan in Ankara on March 19, before Fidan flew to the US.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey