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

Critical 48 hours for US decision on Iran as military options are weighed

Published

on

As the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates, US President Donald Trump is considering direct military action to deliver a permanent blow to Iran’s nuclear program.

President Trump, who met with his top advisers in the White House Situation Room yesterday, is said to have a critical 24 to 48 hours to decide between diplomacy and military intervention. US officials indicate that it will become clear within this timeframe whether a diplomatic solution with Iran is possible.

Before the meeting, Trump significantly hardened his rhetoric against Iran, claiming to know exactly where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is hiding. In a social media post, Trump stated, “He is an easy target but he is safe there. We will not take him out (kill him!), at least for now. But we do not want missiles fired at civilians or American soldiers. Our patience is running out.” In another post, he claimed, “We have complete and total control of the skies over Iran right now.”

A final chance for diplomacy?

Despite this intimidating rhetoric, US negotiators believe Iran is in a weak position and can be forced back to the negotiating table. According to several officials involved in the diplomatic process who spoke to ABC News, it is thought that Iran might eventually agree to a deal requiring it to abandon all nuclear enrichment activities.

Officials noted that while Iran and Israel were exchanging attacks, Iran signaled its intention to resume talks with the US. However, the Trump administration is seeking more concrete commitments before abandoning the path to war. If Iran returns to negotiations and agrees to halt uranium enrichment, US officials believe a high-level meeting, led by Special Representative Steve Witkoff and potentially Vice President JD Vance, could take place this week.

This scenario, however, requires Iran to act quickly. President Trump has previously expressed that his patience with the situation in the Middle East is wearing thin. Sources close to the US President said that Trump is frustrated by a destabilized Iran’s inability to provide immediate responses to his administration and is not inclined to allow a situation where Tehran appears to have successfully called his military bluff.

US military buildup increases

Meanwhile, the US military has already begun deploying assets to the region. In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said of the US posture in the Middle East, “We are strong, we are ready, we are on defense, and we are there.”

Although these moves are described as defensive, the repositioning of assets leaves options open should the Trump administration decide to directly assist Israel’s ongoing offensive against Iran. “It is our role to keep options on the table, but our posture is still defensive,” an American official stated.

These steps include sending additional aircraft and a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East to protect the approximately 40,000 American troops stationed in the region. Additionally, more than 30 refueling aircraft have been sent to Europe. Another American official said these planes were moved to the European theater to provide Trump with “options” if the situation escalates further and the US decides to become more involved. The refueling tankers could be used to assist in refueling Israeli jets, offering Trump a less intensive military engagement option.

‘Bunker buster’ bombs on the table

One of the biggest questions facing Trump is whether the US will drop GBU-57 “bunker buster” bombs on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility. Iran hawks argue this move is necessary to eliminate Tehran’s nuclear threat. Israel does not possess this bomb, which is believed to be the only weapon capable of destroying the highly protected nuclear facility buried deep inside an Iranian mountain.

Furthermore, Israel does not have the B-2 stealth bomber capable of dropping this bomb in its inventory. This situation has led current and former Israeli officials to pressure the US to enter the conflict. The US fleet of 19 B-2 bombers is currently located at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Six of these aircraft were previously deployed to the air base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a location much closer to Iran.

Israel pressures Washington to act

Former Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz told CNN on Monday, “The United States is much stronger than we are. They have capabilities that we do not have. I am sure that if the US decides to act, it will do so not only for our interests but for its own.”

Another former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, told CNN that Trump has a “responsibility to ensure the region moves in a positive direction and that the world is free from a nuclear-armed Iran.”

In the fifth day of missile attacks, Israel has damaged Iran’s energy facilities, missile sites, nuclear infrastructure, command centers, and state television. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shows no interest in negotiations after launching the largest-ever military operation against his regional rival last week. In the ongoing large-scale missile exchanges between the two sides, at least 24 people have been killed in Israel and more than 220 in Iran.

Trump’s agenda is changing

Among the signs that the Trump administration may be approaching military action is the possibility that the president will cancel his travel plans to a NATO summit in the Netherlands next week. At a press conference yesterday, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the summit was still “on the schedule” but that the situation could change depending on the dynamic with Iran. “This is a very fast-moving situation. So I would say anything is possible,” Bruce assessed.

President Trump had returned to Washington early from the G7 summit in Canada on Monday to monitor the situation in the Middle East from the White House.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Greece fears a weakened Iran could empower Türkiye amid regional conflict

Published

on

Greek officials and diplomats find the escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel on multiple fronts to be alarming.

According to an assessment in Kathimerini, the deepening polarization hinders Greece’s efforts to play the role of an “honest broker” in Middle East conflicts.

While Athens wants to maintain this mediator role, it also highly values the closest relationship it has ever established with Israel. Reconciling these two goals will require a delicate balance, such as sometimes aligning with the majority at the United Nations and other times voting for a ceasefire to resume humanitarian aid in Gaza without appearing to have abandoned Israel.

However, the report suggests that what worries Greece the most is the possibility that a weakened Iran could strengthen Türkiye, which Athens sees as a “nominal ally” but, in reality, the greatest threat to its sovereignty.

Despite this, according to Kathimerini, Greece is relieved that many Arab countries also wish to see Iran lose power.

A statement from the Greek government confirmed that Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis held a telephone conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, June 14, at the latter’s initiative.

During the call, Mitsotakis emphasized the urgent need to de-escalate tensions in the region. While acknowledging that Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons, he stressed that diplomacy is the only valid path and warned against opening new fronts of conflict in the Middle East.

The Greek leader also reiterated the necessity of an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians in need.

Furthermore, Mitsotakis discussed the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran in a phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Sunday.

According to the Saudi Press Agency (SPA), the two leaders reviewed the latest developments in the region, focusing particularly on the effects of Israel’s military operations targeting Iran.

The SPA report noted that both leaders emphasized the need for restraint and de-escalation, highlighting the importance of resolving disputes through diplomatic means.

The phone call took place amid heightened tensions following a series of retaliatory strikes between the two countries.

The recent tension has raised concerns about a wider regional conflict, prompting international leaders to urge all parties to avoid further escalation.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

G7 declares support for Israel, labels Iran the source of instability

Published

on

In a statement released late Monday, the G7 countries expressed their support for Israel and described Iran as the “source of instability in the Middle East.”

G7 leaders called for a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the region.

“We affirm Israel’s right to self-defense. We reiterate our support for Israel’s security,” the G7 statement declared.

Asserting that Iran is the “main source of regional instability and terrorism,” the G7 nations stated they were “clear that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”

“We strongly recommend that resolving the Iran crisis will lead to a broader de-escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, including a ceasefire in Gaza,” the G7 communiqué said, adding that the countries are also prepared to coordinate on maintaining stability in energy markets.

Iran maintains that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons and, as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, including enrichment.

Israel, which is not a party to the NPT, is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, a status it neither confirms nor denies.

President Donald Trump decided to leave the G7 summit in Canada early and return to Washington due to the situation in the Middle East.

The US maintains that it has not been involved in the attacks on Iran so far, despite Trump stating on Friday that he had prior knowledge of Israel’s strikes and described them as “perfect.”

Washington is warning Tehran not to attack US interests or personnel in the region.

Following Monday’s strike, in which Israel hit Iranian state television, Trump said on social media that “everyone should evacuate Tehran immediately.”

Additionally, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the Israel-Iran conflict in phone calls with his British, French, and EU counterparts on Monday.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey