HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE TO ECUADOR RADIO: THE HUMAN RACE IS AT STAKE AT THE FAO SUMMIT
Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche returned on
May 30, 2008, as a guest of Patricio Pillajo on Ecuador's popular
Radio 530-AM. She had previously been interviewed by Señor
Pillajo on Aug. 17, 2007, and Lyndon LaRouche had been a guest in
late June 2007. Señor Pillajo's frequent interviews with {EIR}
correspondents have become a favored feature among listeners of
his "Opinión Popular." EIR Ibero-America Editor Dennis Small
acted as interpreter for Mrs. LaRouche and for the Spanish
responses of Señor Pillajo's other guest Iván Angulo Chacón, the
FAO's representative in Ecuador. The Spanish is transcribed from
Small's English interpretation.
PATRICIO PILLAJO: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, we wish you good
morning. We're talking to you from the Quito radio station, 530
AM. First of all, we just want to make sure that you can hear us
adequately.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, I can hear you.
PILLAJO: Helga, we're conversing here in the studio with
Iván Angulo Chacón, who is the FAO's representative in Ecuador,
on the eve of the June 3rd meeting in Rome of that organization.
What is the Schiller Institute's message to that FAO meeting?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I have called for the FAO conference
to change its agenda, because initially that conference was
designed to discuss biofuel and similar issues. Now, in light of
the fact, that since October of last year, there have been food
riots in 40 countries, to have still a discussion of using food
for biofuel amounts to a crime against humanity. Because of the
price inflation, there are about 1 billion human beings who are
in danger immediately.
So therefore, I have proposed to change the agenda to only
discuss one issue: To take immediate measures to double food
production worldwide. Now the most immediate thing which could
be done, is to stop using food for biofuel, and that would mean,
essentially mean being able to feed 500 million people on the
spot. Because for the equivalent of one tank full of biofuel
for the car, one human being can live between one-half and one
year.
Then I have proposed a whole bunch of other measures: which
is the immediate focus on food self-sufficiency of each nation,
of food security. But then, you need naturally in the short and
medium term a whole bunch of other measures to increase food
production. And that is, primarily, in the developing countries,
the massive buildup of infrastructure, food processing,
irradiation, large-scale desalination of ocean water for fresh
water, irrigation systems; in short, we have to have a just, new
world economic order.
So we are campaigning now, internationally, on five
continents to put maximum pressure on the FAO conference to adopt
this program.
PILLAJO: Mrs. LaRouche we would like to hear Mr. Angulo's
comments on this proposed change of agenda.
IVAN ANGULO: My greetings to Helga LaRouche for her
important comments and contribution to this situation of the
world food crisis, and the measures that could be adopted on a
global scale to be able to correct this distortion which we are
suffering from at this time, and which is going to be discussed
at the Rome conference this coming week.
I wanted to mention to Helga, that as a matter of fact, the
subject of biofuels and of energy, which is the other subject
matter which is intended to be discussed, along with the
evaluation of the food crisis--that is to say, these are not
disconnected subjects, but rather, it's an integrated evaluation.
It is important to consider this, so that the measures that are
needed can be adopted, to avoid the current use of food for
producing biofuels. Therefore, to this end, there was a meeting
of the FAO at the level of Latin America some three weeks ago,
where the countries of Latin America agreed that they had to
request internationally that there be a moratorium on the
transformation of food into biofuels. The United States
continues using a large part of its corn production to convert it
for ethanol. This could be stopped if there is a worldwide call
for this to happen, and there should be an agreement worldwide in
this regard.
Therefore, it's very important that it be discussed at the
Rome meeting.
PILLAJO: And is the FAO going to issue such a call?
ANGULO: The countries will do it; the FAO is just the
facilitating or convoking agency of the conference. Those who
make the decisions are the countries. There are already
Presidents, for example, the President of the Dominican Republic
is carrying that strong message, to ask that there be a
moratorium on this called by the United Nations, so that all
countries--for example, Europe, based on a decision of the
European Commission, on its own decided to reduce the
transformation of agricultural products into biofuels.
PILLAJO: So that will be on the agenda in Rome? The agenda
will be changed that way?
ANGULO: No, there's going to be more of an emphasis on the
food crisis, as Helga has discussed, more on the alternatives of
how to increase production. But we also have to stop the
conversion of food into biofuels. That has to be braked.
Because, as she correctly said, this is a very damaging process
for the planet.
On the other hand, there is the issue of energy. What do we
mean by energy? We mean the problem of the high prices of oil and
other fuels. If we're going to continue to have oil above
$130/barrel, there is going to continue to be a very negative
impact. Let's see if there's also a worldwide message to
rationalize the use of energy, so that we go to models of
development which do not waste energy, and which therefore are
not pressuring by increasing demand so much, which is what's
causing the price of oil to increase.
PILLAJO: But Mrs LaRouche goes beyond that. She is talking
about the non-viability of an entire model of development. Is
the FAO in a position, and the countries that participate in this
meeting, to deal with these issues that go beyond just the food
crisis per se, and deal with the crisis of an entire model, an
entire scheme of development? Is it possible to actually deal
with this issue?
ANGULO: We have Presidents of many countries of the world
there. Logically, the discussion is going to center on the
impact of the food crisis, but also this is related to the energy
issue, the issue of biofuels and so forth. Likewise the
Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon is going to
be there, so this could be taken to the General Assembly of the
United Nations, so there could be emergency measures adopted. We
have the International Atomic Energy Agency, which will be there
as well; they will be able to deal with the energy question to
see if there can be proposals among consumer nations and
producer nations of energy, of oil, measures that would
rationalize this escalation in the price of oil which is
affecting all of us, in our food production.
PILLAJO: Mrs. LaRouche, we'd like to hear your comments
about this.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think this is very good, but not
enough, because right now you have the breakdown of the financial
system globally. And as long as the central banks are reacting
to the de facto bankruptcy of the banks by pouring liquidity into
the system, you will have an escalation of hyperinflation around
the globe, which can only be compared to what happened in
Germany, in Weimar Germany in 1923.
So there are two approaches to that: One is the WTO
approach of eliminating the last vestiges of protectionism, to
have the total control of free trade, which is only in the
interests of the big cartels and the speculators. And if that
would win, then you would have a human catastrophe and the plunge
of civilization into a new dark age.
The other idea would be to say, this present system of
globalization is as bankrupt as the communist system was in 1989.
My husband, Mr. LaRouche, has called since a long time for an
emergency conference on the heads of state level, to discuss a
new financial architecture, a New Bretton Woods in the tradition
of Roosevelt.
Now, just last week, 14 former heads of state and finance
ministers of Europe have called for exactly the same thing. They
basically say the same thing, that we have a system crisis, and
that the only solution is a top-level, heads of state conference
the new rules of the financial system.
And that is the battle right now. And that battle will be
reflected at the FAO conference. And you can hear by the words
people use, which of the two camps they belong to: the people
who are talking about "renewable energy," "sustainable
development," "appropriate technology," these are the
free-traders, and de facto they represent the faction of
genocide.
And then, on the other side, you have the people who are
talking about "food security," "the common good of the people,"
about increasing production, and these are the people whom we
should work with.
We are at a very important historical moment, where one
system of globalization is coming to an end, and the question is,
are there enough moral and wise people in enough nations to put
an alternative on the table before a catastrophe occurs?
PILLAJO: Thank you. Now we'd like to have an exchange of
views with the representative of the FAO in Ecuador.
Don Iván, is it possible to discuss other issues, as raised
here? Such as how to implement decisions, political decisions,
in terms of protectionist measures, nationalist measures? Don
Iván, do you think we can protect our countries in this way, to
be able to guarantee our societies, at least a basic
self-sufficiency? Because when Mrs. LaRouche talks about
genocide, she's not exaggerating, in our view. We just have to
recall what demonstrators said in Port au Prince, Haiti: "If the
government can't lower food prices," the demonstrators said, "let
the police just shoot us, because if they don't shoot us with
bullets, we're going to die of hunger anyway." That's what
people in Haiti said. Can these other issues be discussed?
ANGULO: I appreciate Mrs. LaRouche's remarks greatly, her
analysis is correct. This problem of the food crisis is to be
located in the context of a series of distortions in the market,
in the international markets, of crises also of the development
model itself. I think it has been shown that the consumerist
model wastes energy, and that it has also generated serious
damage to the planet itself because of climate change. And this
is having consequences at this time, creating this situation of
difficulties in the production, the rise in price of food.
There is also a problem with the financial situation, as she
well knows. But we would add to that, the issue of energy, the
problem of, as I mentioned before, of climate change which is
going to continue to affect us. And we have not been able to
reach an agreement.
PILLAJO: So not just globalization is to be blamed?
ANGULO: No, globalization is an effect of this form of
development, where the large monopolistic groups dominate, and
they're the ones that control world trade altogether. We're not
talking about fair trade. There is no fair trade--there's no
solidarity in trade, it's just a matter of looking for profits,
extreme profits, where the common good is not a matter of concern
for these people.
So I think we do need a new world economic order,
unquestionably, and countries have to reach trade agreements for
this, to be able to achieve this. But it's very difficult to be
able to achieve this in a meeting such as the food summit in
Rome, because it goes beyond the issue which we'll discuss there.
But these issues are pressuring everyone. We think that this is
an opportunity for small and medium producers to be supported, to
be able to produce more food, so that people's supply of food
will increase. And also there has to be an opportunity to trade
food products internationally. But there's really significant
protectionism going on, in the subsidies which are applied,
subsidies which the Doha Round has not been able to address, such
that the liberalization of trade needs to be a real
liberalization, and not with these factors of pressure.
We believe that crises also create opportunities to be able
to present solutions on behalf of those most in need.
PILLAJO: But what we need is not more liberalization, but
protectionism.
ANGULO: Yes, but protectionism of a sort that does not
distort things by dumping subsidized goods on us. For example,
we import subsidized wheat--this damages national production, and
the same damage occurs to our national corn production. This is a
distortion of prices. It seems illogical that there be calls for
liberalization of prices, which has not benefitted small
producers; it's only benefitted the large companies.
PILLAJO: Doña Helga, feel free to comment on these remarks
by Mr. Angulo. But, let me also ask you: How do you go about
doubling food production? Because this is one of the proposals
you're taking to the FAO meeting in Rome: How do you go about
doubling food production?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, as I said, you need to remove the
things which are making agriculture production in the developing
sector so relatively low in productivity. Let me take the case
of Sudan, which is a country I know relatively well: It has
probably the most fertile soil in the world, it could have four
harvests per year, but it is 98% dependent on the rainfall. It
has almost no infrastructure. It has no food pre-processing, and
therefore, despite the potential, it's not being used. Even if
you would have four harvests, it could not transported! The
harvests would spoil.
So what you need to do--I tell people all the time, as a
pedagogical example--if you look at the map of Europe, and then
look at the very tight infrastructure network which integrates
waterways, highways, railways. So you can take a container from
the Black Sea in Bulgaria or Romania, and you first go through
the Danube, and then you go through canals to the Rhine, and then
from there, you can take it from ports to railway and to
highways, to the final place where this container should go. So
this is actually, even though infrastructure is not in the best
shape any more in Europe because of the overall crisis, it is a
model. So just apply that as a model, and put it into Latin
America and into Africa.
So therefore, you need in addition, naturally, you need
irrigation systems, you need water management; where you have too
much water, you should bring it in canals to areas where there is
not enough water. But most important, I'm in favor of peaceful
use of nuclear energy, and there, in particular, the
high-temperature reactor. The high-temperature reactor, the
pebble-bed reactor was invented in Germany, and now it's only
produced in South Africa and China.
But you need nuclear power to transform large quantities of
ocean water into fresh water for irrigation systems. So
therefore, since the gentleman from the FAO was saying that
energy is the other issue to be discussed in Rome, why not
discuss a crash program to have the right for nuclear energy for
every country in the world? And since the Russian government has
offered international cooperation who wants to have peaceful
nuclear energy, I think we should--.
PILLAJO: Thank you, Mrs. LaRouche. A question to Mr.
Angulo, for your comments on this. And additionally, is Ecuador
going to have a position? Is Ecuador going to take a thesis, an
idea to this meeting in Rome? Or is it just going to be part of
the general discussion of the agenda that's been posed? And,
Mrs. LaRouche's question about energy requirement--could you
please answer?
ANGULO: Yes, the Agriculture Minister of Ecuador is going
to be present at the Rome meeting, and he has already had prior
meetings with the national authorities, with the President, who
himself was at the Managua meeting, where various heads of state
of Latin America reached an agreement to take a common position.
So there is a common position of a group of nations of the
region, which is seeking to have these exchanges, to create such
technology funds, solidarity funds, as Mrs. LaRouche says, to
increase yields and productivity in food production.
We're in complete agreement that this is one of the
principal difficulties being faced. Here in Ecuador we have very
low yields in corn production, for example. We could double
those yields and thereby avoid unnecessary imports. Similarly
potatoes and a number of other products.
As Mrs. LaRouche notes with regard with Sudan, we don't have
various production cycles, because in the period of drought we
don't have water available for additional irrigation. But were
we to have irrigation systems, all of this can be achieved, with
financial support and an exchange of technology, and we would
very much like to see these possibilities discussed about the use
of nuclear energy, for the purpose of benefitting production.
PILLAJO: But aren't there many risks involved?
ANGULO: No. We'd have to look into this. Because in the
country there's a certain amount of fear over what's happened
internationally, because there has been safety issues in some
cases, such as the Chernobyl case, and other situations dealing
with nuclear energy. So people think this could be a source of
risk for the population.
Nonetheless, there are uses, for example, use in
health-care. Nuclear energy is very much used in treating seeds
also, to produce new hybrids, new genetic materials. And it's
also being used here in Ecuador, there are some tests that are
being done with the support of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, to produce vaccines for animals; this is being done with
immunization technology that makes use of nuclear energy. So,
yes, we do think this is viable.
I didn't know about the possibility of using nuclear energy,
also, for transforming salt water into fresh water, but I don't
think Ecuador would need that very much, because we've got plenty
of fresh water here. We have too much water--we don't use it
because it gets lost in run-off, and in fact this is a danger.
I would very much like Mrs. LaRouche to comment on what to
do on the issue of global warming. Because our countries are
suffering floods and then droughts, and cold weather, glaciers
are losing their potential to conserve water.
PILLAJO: And what this has to do with the development model
and the question of consumerism.
ANGULO: The other issue I would like to comment on, is the
growth of certain economies in the world, such as China, India,
Thailand. This requires a lot more products for those countries.
Now, it's not that we don't want those countries to improve their
standard of living, consuming meat or milk, or other products
that have high protein content. But we think they should not go
towards an inadequate model of development which demands greater
quantities of energy beyond that which is already being used,
because then there's not going to be a planet left, to be able to
sustain that quantity, that excessive growth.
PILLAJO: Last question for Mrs. LaRouche and Mr. Angulo.
Mrs. LaRouche, again, please feel free to comment on the ideas
which the representative of the FAO in Ecuador has expressed
here. But additionally, we'd like to ask you: After the FAO
meeting in Rome, what comes next? Please, Mrs. LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first, very briefly, the global
warming is taking place, but it has nothing to do with manmade
activity. Since millennia of years, you have changes of ice ages
and warming periods.
PILLAJO: But not at the current rate?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, yes. We have done studies and there
are thousands of scientists who--the amount of manmade effect on
the global warming is like a fly on the head of an elephant. And
the answer again, is infrastructure and development, because if
you have water management, if you have dams, if you have
development of the land, you can prevent these kinds of
catastrophes from having the damaging effect they have now.
Concerning China and India and also other countries, well, I
think that the answer to that is the development of the
landlocked areas of the world: Because then the population
potential carrying of the Earth would increase. There have been
estimates in Germany, in the '30s already, there was an economist
from the trade union movement, Mr. Baade, who already in the
'30s, calculated, that if you use all technologies available
then, the carrying capacity of the Earth would be 500 billion
people.
For example, if you look at the last 20,000 years of the
Earth, when the last Ice Age came to an end, all the areas which
are deserts today, were green! So, you could regain these areas
with reforestation and irrigation, and areas which are completely
unlivable today could be gardens and plantations of fruit and
food.
PILLAJO: So the issue of demographic growth is not a
determining factor in the current food crisis? We seem to have 6
billion people and it doesn't seem that the planet can handle
more than that.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, that is the old argument of Malthus, that
food production never can keep pace with the increase of
population. But that is actually a lie invented by the
oligarchy. [Pillajo laughs] It's only a question of the
political will: If you take all the technologies available in
continents like Europe, the United States, Japan, and fortunately
increasingly also in Russia, China, and India, and simply apply
them to the poorer countries of the world, I could guarantee you
that hunger could be stopped in half a year; poverty could be
overcome in maybe two to five years, and a decent living standard
could be accomplished in one generation.
PILLAJO: Thank you, Mrs. LaRouche and Dennis. Our time is
running out. Quickly, if you would: After the Rome conference,
what next?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think probably in Rome, you will see
the two fronts clashing with each other and people will have a
clear idea; then there will come the G-8 meeting, which
supposedly is discussing food. I think there must be--I think
what the developing countries should do, is develop a joint
agenda for the development of Latin America, of Africa, and those
parts of Asia which are not right now doing well, and simply
present the kinds of projects which would be needed to be
implemented to overcome all of these problems. And if there is no
sympathy from the G-8, then take it to the UN General Assembly,
and decide it there! It's the fate of mankind which is at stake.
PILLAJO: Very good. Thank you very much, Mrs. LaRouche.
With our time running out, as I mentioned, we would like you, Mr.
Angulo to please comment, very briefly on Mrs. LaRouche's closing
remarks, and also tell us how the FAO in Ecuador can put bigger
pressure on, so that policies are adopted to resolve this
question--the rise in prices, inflation, the food crisis.
ANGULO: As a comment on Mrs. LaRouche's closing remarks, I
would like to say that, indeed, the problem facing the world is
not just an issue of food production, because the capacity exists
to be able to produce all the food that's needed. It's not a
demographic issue. But rather it's a question of distribution of
food: There's great inequity, injustice, there are problems of
countries that have no possibility of having access to purchase
foods, because they don't have the possibility to produce them
nor the ability to buy them. But that's where the policy
questions come in. The international support that's needed to
have some sort of justice or equilibrium on a world scale:
Africa, places in Latin America, Asia as well, as Mrs. LaRouche
correctly noted.
The Rome summit will be an opportunity to reach major
agreements, and to open up other fora for discussions, where
policy decisions can be adopted. The G-8, of course, will
dominate, but hopefully the G-8 will evolve towards a view which
expresses greater solidarity with this situation. Because many
times, they're impacted by the world financial crisis, so they
try--the big developed countries, of course--they try to figure
out how to protect their economies from these negative factors
which are affecting them. We're seeing a Europe with a level of
inflation that has never been seen in recent years, and the
United States itself, is having problems with the real estate
crisis, and other problems of unemployment and so on.
So all of this has to be discussed, of course, in the forums
internationally. The biggest forum which we have internationally
is the General Assembly of the United Nations: This {has} to be
discussed, so there are projects, plans, actions that are more
concrete that are adopted. And nationally, we have to ensure
that this situation is taken advantage of, to benefit national
production in Ecuador, and also to protect our consumers.
PILLAJO: Should we subsidize wheat? What other measures can
help us? And don't we have to go to the root issues?
ANGULO: Yes, there are momentary measures that can be
adopted, but there have to be structural measures as well,
long-term measures that require greater investments in terms of
technological support, support for production, to create new
rules of the game, clearer rules of the game. We have to create a
movement where large producers can be combined with smaller and
medium producers, so that everyone can benefit--at the end of the
day, the whole country will benefit from this.
PILLAJO: Thank you very much, Mr. Angulo. We only have just
a moment for a last word, a last message, a last idea which you
would like to share with our audience, Mrs. LaRouche? Any closing
remark?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, I think that the moment has come to
think: What is really more important? Is it money, is it
profit? Or is it the existence of 6.5 billion human beings? And
I think it's the moment--now has come the moment, where we have
to have a political and economic order which puts man into the
center. And hopefully, in a couple of years, we will look back
at globalization and say, "This was the low point in human
civilization. It was an expression of barbarism." And I think
we need to put now on the table, a vision for mankind for the
21st century, in which the inalienable rights of all human beings
living on this planet are guaranteed and every person can live a
life in happiness and fulfillment. And once you have that vision
in mind, you have the internal strength to fight for it, to
realize it.
And therefore, ultimately, I think the outcome of the
present phase of history will depend on courageous men and women
who take the fate of mankind as their cause and mission. And
then, sometimes, even a small country can take an historic,
decisive role. And therefore, I think your country is in a very
favorable position right, because we have such people.
PILLAJO: Very good. Thank you very much, Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche. And also our appreciation to Dennis Small for his
translation. Also our appreciation to Mr. Iván Angulo Chacón,
the representative of the FAO in Ecuador. To all, thank you very
much.
|