Shall the U.S. Then Be a Cockboat in The Wake of the British Man-of-War?By Dennis Small
June 29 (EIRNS)—At a meeting of President James Monroe’s cabinet on November 7, 1823, then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams argued forcefully against the proposed strategic alliance of the young American republic with Great Britain, which had been suggested by British Foreign Secretary George Canning. “It would be more candid, as well as more dignified,” Adams argued, “to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.”
As we approach the 246th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence this July 4, that is still the central political war being waged inside the United States today: between those who would follow Britain in defense of their bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system and their drive for war, on the one side, and those who locate America’s identity and interests in the American System of high-technology economic development and attendant international cooperation, as Lyndon LaRouche most perfectly advocated in modern times.
The former policy was on lurid display at the dangerous fiasco that was the NATO summit held in Madrid, Spain on June 28-29. NATO there broke all remaining official bridges with Russia; proclaimed a new Strategic Concept of confrontation with both Russia and China; and otherwise announced increased military deployments across Europe to further encircle Russia—all under the umbrella of full backing for the Kiev regime in Ukraine.
The “man-of-war” defining that policy of nuclear showdown with Russia, is the United Kingdom, whose new chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, spoke at the Royal United Services Institute’s Land Warfare Conference on June 28 to announce a policy of being “unequivocally prepared to fight for NATO territory,” since “if we fail to deter [Russia], there are no good choices given the cost of a potential counterattack and the associated nuclear threat.”
The “cockboat” in the escalating conflict was played by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who told journalists the same day that NATO’s new Strategic Concept “will describe in stark terms the threat that Russia poses,” and that China also poses a “multi-faceted challenge.” Therefore, he said, “the United States and NATO would enhance its force position on the eastern flank”—i.e., significantly increase the presence of troops and equipment in Europe’s east in a war posture against Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drew the only possible conclusion. Russia’s arguments over years and even decades for the need to respect “the principle of the indivisibility of security”—i.e., that the security interests of all nations must be respected and met—have been “to no avail.” Since Russia’s concerns are “fully ignored arrogantly,” Russia will draw the necessary conclusions.
But that is not the end of the story—far from it.
In Europe, nations such as Germany are facing 15-25% collapses of their physical economies this year, as the anti-Russia sanctions regime—demanded by the desperate efforts to keep the bankrupt trans-Atlantic financial system alive—leads to drastic cutbacks in energy, food and other key necessities. Politically, the crisis is reaching the boiling point in the population. In the South, many nations are turning to the opportunities opening up with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and with the announced expansion of the BRICS grouping. And in the United States, a restive population is finding policy answers to their angry confusion in activities such as those of LaRouche Party candidate for U.S. Senator from New York, Diane Sare, and in the just-issued Schiller Institute “Call for an Ad-Hoc Committee for a New Bretton Woods System,” whose author and first signer is Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Above all, there is growing recognition—both in the U.S. and abroad—of the unique voice of American statesman and economist Lyndon LaRouche. As was eloquently stated in a June 27 Telegram post by Sergey Glazyev, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Minister in Charge of Integration and Macroeconomics of the Eurasian Economic Commission:
“A quarter of a century ago, the deepest thinker of our time, L. LaRouche, proved the inevitability of the collapse of the Western financial system built on financial pyramids and bubbles, the general write-off of debts and the zeroing of derivatives. He called for the creation of a new financial system to serve the needs of expanded reproduction of the real economy.”
Shall the U.S. then be a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war? Not if Lyndon LaRouche has anything to say about it.