This article appears in the June 11, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
April 24, 1997
Miniver Cheevy on NATO
Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in EIR Vol. 24, No. 20, May 9, 1997, pp. 14-25.
By reputation, Edwin A. Robinson, the author of “Miniver Cheevy,” was the favorite poet of President Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt. Teddy, a rabidly Anglophile spawn of the lost Confederacy, had his reasons. Similarly, today, we patriots are confronted by the spectacle of those Tory relics of the lost, “Cold War” age, such as Sir Henry A. Kissinger and Sir Caspar Weinberger, who divide the quixotic passions of their creaking arm-chairs between shrieking schemes for expanding NATO, and wild-eyed warnings against some imaginary, future adversary, in China, Islam, or ruined Russia, whose ghostly image they proffer as pretext for keeping NATO alive. Like Miniver Cheevy, their longing for the past is, in military terms of reference, a flight forward from the realities of the present.
Forget the nostalgic fantasies of such as the mad baroness, Margaret Thatcher and her familiar Sir George Bush. The practical question is: of what possible relevance is their NATO to the real world of today? For reasons we shall indicate here, at a later point, the recent agreements, just reached in Moscow, between the Presidents of Russia and China, point, implicitly, toward the needed rational alternative to NATO. First, before turning to define those alternatives to a post-1991 “expanded NATO,” consider some clinical examples of the anomalies posed by the idea of continuing an “expanded NATO” policy at this time.
For the first clinical example: Take the instance of Peru’s April 22 action, in freeing the terrorist-held hostages from Japan’s Lima embassy. During the 1970s, when NATO still had a credible function, virtually no self-respecting government spokesman from any quarter of the so-called “Western world,” would have questioned a brilliantly successful decision such as that recently taken by Peru’s President Alberto Fujimori. Today, Peru’s action occurred in defiance of the persistent, months-long, shamelessly pro-terrorist propaganda-outpourings of Cable News Network (CNN) and all too many other leading international news media, and also in defiance of heavy pressures for softness toward the terrorists, from among certain of the European governments which had been traditionally NATO members.
Since there is presently no efficient consensus among NATO members for defending us in a decisive manner against such murderous strategic adversaries as today’s burgeoning international terrorism, from what real-world adversary is NATO presently proposed to defend the sovereignty of member and allied nation-states? Most notably, according to brazen, open admissions delivered recently inside the British Parliament itself, NATO-member Britain is, by its own, officially stated, continuing policy, the world’s leading safe harbor for international terrorist organizations. A notable example, is the case of that Osama Bin Laden, whose organization has claimed credit for the terrorist murder of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia; his organization is harbored in London under this openly stated British official policy toward such groups.
For another clinical example, consider the incompatibility of principle between the Maastricht agreement and U.S. membership in an expanded NATO.
In Europe itself, the assumption, that NATO might be an instrument for defending national sovereignty of member-states, invokes some perverse sophistries. For example, under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, the effective national sovereignties of the participating European nations, which is what the old NATO was established to defend, are being dissolved. This arrangement has no similarity of principle to the earlier proposal made to sympathetic leaders of Germany and Italy by France’s President Charles de Gaulle: a Europe “of the Fatherlands,” i.e., fully sovereign nation-states, “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” which we in the U.S.A. ought to commend. What is afoot today, is not “a Europe of the Fatherlands,” but, fairly said, a “Europe of the Parricides.”
Indeed, a significant amount of the pro-Maastricht rhetoric featured in the leading European press, insists that one of the leading enemies from which Maastricht is intended to defend Europe, is the allegedly too-powerful economy and military arrogance of the United States of America, a NATO member. To that latter end, it is argued, each nation of western Europe, especially Germany, must sacrifice its sovereignty, its national economy, and its sovereign currency. These measures are imposed, in the name of “democracy,” by supranational agencies whose actions are not subject to the consent of any among the electorates of Europe.
The anomaly does not end there; today’s scheme for expanding NATO is today’s “Gordian Knot” of perversities.
From late 1989 onward, Maastricht was the expression of a bitter, racialist quality of hatred against Germans, a racialist sort of hatred openly expressed by the governments of Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and France’s Socialist President François Mitterrand, the latter, notably, an ancient foe of Charles de Gaulle. Thatcher’s Britain shrieked of the war-like menace of a “Fourth Reich,” should Germany’s four, post-war occupying powers—Britain, the U.S.A., the Soviet Union, and France—consent to a post-1989 reunification of Germany; Mitterrand glowered kindred sentiments. U.S. President George Bush’s advisers were slicker. In direct opposition to the present writer’s, widely broadcast, October 12, 1988 LaRouche for reunification of Germany, this writer’s enemy, U.S. President Bush, led in an agreement among the four occupying powers—the U.S.’s Bush, Britain’s Thatcher, France’s Mitterrand, and the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachov—dictating terms of reunification of Germany, conditional upon a program for the progressive devolution of the sovereignty and economy of a reunified Germany. That condition is known today as Maastricht; an expanded NATO is conceived as U.S.-backed extension of such a Europe.
In current practice, Maastricht is often presented by its champions as putting western Europe into an adversarial relationship against its NATO ally, the U.S.A. Among that section of the European financier-centered elite associated with the Anglo-Dutch “Bilderberger,” (“1001 Club” circles) of Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard, the anti-U.S.A. gossip spread, from the salons, into the press, and onto the sidewalks, especially against President Bill Clinton, is shocking to anyone who recalls western Europe from the 1970s and 1980s. Even when factions of these Anglo-Dutch oligarchical circles are quarrelling rather violently among themselves on other issues of the day, they are united in their efforts to weaken the U.S.A.
In light of Maastricht alone, today’s and tomorrow’s historians were permitted to say, that NATO today gives a novel, perversely unique meaning to the term “alliance.”
Is the purpose of NATO to defend what the United States’ immediate post-World War II policies defined as national security, for any nation’s sovereign existence, in any part of today’s or tomorrow’s world? There is no evidence to suggest that it is; but there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Turn again to the case of the recently concluded terrorist affair in Peru.
From the standpoint of security in the Americas today, there are two principal centers for promotion of international terrorism which must be kept under control. As noted above, the principal harbor for international terrorism today, is the British government. Within the bounds of the Americas themselves, the all-too-obvious, central figure of international terrorism, is Cuba’s Fidel Castro, acting in his capacity as acknowledged leader of the pro-terrorist, nominally Brazil-based, cover-organization, the São Paulo Forum.
At the beginning of the 1990s, a time when Peru had seemed about to be taken over entirely by the narco-terrorist forces of Sendero Luminoso and MRTA, Peru’s President Fujimori deployed his nation’s military and police forces in a brilliantly successful campaign, which broke the backs of both leading narco-terrorist armies. The leading narco-terrorist organizations were not absolutely uprooted, but rather reduced to encysted, tiny kernels, the which would not become significant again, if Peru’s economy remained stable, and if the precautionary, anti-terrorist “immune factors” kept the potential menace contained.
It is relevant to narco-terrorist, drug-trafficking, and related major security threats against Peru, and other parts of the Americas today, that the strongest Maastricht sympathizers inside the U.S.A. include many prominent, chiefly Tory types, whose loyalties to U.S. sovereignty itself, are more than slightly in doubt. These include such veterans of U.S. government service, while in office, as today, such as Sir George Bush, Sir Henry Kissinger, Luigi Einaudi, and other influentials, including the U.S. Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, which were determined to rid the U.S.A.’s allies in Central and South America of both their military forces and their actual political sovereignty.
The present writer, acting in his capacity as a candidate for the U.S. Democratic Party’s 1996 Presidential nomination, denounced these U.S. Defense Department policies as a threat to the sovereignties of all of the states of the Americas, including the U.S.A. itself. During the most recent years, Peru, like internally besieged Colombia, and terrorist-invaded Mexico, came under increasingly heavy political pressure from pro-terrorist “human rights” and pro-drug-legalization gangs, including much of the United Nations Organization’s non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to take steps toward curbing, and even eliminating those very police and military forces which were indispensable to keeping the country’s encysted spores of international terrorism neutralized. A significant ration of these wicked pressures came from policy influentials inside the U.S.A. itself, from among the same circles supporting the policy of an expanded post-Soviet NATO.
Consider the case of Peru again. Under such, increasingly heavy political pressures, from the U.S.A., UNO [the United Nations Organization—ed.], and elsewhere, Peru lowered its level of anti-terrorist security. The ability of the MRTA’s controllers, to plan and execute the massive hostage-taking in Japan’s Lima embassy, was the result. From the moment the terrorist assault was announced, there was massive interference into the internal affairs of Peru, by those foreign governmental and non-governmental busybodies, which demanded that Peru submit to the conditions imposed by the MRTA international narco-terrorists’ demands for concessions, including the release of a regiment’s worth of narco-terrorist killers held in Peru’s prisons; and Colombia-style “recognition” of the MRTA as a legitimate opposition party to the government! CNN was among the most conspicuously shameless in this posture, insisting upon describing some of the world’s worst narco-terrorist criminals as “rebels.” Some notable governments were also guilty of kindred pressures on Peru to give up its national sovereignty.
Over months, President Fujimori bent diplomatically, but refused every concession which would have breached Peru’s sovereignty. Over months, Peru’s forbearance was heroic, as it sought every possible avenue for morally permissible forms of peaceful resolution through negotiations. When the terrorists refused anything less than the release of the horde of killers from Peru’s prisons, and also threatened to cut off medical assistance from captives with endangered health, President Fujimori ordered the prepared rescue action to occur. Forty minutes later, when the action had succeeded, those who had sought to use the terrorist incident as a measure for destroying Peru’s sovereignty, had been defeated, but they were still yelping their disgusting opinion, virtually denouncing even the existence of Peru’s national anthem, as well as the existence of the forces which had effected the rescue. Still, today, such pathetic sophists are yipping and howling, that Peru should have submitted to the terrorists’ demands, rather than conduct the rescue operation.
It is relevant, that, in the meantime, CNN’s Ted Turner has come under fire as an accused sympathizer of terrorist and related organizations operating inside Canada. Meanwhile, Peru’s fighter against international narco-terrorism, Fujimori, has once again emerged as a hero in the eyes of everyone concerned with the actual issues of national security, throughout most of the Americas, including the U.S.A.
Is NATO prepared to invade the terrorist harbors of the United Kingdom, or at least impose sanctions upon the place? Is it prepared to maintain such sanctions until the British government ceases its official practice of being the state most responsible for safe-harboring the world’s international terrorism? Are we such fools, that we continue to believe the lies of London and its dupes, who insist that Libya and Iran are the sources for terrorism actually deployed from London, under the safe-harboring protection of the British Commonwealth’s Privy Council?
Is NATO presently prepared to consider murder and kidnapping by international narco-terrorists as a violation of human rights, as well as a security threat to NATO and other targetted nations? Is France, for example, prepared to acknowledge the proof that the São Paulo Forum, headed by Fidel Castro, is a political mother for supporting the cause of international narco-terrorism, and other terrorism, in that region? Is it willing to view the situation within the Americas, or other parts of the world, accordingly? From precisely what do the proponents of an expanded, post-Soviet NATO actually propose to defend us?
The Nation-State and War
So much for terrorism; what about some other crucial issues of national security? Consider the issues of Maastricht, as President Charles de Gaulle and other leading continental European statesmen of his time would have viewed these matters. At high-ranking levels within Europe, notably among defenders of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, one hears the sophistry, that, by bringing the role of the European nation-state to an end, through this Maastricht union, we are bringing to an end the long history of European wars. Not only is that fairy-tale widely believed; its authority is prominently featured among the popular arguments for urging the importance of European union as a means for ending the existence of the sovereign nation-state within Europe.
Recently, digging deep within an old mine in Germany, not far from the university city of Göttingen, scientists have discovered evidence of a cognitively highly developed human culture, dating from an interglacial period, about a half-million years ago. However, the present day’s best archeological evidence of pre-historical civilizations, or proto-civilizations dates from a tiny, relatively most recent period in the total span of human existence, from a time late within the present interglacial cycle, approximately 7,000 years ago, in central Asia.
For most of that recent, relatively tiny period we know as pre-history and history, until about 500 years ago, the chief civilized form of society known to us, was the imperial form, a form very much like the so-called “global society” to which many leading factions around the world are determined to return the planet today. At no time, under the pre-Fifteenth-Century domination of the planet by the reach and radiated impact of “world-federalist” empires, such as those of Mesopotamia, Rome, and Byzantium, did the population of this planet rise above several hundreds millions living individuals. During that entire period, until the latter half of Europe’s Fifteenth Century, over ninety-five percent of all persons, in all cultures, lived short, mostly brutal lives as serfs, slaves, or worse. Wars, of the most hideously brutish forms, were pervasive.
Presumably, the purpose of all military alliances among civilized peoples, is to secure us all from the threat of return to the relatively brutish conditions of individual human life which prevailed for the overwhelming majority in all cultures until the Fifteenth-Century emergence of the first modern sovereign nation-states in Europe. Can there be, then, a civilized form of alliance, such as this presently proposed expansion of NATO, which is premised upon policies which would return humanity to a time when the world’s population could not be improved above the level of several hundred millions, largely brutish persons, of short life-expectancy and actual or near enslavement?
The modern European nation-state emerged gradually, chiefly over the course of the present millennium, over a period from approximately the time of the celebrated Peter Abelard of Paris, one of the leading, early pioneers of the modern nation-state. The process of development of this idea continued, through Dante Alighieri, and others, who preceded the actual first establishment of such a state, during the latter half of Europe’s Fifteenth Century. During all of that known history, and earlier proto-history, the scope and frequency of warfare was greater than was the general tendency under the influence of the modern nation-state. Indeed, all of the major wars fought in Europe, including the two so-called “world wars” of the present century, were the result of efforts, by the interests of the Holy Alliance’s and British Empire’s landed aristocracies and financier oligarchies, to crush out of existence the kind of modern nation-state which Benjamin Franklin, President George Washington, and their collaborators led in founding as the U.S. Federal Republic. The chief cause of warfare in European civilization during the recent half-millennium has been the efforts of the anti-nation-state factions, such as the landed aristocrats and financier oligarchs of Prince Metternich’s Holy Alliance and Jeremy Bentham’s and Lord Palmerston’s British Empire, to crush the institution of the modern nation-state out of existence; it is those same oligarchical conservatives, who now insist that it is necessary to eradicate the nation-state to eliminate the danger of such warfare.
Exemplary is today’s genocide, running into millions of Hutu and other victims of British Commonwealth greed, within the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. The object of this British enterprise, aided by British intelligence’s so-called “Christian Solidarity” organization, is the liquidation of the existing political structure of existing African nation-states, in order to replace this with a feudal-like, “globalist” structure, in which areas selected as concessions, for reason of their mineral or kindred forms of wealth, or, for their attractiveness to wealthy European colonists, are established as private empires, controlled by concessionaires, using mercenary forces, and turning the areas around these feudal-like, private domains into terra incognita.
This rapidly developing, present situation in Central Africa recalls somewhat similar, awful conditions in western Europe, during the concluding centuries of the decline of the ancient Roman Empire in the west, until Charlemagne introduced civilized order once again. That pre-Charlemagne period was known as the “Dark Age.” A somewhat similar condition erupted, for a period of decades, during Europe’s Fourteenth Century. The establishment of the modern European nation-state, was provoked, in large degree, to enable mankind to escape from that nightmare of barbarian, imperial, and feudal mass-slaughter, the which is characteristic of all known European and other history prior to the establishment of the modern nation-state.
In Africa, Britain is committed to breaking up all existing nation-states, by creating and backing conflicts orchestrated along “ethnic” and “religious” lines. As we see also in Italy, and elsewhere today, there is an increasing, powerfully backed effort to break up existing European nation-states, including the United States itself, into smaller, semi-autonomous, feudal-like entities, such as the case of so-called “Padania” in present-day Italy, and, as Britain’s Prince Philip proposed the carving up of the United States.
Except for the case of those unfortunate dupes who know no better, the argument, that the modern nation-state as such is the cause for war, and, therefore, that we might secure a more peaceful world under some utopian form of world government, is one of the most atrocious hoaxes and delusions perpetrated in this century. That said, look at modern warfare a bit more closely; there, we find additional evidence bearing upon the NATO policy being pushed today.
What we know as “modern warfare,” from such experiences as the U.S. Civil War, two “world wars” of this century, and from the war-planning for the contingency of a post-1946 war with the Soviet Union, defines a very delimited interval of military history. This covers the period from Lazare Carnot’s assuming command of France’s defense, in 1792, until “the age of détente,” which began with the 1962 “Cuba Missiles Crisis” and the subsequent assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In military science, the distinction is between “cabinet” wars, like those of Prussia’s Frederick “the Great,” conducted as an instrument of British diplomacy against Maria Theresa, as against so-called “annihilation wars,” in which latter the military objective was the break-up of the adversary’s ability to organize significant forms of continued warfare.
The defensive objective of General Alfred von Schlieffen’s plan for World War I, is a most relevant example.
It was clearly established, circa 1905, that Britain’s King Edward VII was building an anti-Germany, “geopolitical” alliance among Britain, post-1898 France, Belgium, and Russia, with the firm intent to launch a two-front assault on Germany. The Schlieffen Plan was constructed as the only possible defense against such impending aggression by the combined forces of Britain and its allies. The Plan was designed to outflank and destroy the ability of the British military forces to continue warfare on continental Europe, while destroying quickly the organized ability of French forces to continue the war without British allies. Under those conditions, France and Britain would have been defeated before the slow-moving Russian mobilization could become a major threat to Germany from the east. Because of the superiority of Germany’s railroad system, German forces would be positioned to impose a crushing defeat upon the inferior quality of invading Russian forces. To avoid such crushing defeat, Russia would prefer peace to losing a war. Unfortunately, young Moltke deviated crucially from the war-plan, and, as a result of the follies of Moltke and the Kaiser, the war dragged out, destroying much of Europe’s civilization with it.
In that case, as in the war-planning of the U.S. Federal Republic, from 1789, until President Truman’s ouster of General MacArthur, the annihilation of an adversary’s ability to organize continued warfare, rather than delivering the “punishment” of attrition through protracted butchery (as in post-Kennedy Vietnam), was the policy of civilized modern nation-states such as the U.S.A. and pre-Hitler Germany. MacArthur’s campaign in the Pacific, is exemplary of the principle already demonstrated by General William Tecumseh Sherman: the greatest territory and amount of adversary forces neutralized in the relatively shortest time possible, with the greatest control of territory gained, with the greatest relative economy of life by one’s own and the adversary’s forces.
Except those crucial, unavoidably fierce battles needed to effect the overall economy in victory, as the crucial, turning-point battles, under MacArthur, in the Solomons and New Guinea, destruction of people should be minimized by avoidance. Japan, as a result, was already defeated, hopelessly, by MacArthur’s strategy, even before President Truman was influenced by a pack of Tory fanatics around him, to drop the militarily unnecessary, two atomic bombs.
The characteristics of modern warfare have demonstrated themselves to be, predominantly, the activity of the human cognitive powers, the cognitively shaped will for effective, timely action, more than the physical acts taken unto themselves. Technology is a product of the human cognitive powers. The combat ability of forces commanded, lies chiefly in the appropriately evoked qualities of the mind of the trained combatants, to the effect that, hypothetically, more or less equally qualified forces are distinguished by the conflict between the developed cognitive qualities of mind of the respective commanders.
In other words, since Alexander’s great victory over the Persian empire, on the plains outside Arbela, warfare is a lesson of real politics in arms, the politics by means of which the necessity of warfare may be, hopefully, avoided, or, if unavoidable, brought to a successful conclusion with the relatively least injury to civilization, in the shortest possible lapse of time.
The questions of strategy are: What are we defending? What danger should we be committed to eliminating? What means are appropriate to the goals to be reached? The proposals for an expanded NATO address none of these questions.
The Present Strategic Threat
Before setting forth a theorem, we must first identify that specific set of underlying assumptions, such as a set of definitions, axioms, and postulates, upon whose interaction the authority of any theorem depends for its rationality. In Classical usage, such a set of underlying assumptions, is termed an “hypothesis,” a literate significance of that term which bears little connection to the commonplace, illiterate use of the same term in today’s U.S. legal proceedings, or other “dime-a-dozen” social settings. For the case in point, the national-defense policy of the U.S. must never be corrupted by caprices of mere public opinion, even so-called professional, or expert opinion. Our policy must be governed by principles, akin in their function to the interacting definitions, axioms, and postulates which constitute the hypothesis of, for example, Euclid’s geometry. More precisely, we must resort to the more advanced notions of geometry, and hypothesis developed by Bernhard Riemann.
On this account, we must cast an eye to certain relevant historical facts. Notably, to the degree we adhere to our Federal Constitution, the historically demonstrated, relative superiority of our republic over others, notably its greater durability and resiliency to the abuses it has suffered, under even savage abuses by our history’s over-abundant examples of corrupted governments and errant majorities, lies in the fact, that our republic was never a democracy in the populist illiterate’s sense of a nation ruled by caprices of mere current public opinion. Its durability lies in the fact, that it was derived from durable principles of natural law, as Gottfried Leibniz’s writings and influence defined the meaning of “natural law” for the circles around Benjamin Franklin who were the architects of U.S. Independence and our Federal constitutional republic.
It is by aid of such natural law, as the Preamble of our Federal Constitution of 1789, with its “general welfare” clause, expresses this, that errors in the merely positive law and other policy, even monstrous, Hitler-like crimes, such as toleration of chattel slavery, might be corrected.
So, for example, rather than permit a majority opinion to oppress a minority, the state must act under the authority of that notion of natural law, to defend the rights of the individual, all according to principles of law governing the definition of such rights. So, in justice, public opinion must never render the verdict in a case at law; the principles of truth and justice must reign above mere opinion. So, we may take pride in stating, that as our founding fathers had learned from Solon of Athens: Our republic was never designed to be a government under men, but, rather, under law. It is that republic, that principle, which supplies the moral authority for our republic’s continued existence; it is that principle which we must defend.
That principle signifies, that, according to the oath which every official of government has taken, to uphold the Constitution of these Federal United States, the only lawful goal of national defense and war-planning, is the preservation of the form of Federal Constitutional Union established through the successful outcome of the deliberations of 1787-1789. The anti-Locke principle of Gottfried Leibniz, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” embedded in the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the fundamental principle of natural law governing this republic, that set forth as the Preamble of the Federal Constitution, “... for ourselves and our posterity,” are the only permissible basis for a national defense policy of these United States. Those constitutional arguments are to be read as President Abraham Lincoln read them, as, for example, in his famous Gettysburg Address. The enemies of those principles today, are of the same nature as those enemies which threatened the United States, especially from Britain and France and their Confederacy assets, during Lincoln’s Presidency.
Of course, those principles are not to be regarded as delimiting defense to the lawful borders of the U.S.A. The defense of this form of constitutional government requires a defense of those conditions in the world around us, upon which our national sovereignty efficiently depends. During earlier decades of our republic’s existence, this required combat against piracy on the seas, or, today’s equivalent, international drug-trafficking and terrorism. Whenever we are under attack, the hot pursuit of our adversary, to wherever he bases his attacks, is essential to our lawful defense. The purpose of such attacks, is not to punish, as a vengeful street gangster, or a barbarian such as Genghis Khan may have done, but to neutralize the adversary’s capability of continuing to organize attacks upon our lawful right to exist in security as a Federal Republic. War, and related matters, must never be considered as an extension of the notions of rules of the sports playing-field, whether that of the Roman imperial arena, or more recent exhibitions of such erotic fare.
Under the constraints of such law, it is not only permissible, but prudent, to seek such alliances as may be necessary, and which, as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams warned President James Monroe against treaties with Britain, do not entangle us in commitments which are contrary to our governing principle.
So much here for the general notions of lawfulness which must govern our discussion of a defense of our national security.
Turn to those definitions of principles of U.S. national security which were invoked, or otherwise adopted during and following 1939-1945. Feature attention to the issues of “national economic security,” as this notion was operational in policy-shaping during the 1939-1965 interval. Award to all other nation-states around the planet, today, the right to national security as defined in principle for the U.S.A. of 1939-1965. Respecting NATO as such, include, as a special sub-category, those nations which became NATO partners during the 1949-1989 interval.
Let those rational notions of economic and other leading features of “national security” be employed as the yardstick for determining visible threats to national security, either of nations in general, or, more narrowly, the former NATO partners as such. Let us define rational remedies for such threats as limited to those measures which address such standards. Since the British Privy Council’s Commonwealth is the leading source of terrorist and other strategic threats to the national security of the greatest number of nations today: Out of fairness, and, more important, regard for the nature of principle, define the invocable rights of the United Kingdom and of member states of the Commonwealth, by the same principled standards as we award to the benefit of those nations, including China, which are the intended victims of the present policies of British imperialism.
By those standards, the U.S.A., and the world generally, is presently threatened by chiefly three strategic dangers.
First, generally, the world in its entirety, is presently gripped by the onset of the greatest financial and monetary catastrophe in history. The relevant interdependency of a cancerous financial bubble, and a hyperinflationary expansion of monetary aggregates (relative to per-capita net physical output), has entered an end-phase. This “end-phase” is expressed, in mathematical terms, as a steeply hyperbolic rate of increase, of the combined ratios of financial bubble to the monetary streams required to sustain the bubble, and a similarly steep curve of unavoidable collapse of net physical output, per capita, required to sustain the monetary stream flowing into the leveraging of the bubble. This marks a formal discontinuity in the relations among financial, monetary, and physical-economic activities. This underlying condition, is key to the ongoing succession of “seismic” collapses in such speculative markets as bloated real-estate-based securities of financial institutions. It is impossible for the existing international monetary system to survive more than a relatively very short time, under these conditions.
The danger is not the financial and monetary collapse itself. As long as sovereign governments exist, governments have the authority to put any bankrupt financial and monetary system into government-directed bankruptcy-reorganization. On condition that governments act so, a reorganization of the financial and monetary systems, can prevent a catastrophic economic collapse. The danger is, that the governments will fail to act just so. In the case that governments lack the will to take that prescribed course of action, a general collapse of the planet into a protracted “new dark age” were inevitable.
Second, the danger from the British Commonwealth itself, the greatest single economic and political power on this planet today. The ruling oligarchy, in association with the Venetian-style Privy Council, which actually rules through the permanent bureaucracies of the Commonwealth, has deployed that vast concentration of financial power centered in London, to launch and to foster wars and genocide, as it is doing now in Africa, and also to spread foolish, self-destructive, lunatic policies sometimes hailed as the witchcraft of “Thatcherism,” among the governments of those nations which are among its leading intended victims.
Third, that British enemy and its accomplices has targetted for destruction, both the existing state of China, and the crucial relations between China and the Presidency of the U.S.A. British success in this unholy venture, would virtually assure the early disintegration of every existing nation-state on this planet, and the accompanying descent of the world’s population into the worst holocaust of famine, disease, and other homicide in the known existence of the human species.
During the period from the beginning of the Roman Empire, through the beginning of Europe’s Fifteenth Century, the level of total world population had apparently touched near to an asymptotic upper limit, of several hundred millions living individuals of relatively poor quality of life expectancies and other demographic characteristics of both entire populations, and of the characteristics of households within the lower ninety-five percentile of physical consumption. Through the orientation in the direction of universal education by a new form of sovereign nation-state, combined with accelerated emphasis upon state-supported infrastructure development, and state fostering of investment in what we later came to regard as capital-intensive, power-intensive modes of “scientific and technological progress,” the potential relative population-density was increased toward its present levels of over five billions individuals, etc.
Since these institutions depend absolutely upon the way in which those functions are defined by the institution of the sovereign nation-state, the elimination of that institution, in favor of a return to the “globalist” forms of ancient and medieval society, ensures a collapse of our planet’s potential population-levels, toward those of more than 600 years ago.
To how low a level the population might collapse during the two generations immediately ahead, is incalculable; there are too many unknown considerations, including unknown pandemics and epidemics of plant, animal, and human. That it might collapse to a level of zero, must be considered, and a level as low as several tens of millions planet-wide must also be considered; however, an asymptotic upper limit of regrowth of the population at several hundred millions, is almost a certainty, at least until the institution of the sovereign nation-state were rediscovered and established once more.
Former London Times editor, Lord William Rees-Mogg, has published his own utopian vision of a world in which ninety-five percent of the world’s population receives no education, thus reduced to a condition like those of the Yahoos, in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, and the remaining five percent, the upper crust, including its William Rees-Moggs, corresponding to the lordly horses’ buttocks of Swift’s same tale. A large ration of London’s brutish lords, like Lord William, appear to be welcoming precisely the sort of “new dark age” against which we are warning here.
That looming risk, of a planetary “new dark age,” is the strategic threat whose potential is to be annihilated. The three specific threats enumerated immediately above, are today’s immediate enemies of the human species and of the nation-state institution. It is against these enemies that alliances, war-plans, and related precautions must be defined and adopted.
In the larger setting of history, the bankrupting of any set of monetary and financial institutions, by the power of sovereign nation-states, whenever that is necessary, is an eminently unregrettable action. Think of the world’s present monetary-financial system, as like a sinking British Titanic. The cause of the ship is hopeless; it is the passengers whom we must rescue. In the present instance, the passengers are the sovereign nation-states and their populations.
Europe’s Fourteenth-Century “new dark age” is a case in point. It was the lack of nation-state authority, to regulate the international bankers, and to bankrupt them in an orderly way, when that became urgent, which unleashed the “new dark age.” So, today, the effort to throw the institutions of national sovereignty and welfare of nations’ populations into the fires, to fuel the imperilled monetary-financial system, would ensure the worst holocaust known in history, the planetary plunge into a “new dark age,” as we have indicated.
Governments, at least some among them, must act to put the existing monetary-financial system into government-supervised bankruptcy reorganization. This must be done in a manner akin, in spirit, to the handling of any U.S. corporation in Chapter 11 bankruptcy-reorganization. In the alternative, not to throw the monetary-financial system into such government-directed bankruptcy-reorganization, would be a worse crime against humanity than the Nazi regime’s crimes, many times over. Humanity and a bankrupt international monetary-financial system stand in opposing pans of the scale. How do you tilt that scale; do you weigh in favor of the monetary-financial system, and thus send billions of present and future human beings quickly to Hell, or, do you tilt in favor of humanity, and write off the fraudulent financial assets, which are doomed to extinction in any case?
The issue, on this specific point, is not that of simply ridding ourselves of a richly over-bankrupt succubus, this present international monetary-financial system. The practical issue is, that to continue the political authority of the present, bankrupt system, prevents the establishment of that new, healthy monetary-financial-trade system, the which is needed to bring the world out of its presently accelerating, downward spiral of physical-economic collapse.
One of the crucial functions of the modern form of sovereign nation-state, has been to create and regulate a money-supply, as provided by both Article I of our Federal Constitution, and by the precedent set by the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton. Even in nations whose leading strata did not muster the collective wisdom to emulate the United States’ principle of national banking, rather than central banking, there was some degree of resort to patriotic forms of industrial banking. The post-war resurrection of such methods in Germany, by the late Hermann Abs (until the 1989 assassination of Deutsche Bank’s Alfred Herrhausen), shows, in the relationship between the industrial banks and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the kind of model which has worked fairly well (until 1990), even under conditions of central banking.
The case of Germany has additional relevance. From 1876, until the verge of World War I, the leading scientific and industrial circles of the United States and Germany shared an intimate partnership in developing what became the most successful modern form of agro-industrial economy.
From the time of the Versailles Treaty, concluding that war, and the elimination of the economic competition of Germany, leading circles in London, and the U.S.A., elected to take down much of the agro-industrial development which had flourished during the years of preparation for and conduct of the recent war. The result included an immediate, deep economic recession inside the U.S.A., and other nations. Too many economists and others have been wishfully misled by the fascination which many have shown for the degree of ephemeral recovery represented by speculation-driven short-term booms, in some sectors, during the middle to late 1920s. Examining the same period in real, that is physical-economic terms, the overall thrust of rate-of-change in net physical output per-capita of labor-force, world-wide, was downward relative to pre-war and war-time rates of net physical-economic growth. The collision of upward-spiralling international financial speculation, with downward trends in rates of change of physical output, became the 1927-1934 series of crises which defined the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Once again, at the close of World War II, as at the time of the Versailles negotiations, the United States was thrown into a deep recession by the Truman administration, a relative new depression, which continued until the 1949 mobilization around the war in Korea.
A similar reaction appeared in the wake of the 1962 nuclear missiles crisis and echoing assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, just over a year later. As at Versailles, the Anglo-American establishment assumed, that the “détente” agreements set once again into motion through the 1962 crisis, precluded the danger of generalized warfare. Thus, wealthy foundations led in organizing a drugged, mid-1960s youth-counterculture, in aid of turning the world away from emphasis upon capital-intensive modes of scientific and technological progress, into neo-Malthusian modes of “post-industrial” utopianism, the so-called “services-and-information economy.”
Similarly, with the 1989-1991 disintegration of the former Soviet bloc, the efforts to uproot the institution of the sovereign nation-state from this planet, were unleashed, like a “thyroid storm,” from relevant, London-centered, Anglo-American financier circles. The immediate plunge into a combined orgy of lunatic “derivatives” speculation, and accelerated self-destruction of the agro-industrial power of both the NATO and former Warsaw Pact sectors, has produced the present result, placing us now, at the verge of the kind of chain-reaction implosion, which, within not more than several days lapsed time, could essentially vaporize every financial and monetary institution on this planet.
These cases might be filed, for convenient reference, under the title of “The Versailles Syndrome.” This time, the sickness threatens to prove fatal. Sum up the required remedy in the following terms.
The vital strategic interest of the United States is to avoid a plunge of this planet into the “new dark age” which were almost certain unless the present international monetary-financial system were placed in bankruptcy-reorganization by some relevant combination from among today’s sovereign nation-states. The satisfaction of this vital strategic interest has two leading components: the establishment of a suitable, new form of monetary, financial, and trade-tariff agreements, and some large-scale economic-recovery program, adequate to shift the economy of the planet as a whole, away from the downward trends of the recent thirty years, into a sustained pattern of net physical-economic growth per-capita of labor-force, and per square kilometer of the world’s surface-area.
For this purpose, the center of the world’s population, and, therefore, of its prospects for per-capita growth, is Eurasia. Eurasia is divisible, principally, into three functional sectors. The first of these is central continental Europe, whose center of gravity is a “triangle” of concentrated, historically determined development of productive potential, whose bench-marks are the cities of Paris, Vienna, and Berlin. This has been, until recently, the world’s greatest concentration of the conversion of science into machine-tool-design potential, and still has the potential for reviving that role. At the other ends of Eurasia, there are, chiefly, China, and an India-centered South Asia. In between, an historically distinct region of Eurasia, formerly denoted as the Soviet Union.
The characteristic of East and South Asia, is the general lack of a developed machine-tool-design sector, but for the exceptional cases of Japan, Taiwan, and, with qualifications, Korea. The great economic growth-potential lies in East and South Asia; this growth depends upon infusions of increasing high density of science-driven increases in physical-economic productivity, per-capita of labor-force, and per square kilometer of land-area. Such infusions can not be accomplished except through what we know from U.S.A. and European experience as the “strategic machine-tool-design” sector. Thus, the United States and central continental Europe, together with Japan as partner, have an essential, vitally self-interested role to perform, in engaging the economic development of mainland and archipelagan eastern and southern Asia with the support of the strategic machine-tool-design impetus which had been remustered into life and service in North America and continental central Europe.
In between, the former Soviet Union now represents a number of states which have a historically-determined economic, and other forms of interrelationship. This also bridges the vast, but relatively unpopulated regions of Central Asia, across which new development corridors must bridge the interaction of central western Europe and eastern and southern Asia. The former Soviet Union had one additional quality of high importance for today and tomorrow: the strategic machine-tool-design sector, located chiefly within the former military-industrial and aerospace complex of the Soviet Union. That potential, now largely liquidated under the terms of the Versailles-like post-1989 arrangements, must be reassembled as a strategic-machine-tool-sector, as, for example, of the German type, for participation in the general Eurasian economic development outlined under the rubrics of “Eurasia Land-Bridge,” or “Silk Road.”
That view of Eurasian development defines direct links, as by rail, not only to the principal island-nations of Southeast Asia, but also Africa and North America. The leading role of such vast infrastructure-development programs, in making possible rapid recovery in international food security and other critical values, provides the basis for defining the feasible fulfillment of a more general, common economic-security interest of virtually all nations and peoples of the planet.
The common premise for both remedial courses of emergency action, is located in the developing partnership between the President of the United States, on the one side, and China’s growing roster of partners in, variously, ongoing and prospective cooperation centered around “Land-Bridge,” “Silk Road” development. Those nations which have an efficient awareness of their interest in the success of the “Land-Bridge” effort, thus form a nucleus of sovereign nation-states, whose concerted action can force a just new monetary-financial order into being, and which also represent the sole economic effort presently available, which is adequate to shift the planet from an overall collapsing world-economy, into a growing one.
Who Is the Enemy?
In an address at London Chatham House (the Royal Institute for International Affairs—RIIA) in May 1982, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, bragged publicly that he had been an agent of influence of the British foreign service all the time he had been a U.S. official. In that same address, Kissinger stressed, with utter shamelessness, two other crucial points of relevance to today’s security-threats against the United States. First, he insisted that he had always upheld the sentiments of Winston Churchill, in hateful opposition to the contrary policies of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Second, Kissinger unbuttoned himself with the observation, that he, like the British ruling establishment, adhered to the standpoint of Thomas Hobbes, the doctrine that society is premised upon an axiomatically pervasive conflict, Hobbes’, and Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger’s “war of each against all.”
Apparently, that shameless Chatham House performance of 1982 did nothing to deter a Queen Elizabeth II from conferring feudal honors upon Sir Henry A. Kissinger, more than a dozen years later. Perhaps, we should “all” join in alliance for self-defense against the Hobbeses, Heideggers, and Sir Henry Kissingers of the world. Such heart-warming conceits put to one side, the point must be made, in opposition to the disgusting opinion popular in the United Kingdom, that human beings are not members of races, such as the dogs who reign in those sceptered isles; they are not born creatures each to hate other members of their species for the entirety of their remaining life. There are no natural reasons for enmity among members of the human species; there are no natural enmities among breeds of human beings. Nor, are there natural reasons for conflict supplied to peoples by the choice of real estate which they might inhabit.
The idea that all men and women share the most essential personal interest in common, is no mere wish. That point must be argued, at least in summary, in conclusion here, that not as a matter of rhetoric, but of scientific certainty. Confidence in, and right conduct of the strategic policy we indicate here, depends upon a comprehension of, and commitment to the conception of essential individual human interest, which we summarize as a theorem here, an anti-Hobbes theorem.
First and foremost, we are all born, and shall each die. Therefore, it were an obvious delusion, a fallacy of composition, to locate one’s self-interest in anything less than the outcome of the totality of one’s having lived. In other words, one’s interest, as a whole person, is located in the struggle to live in such a manner as to be in some way necessary to the good obtained by mankind from one’s having lived. The true identity, and thus, the true self-interest, of each among us, is world-historical, in that sense. The identity of each among us is mortgaged to the outcome which life and its passing leave to the world’s posterity. On this account, even when confronted by an incurable adversary, we must feel a certain specific quality of compassion, in the hope that what we do will contribute to making the descendants of that adversary far better persons than he may be.
Indeed, the evil potion, which transforms “Dr. Jekyll” into “Mr. Hyde,” is the potential of the individual to be lured, by his own lusts, into abandoning his, or her self-interest, for the sake of one of the legendary Seven Deadly Sins, or perhaps the fourteen more invented, in the service of “free trade,” by British and kindred philosophers. As in the case of the typical Nazi, such as Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf character, Martin Heidegger, or Jean-Paul Sartre, the general proclivity for bestiality of the “Mr. Hyde” quality, is customarily rooted in what has been fairly named “cultural pessimism.” This should not be surprising to us, since it is the fact that we prize our relationship to all posterity more than the continuation of our individual sense-experience, which is the basis for all natural morality, as distinct from the superficial morality of mere prescriptive codes of behavior. A generation, a people, which sees no future worth mentioning for itself—a “no-future generation,” is a people inclined toward the worst forms of lustful degeneracy conceivable. This, as Dr. Armin Mohler has confessed, is key to the growth of that radical conservativism which produced both the philosophy of the Mont Pelerin Society’s Friedrich von Hayek, and the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler and Martin Heidegger.
Admittedly, in history thus far, those persons who are able to sustain a world-historical sense of individual identity, as governing their commitments to practice, have been relatively rare. As children are born with the talent to be good, world-historical individuals, the rarity of a successfully matured such individual must be accounted to certain kinds of circumstances. Children set out, generally, to become good, in the sense of direction we have recommended above. However, so-called “realism” takes its toll; the pursuit of “practical goals,” and feral cultivation of what are assumed to be generally accepted modes of behavior, both to presumed advantages measured in careers, personal security, and so on, take their toll along the road of life. At the end of the process of maturation, there is more likely a desire to be as good as one had ceased to be, than a reliable quality of performance toward that goal.
It is, therefore, the proper leading concern of true statesmen, that the affairs of nations be so ordered as to favor the good, and to eradicate, as much as possible, those conditions which drive nations and large strata of their populations to the kind of despair we meet in societies where present actions are governed, as they were in much of the population under the Versailles conditions of Weimar Germany, by loss of hope in the future. It is urgent to eradicate those social trends and circumstances which have been building up in western Europe and the U.S.A., and elsewhere, during the thirty-odd years, since the twin shocks of the 1962 missiles-crisis and unresolved assassination of U.S. President John Kennedy. If we do not act efficiently, to such moral ends, then there are no means available to anyone on this planet, to prevent the full realization of the presently ongoing collapse into a “new dark age.”
On that account, we must add a fourth essential, subjective element to the list of three objective strategic considerations identified above. You—none of you—will move the presently demoralized populations of this planet’s nations, to adhere to any good objective, peaceful relations included, unless you reject absolutely the evil whims expressed by Britain’s Sir Henry A. Kissinger, and regard the essential physical measures of monetary, financial, and economic reform, as necessary concomitants of a revival of the human spirit from its presently degraded moral condition. What may not be left to the priests, what must be the responsibility of the statesmen, is the fostering of well-founded faith in the growth of the future out of reform policies presently afoot. It is that faith in the emergence of a good future from a present policy of practice, which evokes within the individual that goodness associated with devotion to one’s life’s service to the future, devotion to one’s own true, human identity.
The opportunity to make such a change, will be supplied. In the moment, in which the shocks of great catastrophe call into question those very habits of belief and practice which have caused the past thirty years’ degeneration of our planetary civilization, we will be presented, around at least much of this world, with minds more humbled, more open to change of belief and practice, than at any time in recent memory. That moment will not last forever; like a fragile plant, it will die unless quickly appropriately nourished in time.
Thus, the failure to secure the establishment of the von Schleicher Chancellorship in Germany, in time, allowed foreign Anglo-American financier circles, linked to Britain’s Montagu Norman, to topple the von Schleicher government, in order to bring to power the protégé of Montagu Norman’s Hjalmar Schacht, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. Should a President William Clinton be toppled from office by those who share the provenances of a Newt Gingrich and Alfonse D’Amato, a similar result were likely today. Gingrich, a self-avowed Jacobin revolutionary, a cheap design for a would-be “American Benito Mussolini,” exemplifies the fascist-like radical conservatism rampant among today’s conservative revolution, including radicals of the theo-conservative variety, as much as the Lovestoneite-centered neo-conservatives. Let that pack into controlling positions of power through a London-directed ouster of Clinton, and there is not much hope for the next two or three generations of Americans, or for most of this planet as a whole.
In history, there have been many such moments of opportunity. Often, perhaps most frequently, the required response from leaders was lacking. Hell is then the result; perhaps an entire culture becomes extinct because of its failure to make the changes that moment requires. Perhaps an empire disintegrates. Perhaps a great, prolonged suffering serves as the penance for an entire people which refused to change its foolish customs. Sometimes, the result is a favorable one. In such latter cases, there is a great outpouring of optimism from a people which senses itself being led safely from a catastrophe. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was deeply loved by his people on that account. We require leadership, in the U.S. Presidency, and other places around the world, which is prepared, intellectually, and emotionally, to seize that precious, fragile moment of historical opportunity.
[fn_1] From “Miniver Cheevy,” by Edwin Arlington Robinson:
Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons;
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.
Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would set him dancing.... [back to text for fn_1]
[fn_2] See the following current books and reports: Caspar Weinberger and Peter Schweitzer, with an introduction by Lady Margaret Thatcher, The Next War, Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 1996; Richard Bernstein and Ross H. Munro, The Coming Conflict with China, Random House, New York, N.Y., 1997; “The Thatcher Gang Is Out to Wreck President Clinton’s China Policy,” EIR, Vol. 24, No. 16, April 11, 1997, pp. 56-69. [back to text for fn_2]
[fn_4] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The Blunder in U.S. National Security Policy,” Committee to Reverse the Accelerating Global Economic and Strategic Crisis: A LaRouche Exploratory Committee, Leesburg, Va., October 11, 1995. [back to text for fn_4]
[fn_5]The Plot to Annihilate the Armed Forces and the Nations of Ibero-America, EIR News Service, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1994; Manuel Hidalgo and Gretchen Small, “British Indigenism Spawned the MRTA and Shining Path,” EIR, Vol. 24, No. 6, January 31, 1997, pp. 46-65. [back to text for fn_5]
[fn_7] Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany,” Nature, February 27, 1997, pp. 807-810. The dating of the find to 500,000 B.C. is the result of EIR’s follow-up with the relevant scientific circles involved. Crucial evidence includes the refined artificing of a well-balanced throwing-spear of a known type, among the artifacts found in this dated site. [back to text for fn_7]
[fn_10] The functional notion of a lawful historical process of development of the modern nation-state, out of the preceding situation in which the world was dominated by empires, has been addressed by this writer in numerous published locations, notably in EIR. Those earlier such treatments are implied background for our immediate purposes here. [back to text for fn_10]
[fn_11] This is not to suggest that the United Kingdom today is a nation-state. Since the accession of the Anglo-Dutch Venetian Party’s choice, Georg Ludwig of Hanover, to accede to the newly created throne of a United Kingdom, in 1714, the United Kingdom has always been an empire cloned from the earlier maritime and financier empire of financier-oligarchical Venice. It was precisely this character of England under the apeish William of Orange and his protégé, George I, which impelled the leading patriots of England, Scotland, and Ireland, during that and the immediately following decades, to put their hope in the establishment of a true nation-state among the semi-autonomous colonies of English- and German-speaking North America. (See H. Graham Lowry, , Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, D.C., 1987.) The perpetuation of the Venetian model under the House of Hanover and British West, and East India Companies, was the source of the irrepressible conflict in morals, which obliged the American patriots to fight a succession of wars, including the U.S. Civil War, against their deadly adversary, the British monarchy and its financier-maritime oligarchy. This is the issue between American patriots and the imperial financier-oligarchy based in London still today. Although the British monarchy has no constitution, and is no nation-state, the fact remains, that under our law, we must recognize the right of the people of England, Scotland, Ireland, and other Commonwealth subjects, to a constitutional nation-state, and to all the rights and respect which that happier political condition commands. [back to text for fn_11]
[fn_12] “The Sun Never Sets on the New British Empire,” EIR, Vol. 23, No. 22, May 24, 1996; “George Bush’s ‘Heart of Darkness,’ ” EIR, Vol. 24, No. 2, January 3, 1997, pp. 16-35; “The War Against the British Empire Can Be Won,” EIR, Vol. 24, No. 6, January 31, 1997, pp. 12-41. [back to text for fn_12]
[fn_13] See Richard Freeman, “Commodities Hoarding Signals Imminent Financial Collapse,” EIR, Vol. 22, No. 37, September 15, 1995, pp. 22-30. British interests control about one-fifth of the world’s land area, representing about 30% of the world’s population. Depending on the specific commodity, London-based and British Commonwealth interests control 30-75% of precious metals production; 20-55% of base metals production; 30-80% of strategic metals production; 20-50% of world energy supplies; and more than half of increasingly scarce food supplies [back to text for fn_13]
[fn_14] Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Ring Around China: Britain Seeks War,” EIR, Vol. 23, No. 47, November 22, 1996, pp. 50-57; “Britain Escalates Attacks on China and United States,” EIR, Vol. 24, No. 14, March 28, 1997, pp. 54-65; “The Thatcher Gang Is Out to Wreck Clinton China Policy,” EIR, April 11, 1997, pp. 56-69; Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The U.S.A.-China Strategy,” EIR, April 25, 1997, pp. 46-61; Jeffrey Steinberg, “Clinton Team Applauds Russia-China Summit,” EIR, May 2, 1997, pp. 74-75. [back to text for fn_14]