May 23, 2015 - No. 21

Canada's Economic Existential Crisis

Incessant Decline in Manufacturing

- K.C. Adams -

Workers in fisheries, mining and metallurgy, and forestry demand that governments defend the public interest and oppose nation-wrecking by the monopolies.

Canada's Economic Existential Crisis

Incessant Decline in Manufacturing

- K.C. Adams -

TML Weekly is posting below Part Three in the series "Canada's Economic Existential Crisis" by K.C. Adams. For Part One in the series, "Problems in the Manufacturing Sector," see TML Weekly, March 28, 2015 - No. 13. For Part Two, "What Statistics Canada Says About the Downturn in Canadian Manufacturing from 1998 to 2008," see the TML Weekly Supplement, April 25, 2015 - No. 17.

***

No modern economy can survive without an internal manufacturing base producing means of production and articles of consumption. Lacking a manufacturing base puts an economy in an existential crisis dependent on external forces beyond the control of the people.

An economy may lack a natural resource arising from the country's geology or size, which can pose a serious problem. Canada is not in that position. In this modern age, no internal excuse exists for a lack of sovereign manufacturing in Canada to meet the needs of the economy and people. The only reason can be the dominance of imperialism and monopoly right, which imposes its will on any economy it controls, distorting the economy to meet the needs of its own empire-building and depriving the people of their sovereign right to build their independent economy and nation. Imperialist interference exists as a block on the all-sided development of an economy, which can be as severe as the complete blockade that Cuba has suffered at the hands of U.S. imperialism.

In addition to providing products as use-value, workers in manufacturing produce essential exchange-value necessary for the internal realization of value produced in other sectors, especially the service sectors and the country's social and material infrastructure. Natural resource extraction and export can generate wealth but the value and stability are dependent upon external factors such as the international market price for oil and other raw material.

To have a human-centred independent economy with all-sided manufacturing, public services, social and material infrastructure, and construction and resource sectors requires political and economic power in the hands of Canadians. They must have the political power necessary to deprive the global monopolies of the power to deprive Canadians from building an independent all-sided economy with manufacturing and service sectors as the base. In the absence of this political power as is now the case, Canada faces an existential crisis.

Monopoly Right Is Destroying the Manufacturing Base

Lockouts at Kellogg's in London, 2009 and U.S. Steel in Hamilton, 2010. After the companies attacked the workers for concessions, both operations ceased manufacturing.

Post-war employment in manufacturing reached its peak in the 1970s. Manufacturing as a prominent sector in Canada arose in large measure not to meet the needs of an independent economy but as an offshoot of British colonial competition with U.S. imperialism. This explains in part why the Canadian economy was so vulnerable to U.S. penetration after WWII. With the rise in strength of post-war U.S. imperialism and relative decline of British imperialism, British colonial control of Canada for its own interests and as a bulwark against U.S. continentalism weakened. A new arrangement emerged in the 1960s based on U.S. imperialist expansion. The 1965 Canada/U.S. Auto Pact is an example.

Before the Auto Pact, only three per cent of vehicles sold in Canada were assembled in the United States. In 1964, only seven per cent of vehicles assembled in Canada were sent south of the border, but by 1968, the figure was sixty per cent. By the same date, 40 per cent of cars purchased in Canada were assembled in the United States. From 1965 to 1982, Canada had a surplus of around $28 billion worth of assembled vehicles but a deficit of around $40.5 billion in auto parts.

The Auto Pact was prepared and written by officials of the U.S. auto monopolies General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to strengthen their respective empires. One effect of the agreement was to change the focus of standards away from Europe towards the United States. In the early 1970s, Transport Canada adopted the technical regulations of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rather than participating in the European-based development of international consensus on auto safety and emissions regulations.

The trend towards giving U.S.-led monopolies open access to Canada continued throughout the period. A global economic crisis struck in the mid-1970s, with interest rates rising to 20 per cent. Economic production plummeted, unemployment increased accompanied with widespread bankruptcies. Beset with crisis, the U.S.-led monopolies forced their way into new regions and countries around the world.

A radical reorganization within the imperialist system of states ensued centred on free trade and negative changes in the relations of production with the working class beginning a long decline in wages and working conditions and destruction of social programs and public services. Extensive neo-liberal propaganda said attacks on the rights of the working class and implementation of monopoly-controlled free trade negating sovereign rights were the answers to the crisis, and specifically, to make U.S.-led monopolies dominant in world markets.

Canada was soon subsumed within a U.S./Canada Free Trade Agreement implemented in 1989 and the even more extensive North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. NAFTA strengthened the march towards a United States of North American Monopolies where the private interests of the most dominant monopolies dictate economic, political, and social and public policy in their own narrow private interests.

The annexation of Canada into an aggressive U.S.-dominated Fortress North America where any pretense of sovereignty has been lost and private monopoly interests exercise control over the country's internal and external affairs has plunged the country into an existential crisis.

The economy has become dependent on the U.S. buying Canada's raw materials and supplying social wealth for economic development. When this does not materialize, the lives of the working people suffer, business stagnates, social programs and public services are slashed, public authority is undermined, predatory wars abroad and repression at home escalate, schemes to funnel public funds to the rich proliferate and democratic reform is blocked.

The Canadian nation-state created in part to foil annexation into the U.S. Empire and which gradually evolved into a social democratic state with a robust public authority has been destroyed on the altar of finance capital and its politicized private interests.

The Canadian working class has the heavy social responsibility to lead the country out of its existential crisis. In broad terms, the working class must constitute itself the nation and vest sovereignty in the people, and open a path in a new direction towards a self-reliant pro-social economy that can guarantee the well-being and security of all.

(With files from Statistics Canada, CBC, Globe and Mail, Wikipedia)

The Necessity for a New Direction for
International Trade

Statistics Canada has released the results of the country's international merchandise trade for March 2015. The report was much anticipated as it reflects the slide in the price of the Canadian dollar relative to other currencies and the fall in the market price of oil.

Statscan reports, "Canada's imports increased 2.2% in March while exports edged up 0.4%. Import volumes rose 1.5% and prices 0.6%. For exports, volumes increased 1.9%, while prices declined 1.5%. As a result, Canada's merchandise trade deficit with the world widened from $2.2 billion in February to a record $3.0 billion in March."

The figures jump out as incongruous. The volume of commodities exported in March rose 1.9 per cent from February yet calculated in money, exports rose only 0.4 per cent. Similarly, imports by volume rose 1.5 per cent but calculated in money those imports jumped 2.2 per cent. As a result, Canada suffered an increased trade shortfall of $800 million for March pushing the total monthly deficit to a record $3.0 billion.

The content of exports and imports does not vary month to month to the extent it would greatly affect the total value in terms of the work-time necessary for the production of the traded goods. However, as can be seen from the figures, the money value of Canada's trade is unstable and dependent upon factors other than its content and volume. Several factors play into the situation:

1) international trade is controlled by private interests motivated by empire-building to serve global monopolies; trade is not controlled by a public authority motivated to serve the public interest, nation-building and the public good;

2) the monopoly-dominated status quo in international trade is maintained through the military might of U.S. imperialism;

3) the instability of trade value in money reflects the fluctuation of the market price of currencies and in the recent March figures the fall in the market price of the Canadian dollar relative to other currencies;

4) the ability of the global monopolies and the states they control to manipulate the market price of major commodities and in the Canadian March figures specifically the market price of oil, which additionally is priced and traded in U.S. not Canadian currency.

Click to enlarge.

The fluctuation in the market price of energy and the Canadian dollar had a substantial effect on the March trade figures, especially the $800 million increase in the monthly trade deficit, which ballooned to $3.0 billion. From Table 2, under the export of energy products calculated in money not volume, the total for March fell $677 million or -8.9 per cent from February. Imports of energy products in money rose $58 million or +2.3 per cent. The effect on the money value of trade from energy products alone was a reduction of $735 million, almost accounting for the $800 million monthly negative difference pushing the trade deficit for the month to a record $3 billion.

The fall in the market price of energy products and the Canadian dollar had an enormous effect on the country's annual trade in merchandise from March 2014 to March 2015. Comparing the monthly export of energy products for March 2014 to this past March, although similar in volume of mostly unrefined bitumen or crude oil to the U.S., the value in money fell $5.347 billion or -43.7 per cent. This $5.3 billion monthly loss for Canadian energy exports, while shipping a similar volume and content, was a $5.3 billion monthly gain for mostly U.S. importers of Canadian crude oil.

The U.S. buyers of Canadian crude, of whom many are the same monopolies ripping and shipping Canadian crude while wearing different Alberta hats, refine the oil in the U.S. to make higher value goods and greater profits. The Canadian working class and small and medium size business feel this $5 billion monthly loss directly in the form of less work in exploration and development in the energy sector, lack of development of the energy sector into the production of higher value goods, layoffs, downward pressure on the standard of living, and loss of public revenue from the energy sector. U.S.-controlled energy monopolies have engineered a global glut in oil and natural gas for self-serving purposes to attack their competitors in Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other energy producing states. They are using both fracking methods and Alberta oilsands to produce this glut. The global monopolies have used their control of Alberta energy production in ways that go against the public interest of Albertans and Canadians and against the interests of Mother Earth herself. The global monopoly private control of strategic public resources must be ended!

A Public Authority to Conduct International Trade

The disturbing Statscan figures point a finger at the global monopolies that control the bulk of Canada's trade, a control of production and trade that serves their private empire-building not Canadian nation-building. The results raise the question as to why private, mostly foreign, interests control Canada's international trade in merchandise. How can the public interest be served? An answer would be the creation of a public authority to conduct international trade on behalf of the Canadian people, an authority committed to serving the public interest and nation-building. This means a public authority exercising power over the wholesale sector, over what is exported, what is imported, the market price of those exports and imports, and how the value of those goods is calculated for exchange between countries to ensure that Canada's international trade is based on mutual benefit and development of both the importing and exporting countries, and the stability of their economies.

This demand for a new direction for international trade is directly linked with the desire for new relations amongst the peoples of the world based on peace and the friendly and mutual development of each other's economy and the peoples' well-being. A new direction in trade requires a determination to deprive the monopolies of their power to control trade for their narrow private interests and empire-building, and the resolve to build an anti-war government and put an end to imperialist globalization.

For a new direction, Canadians must challenge the current regime of international trade controlled by the most powerful monopolies and enforced by the military might of U.S. imperialism. A new direction in trade is possible within the spirit of an anti-war government that restricts monopoly right and upholds the principle of trade for mutual benefit and development.

(To be continued with a look at the March trade figures regarding the international trade in motor vehicles and parts and consumer goods, and the consistent decline in Canadian manufacturing)

Intermonopoly Fight Over Federal-Provincial Power Sharing

Quebec Premier's Speech to the Ontario Legislature:
A Central Alliance -- For What?

- Louis Lang -

Working people of Quebec and Ontario oppose austerity agenda of provincial governments.

Sharp contradictions between federal and provincial governments were the main feature when Quebec Premier Couillard addressed the Ontario Legislature on May 11, 2015. This was the first time in over fifty years that the Premier of Quebec was invited to speak at Queen's Park. In 1964, Premier Jean Lesage was invited to speak to Ontario MPPs.

In his speech on May 11, 2015, Premier Couillard spoke about the significance of the Ontario-Quebec alliance. He claimed that this was a reflection of the two provinces' common history and by working together now to defend and promote the French language, the governments of Ontario and Quebec are, "reaffirming an important characteristic of the Canadian identity," and continuing the tradition established by the "two founding nations," of the Canadian federation.

Throughout Couillard's speech he attempted to put forward a concept of Canadian confederation in which provincial governments must have a "leading role" in economic and political decisions affecting their provinces. He claimed that since Ontario and Quebec account for 60% of the Canadian population and close to 60% of Canada's GDP, the role of this Central Alliance must be properly recognized.

He said that building and strengthening this Central Alliance has been and continues to be one of the main concerns of his Liberal government since it was elected in the spring of 2014. Since that time a joint cabinet meeting was held in Toronto in November 2014 where agreements were signed between the two governments on the following issues; "Revitalization of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, an agreement on Seasonal Electricity Supply Exchanges, concerted action on climate change through carbon pricing and a Declaration on the Francophonie."

He elaborated on the importance of the fight against the adverse affects of climate change and a plan to reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions, emphasizing the important role of the provinces in establishing a system of carbon pricing to "reduce emissions and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy" for the whole country. This issue has been on the agenda of the Council of Federations for years without any agreement because the premiers have insisted on representing competing monopoly interests instead of representing the needs of the people.[1]

He also spoke about the importance of trade between the provinces and announced that Ontario and Quebec would soon be signing an agreement on inter-provincial trade similar to free trade agreements that exist with foreign markets.

Couillard's speech kept returning to one common theme -- the importance of giving the provinces a leading role in deciding their own priorities. He quoted Jean Lesage and John Robarts, the premiers of Quebec and Ontario in the sixties to highlight the demand of the provinces and drew the conclusion that now as in the past, the federal government must recognize the different needs of provincial jurisdictions.

He gave the following quote from John Robarts to illustrate his point: "Canada is a federal state not a unitary state. This is a fact that cannot be overstated and should be reiterated constantly, given its profound implication. The provinces were created and exist, in recognition of regional differences."

Following this quote, Couillard revealed the real significance of his speech at Queen's Park. He emphasized that this is an election year and he used this opportunity to raise once again the growing contradictions between the federal government and provincial interests. He warned the federal political parties that they must take into account "the needs of the provinces," and demanded that during the elections period each one of them must outline their intentions regarding Quebec as well as other jurisdictions across the country.

During the past several meetings of the Council of the Federation, the provincial premiers, especially Wynne and Couillard, openly chastised the Harper Conservatives for ignoring the voice and needs of the provinces and in his speech Couillard declared that each party running in the federal election should declare where they stand on these important issues. He cited examples like the severe cutbacks of the Harper government in the Canada Health Transfer program, the dispute over control of infrastructure financing and measures to control climate change including carbon pricing which has been dismissed by the Harper government.[2] He also raised the question of what targets will be presented by Canada at the upcoming conference on climate change in Paris later this year and how these targets will be coordinated nationally.

Clearly Mr. Couillard's main purpose in speaking to the Ontario Legislature was to place the contradictions that have been developing between competing interests at the provincial and federal level as an election issue. This once again shows the attempt of the political elite in Canada to seize the agenda of the coming elections on behalf of private interests and subvert the public interest and the needs of the people. While Couillard's speech on behalf of the Central Alliance revealed once again the severe crisis of the outdated system of Canadian federalism established in 1867, it also revealed that Couillard has no vision for society. He speaks about working for a federalism "based on cooperation where differences are respected," but in reality the Central Alliance he is building with Wynne is a continuation of the fight for control of resources and over public funds for the private interests that he represents.

Couillard's plan is to transform central and eastern Canada into a huge network of energy corridors and gateways, with pipelines, railways, intermodal trucking and warehousing. This is in the service of private interests and indicates the further integration of the Canadian economy into the United States of North American Monopolies. The former Alberta Premier Jim Prentice and current Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall worked to do a similar thing in western Canada. They championed the corridors which link the resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the private interests that have usurped control over them with the U.S. Gulf Coast and Asia. They were also desperate to make inroads into the markets in eastern Canada.

The contradictions among the provincial premiers and with the federal government have nothing to do with presenting a new vision of Canadian federalism suitable for a modern society, but have everything to do with representing contending monopoly interests in the U.S., and integrating the Canadian economy behind U.S. imperialist interests at home and wars of aggression abroad.

The deceptive nature of Couillard's speech becomes more and more apparent as he continues to pretend to follow in the footsteps of Jean Lesage and John Robarts by repeatedly making references to Robarts' statement that rather than a unitary state, Canada is a federation "where differences are respected." It is less than honest to compare the crisis of federalism now and the role being played by the Central Alliance with the situation facing Quebec and Ontario in the early sixties.

The early sixties was a very important period in the history of Quebec. Quebec was emerging out of the darkness of the Duplessis regime and when Jean Lesage was elected Premier of Quebec he undertook some major reforms known as la Révolution Tranquille (Quiet Revolution) which brought fundamental political and social changes in Quebec.

This included elimination of the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the fields of education and health care. The Lesage government created Ministries of Health and Education, expanded public services and made massive investments in the public education system and provincial infrastructure and public service workers were legally allowed to unionize. The government also took measures to increase provincial control over Quebec's economy and René Lévesque, who was Minister of Natural Resources in the Lesage government, led the nationalization of electricity production and distribution and the creation of Hydro Québec. This launched a series of giant hydro electric projects (like Manic 2) all across Quebec. The Lesage government in coordination with the Canada Pension Plan created the province's own Quebec Pension Plan which gave rise to the Caisse de depôt et placement du Québec to manage the considerable revenues generated by the pension plan and to provide the capital necessary for various projects in the public and private sectors. Many other public institutions were created to manage different secgtors of the Quebec economy - SIDBEc in iron and steel; SOQUEM in mining; REXFOR in forestry; and SOQUIP in petroleum.

The early sixties was a period of growth following the 20 years of post-war expansion in Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada and the welfare state was still intact. Ontario under John Robarts also experienced a great expansion in investments in education and health care and many hospitals and schools were built during this period.

It is embarrassing for all Québecois to see the Premier of Quebec so blatantly misrepresent the history of Quebec and use it for shameless self-promotion. Hiding behind quotes from Lesage and Robarts about the nature of the Canadian federation is completely inappropriate at this time. Far from providing a vision for the federation and nation building in Quebec and Canada Couillard is dismantling whatever public institutions are left. He is using austerity budgets to eliminate public healthcare and severe cut backs are being made in education as well. The rights to unionize of public sector workers and teachers are also under attack and daily demonstrations of workers and students in opposition to the attacks of the Couillard government are taking place across Quebec.

Couillard's speech to the Ontario Legislature clearly shows that the Central Alliance he is building with Premier Wynne is not capable of providing a way forward for either Quebec or Ontario. Further integration into the United States of North American Monopolies will give rise to more destruction of manufacturing and squandering of Canadian resources in the service of private interests.

In the coming elections Quebeckers and Ontarians and all Canadians must put forward our aim of an independent economy with control of our own resources for the benefit of all. We must take into our own hands what belongs to us by right and an important fight during this period of the coming elections is to put the needs of the people as the main agenda.

Note

1. See "Provincial Premiers Fail to Protect the Environment," Louis Lang, TML Weekly, April 18, 2015 - No. 16.

2. See "Crisis of Canadian Federalism Deepens," Louis Lang, TML Weekly, January 31, 2015 No. 5.

Aberration of Due Process in Nova Scotia

Murky Affair of Accused
British Royal Navy Sailors Gets Murkier

- Tony Seed -

Four British naval personnel accused of a heinous crime have been moved from CFB Stadacona in Halifax to a British base in Alberta. The Harper government and its Department of National Defence and Maritime Command are making special private arrangements for the British soldiers, and the courts and the Crown in Halifax are letting them get away with it.

News agencies report that on May 1 the head of Maritime Command of the Canadian Forces ordered four British Royal Navy sailors accused of sexual assault at a military barracks at CFB 12 Wing Shearwater to leave the CFB Stadacona military base in Halifax, where they had resided since April 21, by the end of the day. With the sanction of the Crown prosecutor's office and a Nova Scotia provincial court, they were transferred to the British Army Training Unit in Suffield, Alberta (BATUS), which is leased from the Canadian Department of National Defence.[1] How the soldiers were transferred from one end of the country virtually to the other has not been revealed.

Details of the extraordinary move only contribute to what has become a murky affair.

The four British navy personnel were arrested on April 17 at CFB Shearwater. The Canadian Forces National Investigation Service charged each man with one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm and one count of sexual assault committed with one or more other persons.

The Halifax Chronicle Herald convivially referred to the accused as "the Brits" and the CBC portrayed the British military personnel as "typical tourists."

The accused were reportedly part of a visiting British Navy hockey team participating in a military hockey tournament. No information was released as to the military units of the British personnel, nor why a hockey team from the United Kingdom was invited to Halifax. The Halifax Chronicle Herald reported April 18 that "Jason Price, the president of the CFB Halifax Hockey League, which is based at Shearwater, said he doesn't know anything about the tournament the British sailors were playing here." The Royal Navy's Ice Hockey Facebook page was taken down immediately after news broke about the alleged assault. In another curious ruling the Chronicle Herald reported, "Judge John MacDougall also prohibited the Brits from possessing weapons except as required on the job" -- raising the question as to the real nature of their presence at Shearwater and in Canada in the first place.

After the weekend in a local lock-up, on April 21 the four British sailors were released after appearing in provincial court on what appeared to be extraordinarily lenient terms: on their own recognizance with $3,000 cash bail each. The accused were ordered to remain in Nova Scotia, surrender their passports within the following two days and stay at 12 Wing Shearwater, a remote suburb of Halifax, but immediately were transferred to CFB Stadacona on the Halifax peninsula. They were to be hosted and lodged by the Canadian Forces. All four men are to appear before a judge May 27 to elect to be tried in provincial court or in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

They were driven away from the court by one Michael O'Sullivan, who was identified as "a Royal Navy commander who works with the British High Commission in Ottawa," who "met with the sailors (April 20) in the cells area of the courthouse." The Chronicle Herald reported Crown prosecutor Eric Taylor as stating, "We've been in [bail] negotiations for a few days now, speaking to a number of parties -- members of the Canadian Forces, members of the Royal Navy through the British High Commission, members of the Canadian Forces National Investigation service." One source close to the investigation told The Telegraph of London, UK: "I expect very high-ups in both the Canadian and British navies are going to be watching this case closely."

Several questionable aspects of the case have emerged.

First, is the rationale for the sudden change in the bail conditions of the accused. Crown attorney Scott Morrison told the Canadian Press, "They have deposited their passports and they are still as far as I understand employed by the British military. So based on the plan we have in place we're still confident that they will not be a flight risk."

The statement completely contradicts earlier statements by Halifax Crown prosecutors made when the accused were arraigned in provincial court on April 21. Crown prosecutor Eric Taylor stated at that time:

"Cash deposits are often based on where an accused will be and since these four individuals appear to be planning to reside locally [sic], we determined cash bail based on that amount." (Emphasis added)

Referring to the United Kingdom as if it was a nearby neighbourhood in close proximity to the court, he said:

"If it looked as though they would be living far away from the jurisdiction of the court, we'd be seeking a greater cash bail."(Emphasis added)

Defending the arrangement, Taylor said the four accused would apply to live in the Atlantic block at CFB Stadacona, the headquarters of Maritime Command, which is located in Halifax's North End and very near the centre of the city. He said they are not under house arrest and are free to come and go as they wish. Why this convenient arrangement and who would pay the rent and pick up the tab was not disclosed, nor asked about.

And now the accused have been transferred to Alberta, a distance of approximately 4,500 kilometres, without any other changes in their bail conditions, including the amount of cash bail. The concept of "residing locally" seems to be quite elastic!

Second, is the reason for the sudden transfer of the accused. Both the CBC and Canadian Press news reports feature statements by head of Maritime Command Rear Admiral John Newton to the effect that "the men's two-week stay at the Halifax base was long enough, and he had his own people's welfare to consider."

"Rear Admiral John Newton, the commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, asked the men to leave CFB Stadacona by 6 p.m., Crown attorney Scott Morrison said outside court.

"Morrison deferred questions about why the men were no longer welcome at CFB Stadacona to the Canadian Forces.

"The Forces could not be reached for comment.

"'It's an unfortunate situation but it's not good for morale, welfare and discipline, so two weeks was long enough in my mind,' he said.

"'As commander, I get to exert my will in that manner." (Emphasis added)

Third, is who is driving this trial. CBC reported the following:

"The commander of Canada's East Coast navy, Rear Admiral John Newton, said the four were no longer welcome at the Halifax base and had to leave by 6 p.m. on Friday.

"'My role in this was only to provide a bridging mechanism for the High Commission and for the Royal Navy from the turmoil of the allegations to the charge being laid and I fulfilled that part as an ally and a sister service to the Royal Navy,' Newton told CBC News.

"'That period of time had elapsed and we just wanted to re-approach the court to have those conditions -- which were exerted on us, probably for too long a time -- changed to allow the British High Commission to deal with their own people.'"

From the foregoing, it seems evident that:

1. Instead of the Crown representing public authority and the rule of law, the Halifax Crown prosecutor's office and the provincial court changed the rationale behind the extremely convenient bail conditions according to dictates of the military;

2. Canadian military rank-and-file at CFB Stadacona were up in arms that foreign soldiers accused of the gang rape of a young Canadian woman were being sequestered on the base, such that within two weeks of their presence there was an issue of "morale, welfare and discipline";

3. The court case is being politicized by the Harper government's Department of National Defence, which is negotiating special private arrangements with the British Ministry of Defence -- with the head of Maritime Command, in his own words stating that serving as "a bridging mechanism I fulfilled that part as an ally and a sister service to the Royal Navy" -- which are being rubber stamped by the civilian legal system;

4. The Halifax trial is being quietly organized behind the scenes as if the accused should enjoy every impunity from the rule of law. NATO Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) as well as Canada's Visiting Forces Act generally grant impunity to foreign personnel (the state of nationality) to crimes committed in the course of military duties when stationed on the territory of another state -- what is euphemistically termed "primary right of jurisdiction" -- but that they come under the jurisdiction of the host country for crimes which were not committed in the course of military duties; and

5. The Harper government's so-called "zero tolerance" for violent crimes against women and its criminalizing of "Barbaric Cultural Practices" is a fraud. "Zero tolerance" does not mean to uphold the rule of law and to defend the rights of all. Maximum tolerance is being extended to the four accused British military personnel. In similar cases involving crimes committed by occupying U.S. military personnel in foreign countries such as the Philippines, Korea or Japan, evidence came out that maximum pressure was exerted on the victim to withdraw the charges of sexual assault and remain silent. This is done to suffocate all opposition so that all crimes committed by foreign military forces are made acceptable and to impose a system of criminalization of those who oppose such forces and the imposition of a culture of silence and denial.

This reaffirms that:

- Everyone should remain vigilant as events unfold in Halifax and the military and civilian authorities reposition themselves;

- The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Visiting Forces Act through which the U.S. and other militaries carries out crimes and indignities against the people of Canada and other countries throughout the world must be scrapped; and

- Not only must all crimes committed by foreign troops against Canadians be prosecuted by upholding the rule of law, but Canada must withdraw from all aggressive military blocs, declare the NATO and NORAD military treaties and private arrangements null and void, and bar all foreign troops and security units at the border. All foreign troops must leave Canada immediately.

Note

1. At the time, the massive Maple Resolve military exercise involving Canadian, American and British troops was just ending. According to an operating agreement between the Canadian and British departments of defence announced on November 4, 2013, five thousand British troops were to train on Canadian territory within the first year.

Harper Dictatorship's Vitriolic Hatred of Communism

Antipathy to Canada's Institutions Continues
to Rouse Opposition

- Sam Heaton -

The house of cards on which the Harper Dictatorship has erected its monstrous project "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" in Ottawa is falling fast. Every week, the self-serving tales spun by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his anti-communist lieutenants, Ministers Jason Kenney and Pierre Poilievre, dissolve before their very eyes. It has become increasingly evident that, as CPC(M-L) said at the outset, it is not a memorial to victims of "totalitarian regimes" but an anti-communist glorification of Nazism. This explains why the proposed monument and Tribute to Liberty, the private organization created to promote it, take up the rallying cry of the Hitlerites and their appeasers to defeat communism no matter what the cost. Meanwhile, the fact that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government remain silent about the millions of victims of fascism, and promote Nazis and Nazi collaborators as freedom fighters because they fought the communists, has become increasingly evident as well.

At every step, the project to build this anti-communist memorial has proceeded only thanks directly to the guiding hand of Prime Minister Harper and Minister Kenney, along with several other Ministers. It has been revealed at every step of the way that their attempts to exert authority over the process of the National Capital Commission (NCC), the body which administers land in the National Capital Region, have been either inappropriate or an outright abuse of prerogative powers. The unfolding opposition to the monument has revealed that decisions which Harper and his Ministers have announced as settled, are not settled at all. A final vote on the monument's design by the NCC is now not expected to take place until September, according to CEO Mark Kristmanson. The Canadian Heritage Department under whose auspices the Harper government placed the monument so as to bypass opposition in the NCC, said in March that ground would be broken on the memorial this summer. But Canadians determined to stop this project are resolved to make sure this does not happen. A prima facie case for abuse of prerogative powers surely exists based on the value of the land the Harper government wants to hand over for this project, let alone the fact that it will be built with government funds to the tune of more than $5 million dollars. The value of the land was at first announced to be about $1 million dollars, a figure which has subsequently risen to anywhere from $16-30 million. The contribution of the alleged private charity, Tribute to Liberty, has never materialized which explains why Harper started using his office directly to get the monument built. Canadians simply never supported it, and are foiling the Harperites' plan to finish the project before the 2015 federal election.

Poll results released May 22 point to the extent of Canadians' opposition to the monument. Responses to the iPolitics-EKOS poll show that 77.4 per cent "strongly oppose" the monument, with 82.7 per cent of National Capital Region residents saying the same. Sixty-three per cent of those intending to vote Conservative also indicated their opposition.

"Rarely do you see an idea that's so clearly opposed by the public," said EKOS president Frank Graves. Graves added that the government "had best hope the deal can be closed on this before the election because given the depth of opposition we suspect there will be a groundswell of protest..."

Ottawa City Council To Vote on Motion Against
Location of Anti-Communist Monument

The Harperites' scramble to have their monument set in stone before this year's federal election is encountering more roadblocks, including opposition to the Harper government's extremism and contempt for Canadian institutions and everything progressive and enlightened. In the words of Ottawa Citizen writer Andrew Cohen, the question on everyone's lips is, "Is there a way to stop this lunacy?"

Ottawa City Council will hold a vote on Wednesday, May 27 at 10 am on a motion submitted by Councillor Tobi Nussbaum for the city to formally request that the government relocate the proposed monument "to a site that conserves the integrity of the Judicial Precinct in the Government of Canada's Long Term Vision and Plan." The Long Term Vision and Plan, last updated in 2007, is a comprehensive plan for the development of the parliamentary and judicial precincts in the capital, which precludes an anti-communist monument in its proposed site in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. According to the longstanding government plans for the precincts, the proposed monument site is reserved for a new federal court building.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson, who previously called the proposed monument a "blight" on the judicial precinct, has said he supports the motion.

Ottawa-Centre MP Raises Questions About
Monument Approval Procedure

The Ottawa Citizen reported on May 20 that the National Capital Commission (NCC) in 2013 changed its land-use guidelines to accommodate the government's proposed site for its anti-communist monument in front of the Supreme Court at the request of the Minister for Public Works. In a letter to Ottawa-Centre MP Paul Dewar, NCC CEO Mark Kristmanson said he advised Public Works at the time that the government's long-term plan would also have to be changed for the monument to be built. Kristmanson noted that as of April 22 "No request for an update has yet been presented to the NCC." On May 19, Dewar wrote a letter to Andrew Scheer, Speaker of the House of Commons and Chair of the Board of Internal Economy (BoIE), through which Parliament endorsed the long-term land-use plan, asking for clarification. The BoIE is the body that governs the administrative and financial policies of the House of Commons.

A Facebook page has been set up calling for the moving of the monument, as well as a petition on change.org.

Dewar wrote, "As you know, this public land had for decades been slated for a new federal judicial building (FJB) that was to consolidate the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court and the Tax Court of Canada, as part of the Long Term Vision and Plan (LTVP) for the Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts. This intended use for the site was confirmed in 1987, and reiterated when all stakeholders, including Parliament through the Board of Internal Economy (BoIE), endorsed the 2006 PWGSC Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts Site Capacity and Long Term Development Plan -- Plan Update."

Referring to Public Works' failure to revise the long-term plan to accommodate the anti-communist monument, Dewar asked whether the Board continues to endorse the long-term plan, and if it was discussed. He requested clarification as to whether the BoIE would have to review and approve any amendment to the long-term plan before final review and approval of the memorial. Dewar sought further clarification on a number of matters with regards to the procedure for the government to follow in order to realize its monument:

"Does the BoIE agree that any significant or substantive amendment to the LTVP should follow proper and thorough consultation with all stakeholders involved in developing the 2006 LTVP? I have enclosed for your reference a copy of page 121 of the 2006 report entitled The Parliamentary and Judicial Precincts Site Capacity and Long Term Development Plan (Plan update 2006), which lists the stakeholders consulted in the development of the LTVP.

"Does the BoIE accept the judgment of the NCC that the LTVP must be formally amended prior to constructing the Memorial in its proposed location at the heart of the Judicial Precinct?

"Based on the estimated cost of the planned FJB and standard architectural and engineering fees, is the BoIE concerned about the potential loss of approximately 13 million dollars of taxpayer revenues on the plans for the [new federal judicial building]? If you have more precise cost details for the work to date on the FJB, please provide that information too.

"Does the BoIE possess a full account of buried infrastructure associated with the Cliff Street Heating Plant that would be affected by the Memorial Monument, and any additional costs? If so, does the BoIE find such costs proportional to the costs of the Memorial, or commensurate with the costs of a federal courthouse?

"Does the BoIE consider the Judicial Precinct to be equal to the Parliamentary Precinct in terms of symbolic and representational value? If so, would the BoIE support a solution that places the Memorial in a prominent location on Confederation Boulevard without compromising the existing planned location for a new federal courthouse?"

Revelations of Government's Manipulation of
National Capital Commission

The National Capital Commission (NCC) first expressed support for a memorial similar to that advocated by Tribute to Liberty in September 2009. It did so only after nearly all its board members expressed opposition to the concept of a memorial to the "victims of communism," saying instead it should commemorate victims of oppressive regimes. Board members pointed out that such a memorial would be "unduly critical" of Canadian communists and inappropriate as Canada has a federally-registered Communist Party. Tribute to Liberty, which said at the time that it would fund the monument through private donations, refused to accept this proposal and the NCC eventually agreed to a "Monument to Victims of Totalitarian Communism: Canada, A Land of Refuge." The word "totalitarian" was dropped after a "mandate letter" to the NCC from John Baird in 2012 called for the change. One source told the Ottawa Citizen that the change was made because "the word totalitarian implied that some forms of communism were acceptable."

Documents obtained in 2015 by the Citizen under access to information requests reveal that NCC bodies determined early on that a monument to the "victims of communism" did not meet its own policy regarding such memorials in the capital. The commission's External Committee of Experts, meeting in February 2009, unanimously agreed that the monument was not appropriate, noting that "the purpose could be misconstrued as political rather than commemorative in nature." In September 2009, an NCC staff report acknowledged that the monument "remains not entirely compatible with the NCC's policy..." though it recommended approval.

Even the National Post is critical of the Harper government's attempts to impose the anti-communist monument, as shown in this graphic from March 2015. Click to enlarge.

By summer 2010, the NCC allocated a site at the Garden of the Provinces on Wellington Steet, not far from the Supreme Court and the presently-proposed location. How the original site came to be abandoned in favour of what is known as the judicial precinct is another black hole. Jason Kenney "said last week he had no idea how the memorial ended up being moved next to the Supreme Court of Canada," wrote Ottawa Citizen journalist Joanne Chianello on May 20. On March 6, Citizen reporter Don Butler reported that the Supreme Court site was first chosen by the government in May 2012, citing sources who said the decision was made by John Baird, then the minister responsible for the NCC.

The NCC did not learn about the new site until March 2013 when the government's Public Works Department sent a letter requesting approval to use the grounds for the monument. The judicial precinct did not appear on the NCC's list of sites for future monuments and memorials. Despite disagreeing with the decision, the NCC board approved the site in September 2013. If they had refused to do so, the federal cabinet could have bypassed the NCC and made the change unilaterally.

The site was first announced to the public alongside $1.5 million in federal funding for the monument, an offer later doubled to $3 million after it became clear the project had no support from Canadians and could not raise funds on its own. The official estimate of the project's cost has since been raised to $5.5 million, while experts say it is likely to amount to three times as much.

The government handed over the NCC's responsibilities for commemorations to Heritage Canada in September 2013, limiting its ability to influence any aspect of the project.

The NCC continued to bring its concerns to the government in 2013 and 2014. Documents obtained by the Citizen show that in 2013 the commission's advisory committee on planning, design and realty tried and failed to ensure that the government refer to the judicial precinct location as the "intended site," given that it did not have the authority to use it according to the long-term plan. At its February 2014 meeting, the NCC committee continued to insist that such a monument should not target communism, but oppression. The committee reiterated that using the proposed site for the monument contradicts the official plan for the land's use.

The chair of the NCC's advisory committee on planning and design, Larry Beasley, told Maclean's magazine on January 9 that his committee disapproved of both the proposed site and the monument's design. The winning design was selected in August 2014 after a seven-member jury gave recommendations. At least one jury member, an architect, spoke out against the design and the location after the fact. "It is so centrally placed that it would seem to quite overshadow Canada's true history... I think it completely misrepresents and skews what Canada is all about," she said.

Government's Reluctance to Bring
Suspected Nazis to Justice

A member of the Ukrainian battalion of the Waffen SS has been living in Quebec for the past 60 years, a May 9 article by Steven Chase in the Globe and Mail reveals. The story has come to the fore because the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation called on Canada to deliver Vladimir Katriuk, currently a Quebec beekeeper in his 90s, to Moscow so he can be tried for alleged war crimes.

Given the seriousness of his alleged war crimes "and the fact that his accomplices were proven guilty and faced the death penalty for exterminating civilians of the Khatyn village in Byelorussia, an extradition request would be logical for bringing the Nazi collaborator to court," Kirill Kalinin, second secretary of the Russian embassy's political section, said in a statement.

Jewish groups have long urged the deportation of Katriuk, the Globe article says, adding that "they increased their demands for action in recent years after new scholarly research that appears to tie him to a 1943 massacre of villagers in Belarus, a former Soviet republic."

In 1999, the Federal Court ruled that Katriuk had obtained Canadian citizenship under false pretenses by not telling authorities about his collaboration with the Nazis but could find no evidence he had committed atrocities. In 2007, the Harper cabinet decided not to revoke his citizenship.

According to the Globe article, "In 2015, the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Annual Nazi War Criminals Report ranked Mr. Katriuk second on the list."

When the extradition request was made, "the Harper government refused to address the request and instead immediately shifted the topic back to Russia's aggression in Ukraine," the Globe writes.

"While I cannot comment on any specific extradition request, to be clear, we will never accept or recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea or the illegal occupation of any sovereign Ukrainian territory," said Clarissa Lamb, press secretary for Justice Minister Peter MacKay.

"In 2012, the Harper government reportedly pledged to re-examine the Katriuk case but on Friday [May 8] Mr. MacKay's office would say nothing about this, citing privacy law. Ms. Lamb said options for war-crimes cases 'include extradition, criminal prosecution in Canada under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, revocation of Canadian citizenship, deportation, and surrender to an international tribunal.'

"Mr. Katriuk has said he was forced to join the SS battalion and did not participate in operations with the Germans. He said that while in Belarus, he guarded villagers, livestock and resources from other partisan forces."

The Harper government's reluctance to either extradite or prosecute an alleged war criminal is consistent with its virulent anti-communism and attempts to rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators, such as with its planned "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" in Ottawa.

International News and Commentary

New Ukrainian Anti-Communist Laws Honour Nazis

Left: monument to fascist and Nazi collaborator that stands in Lviv, Ukraine. Right: a statue
of V.I. Lenin in Kharkov, Ukraine is brought down, September 28, 2014. (RIAN)

On May 15, a bill honouring organizations that collaborated with the Nazis in World War Two, including carrying out massacres of Jewish and Polish people, was signed into law by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, having been passed April 9 by Ukraine's parliament, the Supreme Rada. The law specifically honours the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). Also signed into law that day was another bill outlawing communist and Nazi symbols, that targets communism by equating it with Nazism.

According to Ukrainian website zik.ua, the law honouring the Nazi collaborators states in part, "The state acknowledges that the fighters for Ukraine's independence played an important role in reinstating the country's statehood declared on Aug. 24, 1991.

"In compliance with the law, the government will provide social guarantees and bestow honors on OUN-UPA fighters.

"Public denunciation of the role of OUN-UPA in restoring the independence of Ukraine is illegal."

Ukrainian President Poroshenko pays tribute to veterans of the fascist UPA, Kiev, May 8, 2015.

The extreme right nationalists and neo-Nazis currently in power in Kiev portray the OUN, founded in 1929, as a "revolutionary" or "partisan" organization that sought to "liberate" Ukraine from Soviet rule. Josh Cohen, writing for Reuters, points out, "Many OUN leaders were trained in Nazi Germany, and the group's philosophy was influenced by Nazi racial theorists such as Alfred Rosenberg. OUN literature, for example, declared the need to 'combat Jews as supporters of the Muscovite-Bolshevik regime... Death to the Muscovite-Jewish commune! Beat the commune, save Ukraine!'"

"Starting with a pogrom in Lviv shortly after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union," Cohen writes, "OUN militias -- with the support of the Nazis -- embarked on a killing spree in Western Ukraine that claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Jews. After the Nazis dissolved these militias, many of their members joined the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police in German service, where they received weapons-training and became one of the most important instruments of the Holocaust in Belarus and Western Ukraine.

"By 1943 the OUN had seized control of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), a Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary group, and declared itself opposed to both the retreating Germans and the oncoming Soviets. Although no longer in Nazi service, the UPA nevertheless continued to target and kill Jews, herding them into labor camps for execution. The UPA also engaged in the mass ethnic cleansing of Poles during this time, killing nearly 100,000 people."

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko Signs Four Laws

Four new laws that Ukrainian President Poroshenko has signed criminalize public denial of Nazi atrocities and put the Nazis and the Soviets on par as a manoevre to get those who collaborated with the Nazis portrayed as freedom fighters while permitting the falsification of history as concerns the role the Soviets played in liberating Europe by outlawing Soviet-era symbols, except for certain educational and scientific purposes. As the Poroshenko regime integrates neo-Nazi battalions into the regular armed fores, the new legislation also allegedly prohibits Nazi symbolism, opens up the secret service archives from the Soviet era and forbids the denial of Ukrainian nationalists' fight for "independence" during World War II. It blames the Soviets for stigmatizing the so-called nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis.

Soviet emblems will be removed from buildings, and streets and even cities bearing the names of Soviet-era figures will be changed, a process that will cost some 5 billion hryvnas ($240 million) during the next six months, according to Oleksandr Klymenko, Ukraine's former minister of Revenue and Duties, who criticized the move.

According to news reports, individuals found guilty of violating the ban on Communist and Nazi symbols will face up to five years behind bars. Organizations, including media outlets, can be shut down or face criminal charges that carry up to 10 years in prison.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) representative for media freedom, Dunja Mijatovic, warned in a statement that the new legislation, which she said was formulated in "broadly and vaguely defined language," could "easily lead to suppression of political, provocative and critical speech, especially in the media." For their part, Russian analysts point out that the issue of de-communization had not been high on the Ukrainian political agenda before the outbreak of the current political and international crisis in 2014.

Ukraine's conflict with Russia over the latter's reincorporation of Crimea into its territory last March and its alleged support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine has precipitated a process that took place much earlier in some other former Soviet republics.

Billboard from March 2014 referendum in Crimea opposes fascism and demands that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and Right Sector be banned.

"In recent decades, Ukrainian authorities, for the most part, had been on board with Russia and its shared history with Ukraine," Alexei Makarkin, deputy director at the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies think tank said. "But now that Ukraine has essentially lost Crimea and a chunk of the east, it is easier to begin. [De-communization] unites those who blame Russia for the crisis. It would have been more difficult to support prior to these major changes in the country's political landscape."

Russian Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky wrote a letter to Gennady Zyuganov, the longtime head of the country's Communist Party, in which he pledged to protect Communist-era monuments. Zyuganov had appealed to the minister in an open letter over the destruction of Lenin monuments in Ukraine, which he said demonstrated confusion between anti-Soviet sentiment and Russophobia. Medinsky's letter, Izvestia reports, reads:

"Our position is that evidence of the Soviet era should be preserved to remind us of the power of the human spirit, the military heroism and labor of our predecessors.

"This is the only way we can achieve the historical and cultural continuity necessary for the future of Russia. Lenin statues are certainly a part of our historical identity and the Culture Ministry will do everything in its power to preserve them."

There are still some 6,000 statues of Lenin throughout Russia, according to Izvestia.

Efforts to eradicate or glorify historical periods for political purposes are merely an attempt to compensate for leaders' inabilities to address pressing social and economic issues, said Viktor Mironenko, head of the Ukrainian Studies Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences' European Institute.

"The Ukraine crisis has led both Russian and Ukrainian authorities to foster a simplified form of nationalism in which there is very little room for nuance," he said.

The de-communization of other post-Soviet states, including the Baltic states -- Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania -- has been more abrupt than that of Ukraine. All three states have banned the public demonstration of Soviet symbols, though they continue to be proudly displayed on public holidays and at memorial events. These countries also took pains to eliminate and bar from their governments and security services those who had been a part of governance in the former Soviet socialist republics.

Alexander Bruter, a scholar at the Institute for Humanities and Political Studies in Moscow, claims that the Baltic states' decisive rejection of their Soviet past helped the countries be recognized in the West and eventually facilitated their accession to the European Union in 2004.

According to news reports, a law was submitted to Latvia's parliament last week that would outlaw the public display of St. George's ribbon -- the victory banner which symbolizes the defeat of fascism in Europe. The forces promoting the revanchism of the Nazi forces are promoting the views that the St. George ribbon should be banned because it is allegedly synonymous with Russian territorial expansion.

(Sputnik International, Reuters, zik.ua)

Former German Democratic Republic Generals
Issue Warning

Protest at NATO policy meeting in Munich, February 7, 2015. Banner reads:
"Stop NATO! No War Against Russia."

Soldiers for Peace

As military personnel who held responsible positions in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) armed forces, we have turned to the German public in great concern over the maintenance of peace and the survival of civilization in Europe.

In the years of the Cold War, in which we lived through long stretches of confrontation and militarization right up to the brink of open conflict, we employed our military expertise to maintain peace and protect our socialist GDR. The National People's Army (NVA) was not involved in armed conflict for even a single day, and in the events of 1989-90 it played a leading role in seeing to it that no arms came into use. Peace was always the number one maxim of our dealings. And that is why we firmly oppose using the military as a policy instrument. Experience makes clear that the burning questions of our time must not be solved by military means.

Flowers at Soviet War Memorial at the Tiergarten in Berlin, May 8, 2015.

It is worth remembering that the Soviet Army bore the brunt of the fascist offensive in the Second World War. From the Soviet Union alone 27 million citizens gave their lives for this historic victory. We owe them, and the allies, our gratitude here on this 70th anniversary of the liberation (of Europe from fascism).

We note that war has again become humanity's constant companion. The new world order run by the U.S. and its allies has in recent times led to wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia. About two million people are victims of these wars, and millions have become refugees.

Now the events of war have reached Europe. It is plain to see that the U.S. strategy is to eliminate Russia as a competitor and to weaken the EU. In recent years NATO has crept ever closer to Russia's borders. With the attempt to have Ukraine join the EU and NATO, the cordon sanitaire would be locked in from the Baltic states to the Black Sea to isolate Russia from the rest of Europe. According to American calculations, any German-Russian alliance would be difficult or impossible.

In order to influence the public in this direction, an unprecedented media campaign is in full swing, where incorrigible politicians and corrupt journalists beat the drums of war. The Federal Republic of Germany, in this heated-up atmosphere, ought to be playing a role for the advancement of peace. Germany's geopolitical placement and its historical experience and the objective interests of her people all demand this, contrary to the president's calls for greater military responsibility, and the war hysteria and russophobia stirred up by the media.

Putting the spurs to the militarization of eastern Europe is not playing with fire, it is playing with war!

Knowing the destructive nature of modern war and to fulfil our responsibilities as citizens, we say with total clarity: A crime against humanity is already beginning here.

Are the many who died in the Second World War, the huge destruction throughout all of Europe, the streams of refugees and the endless sorrow of humanity forgotten already? Have the newest U.S. and NATO wars not brought enough grief? Have they not already taken enough human life?

Do we not understand what a military conflict in the densely populated continent of Europe would mean?

There would be warplanes in their hundreds, armed drones laden with bombs and rockets, thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, artillery systems. In the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea the most modern warships would fight, and, waiting in the wings, would be atomic bombs. There would be no distinction between what is and is not the war front. Mothers by the millions would mourn their children and their husbands, their fathers, their brothers. The landscape of Europe would be that of a wasteland.

Should it come to this? No, a thousand times, NO!

Therefore we turn to the German public:

Any such scenario must be stopped.

We do not need any rhetoric of war, we need instead polemics of peace.

We do not need any missions abroad for the armed forces, and neither do we need any army from the EU.

We do not need more funding for military goals; we need funding for social and humanitarian needs.

We do not need a fever of war incited against Russia; we need more mutual understanding, coexistence and neighborliness.

We do not need military dependence on the U.S.; we need to take ownership of peace.

Instead of a "NATO Rapid Reaction Force" on the eastern borders, we need more tourism, youth exchanges, and steps toward peace with our neighbors to the east.

We need a peaceful Germany in a peaceful Europe.

May our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren, remember us this way.

Because we know all too well what war means, we raise our voice against the war; we raise our voice for peace.

To view the list of signatories, click here.

(Die Junge Welt May 6, 2015. Translated from German by Tom Winter. Slightly edited for grammar by TML. Photos: Xinhua, RIAN)

U.S. Military Out of Japan!

Mass Rally in Okinawa Demonstrates Anti-War Sentiment of the People

A huge rally against the construction of a new U.S. military base in Henoko, Okinawa was held on May 17 in Naha the capital of the prefecture. Thirty-five thousand participants adopted a resolution to block the construction of the proposed new base and demand the immediate closure of the U.S. Futenma base in Ginowan. The participants demonstrated the popular will of the people of Okinawa to all Japan and the world that they want the U.S. military occupation of their islands to end. Seventy years is enough! The people want mutual development and peace with their neighbours in East Asia. The presence of the U.S. military in the region is the main obstacle to achieving their dream.

Okinawa accounts for 0.6 per cent of Japan's landmass but bears the burden of 74 per cent of U.S. bases. All recent elections have shown broad opposition to the U.S. military occupation. No one can now be elected to any post in Okinawa unless they oppose the U.S. occupation regardless of other policies they may espouse.

Governor Onaga addresses the rally.

The people declare that the central Japanese government is acting as a U.S. puppet in forcing yet another base down the throats of Okinawans against their will. Okinawa Governor Onaga Takeshi stated at the rally that in response to the spinelessness of the Abe government in Tokyo and its refusal to follow the wishes of the people, the only issue has become to mobilize the people to block the construction of the base at Henoko.

This third major rally marked a surge in support for the All-Okinawan Movement against the U.S. occupation. Well before the rally began, people from throughout Okinawa flowed into the stadium quickly filling all available seats while thousands more gathered outside. Participants held signs saying, No Henoko Base!, We will not yield!, No U.S. military base! and others.

The youth of Okinawa were prominent amongst the demonstrators including college and high school students and young workers. Youth and student groups opposed to the U.S. military occupation have recently expanded in numbers throughout Okinawa and participate in regular mass actions and discussions. "It is important that each one of us in the younger generation learn, think and take action, even if only a little," said Tomomi Furugen, a senior at Okinawa International University in Ginowan in her speech to the rally representing the voice of Okinawa's students.

Nago City Mayor Inamine Susumu, where Henoko is located, gave a rousing speech pointing out, "Our anti-base struggle is seeping into the hearts and minds of people across Japan and is gaining support from people all over the world."

A co-head of the rally organizing committee Nakayama Kiku in her address forcefully raised the necessity for a Tokyo anti-war government saying, "The presence of military bases is not only directly related to wars but also is a prime example of a violation of human rights." Nakayama was a senior high school student and nurse during the U.S. massacre of Okinawan civilians and pitiless destruction of their mostly defenceless main island in 1945.

In his speech to the packed crowd, Governor Onaga reiterated his determination to stop construction of the new base in Henoko using every means available. He criticized the Abe central government for betraying the people saying, "This is a corruption of Japanese politics. I don't know how the country will be able to share a similar set of values with other leaders in the world, without guaranteeing freedom, human rights and the values of democracy for its own people [...] Prime Minister Abe says he champions the idea of 'regaining Japan,' but is Okinawa included? How many more years will Okinawa have to be sacrificed?" The Governor called on participants to step up efforts to oppose the construction at Henoko concluding his speech with the phrase in the Shimakutuba (Okinawan language), "Do not neglect the Okinawa people!" The crowd responded with roars and a standing ovation.

A resolution calling for the immediate closure and removal of the hated U.S. military Futenma base in Ginowan and halt to the construction at Henoko was approved with thunderous applause. The rally organizers representing parties in the prefectural assembly, leaders of the business community, citizen and workers' groups will formally present the resolution at the Prime Minister's Office, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry and U.S. Embassy in Tokyo on May 25. Nago Mayor Susumu Inamine and Chokei Taira, co-leader of the Shimagurumi-kaigi (All-Islands Conference) will visit the United States with Governor Onaga from May 27.

(Ryukyu Shimpo, Asahi Shimbun, Japan Press Weekly. Photos: Asahi Shimbun, Japan Press Weekly, T. Nakamura)

35th Anniversary of People's Uprising in Gwangju, Korea

Gwangju and the Fight for Democracy, Reunification and Freedom from U.S. Occupation

One of the popular rallies that marked the democratic uprising in Gwangju, Korea, May 1980.

May 18 marks the 35th anniversary of the heroic Gwangju People's Uprising which took place in the city of Gwangju, south Korea, from May 18-28, 1980. This important anniversary is being commemorated in Korea in the context of stepping up the struggle against U.S. military occupation of south Korea and to advance the people's movement in south Korea for democracy and reunification.

The Gwangju People's Uprising was a glorious revolutionary action undertaken to oppose the brutal military dictatorship of General Chun Doo-hwan. Chun had come to power through a U.S.-engineered military coup that overthrew the government Choi Kyu-hah, who was acting President following the assassination of military dictator Park Chung-hee in 1979 by the Korean Central Intelligence Agency. Martial law, which had been imposed in parts of south Korea following Park's assassination, was expanded to the entire country on May 17, 1980, with provisions added to specifically close universities, ban political activities and limit freedom of the press.

According to various news and eyewitness reports, the Gwangju People's Uprising was triggered by student demonstrations on the morning of May 18 in defiance of the expanded martial law that sought to crush political dissent amongst the students. The police, however,were unable to check the organized resistance of the people so the Korean Army brought in a special forces unit trained for assault missions to smash the uprising. The special forces unit used tear gas, batons and rubber bullets to try to suppress the student uprising, but workers, shopkeepers and parents took to the streets to defend their children. Then the military opened fire, killing close to 200 people and wounding hundreds more.

On May 20, some 10,000 people demonstrated in Gwangju. Due to the widespread militarization of the society, most major workplaces in south Korea had caches of weapons. Protestors seized these weapons along with buses, taxis, and even armoured personnel carriers, forming armed militias to fight the army. On May 21, the special forces were forced to withdraw and the city was taken over by the citizens.

Residents of Gwangju take up arms to defend their rights.

The next five days were a manifestation of the people affirming their rights and exercising control over their circumstances. In the same way in which People's Committees took over from the Japanese military occupiers of Korea in 1945 and formed the de facto government, so too the people of Gwangju organized themselves into Citizens' Committees to ensure everyone's well-being and security. Food, medical and transportation systems were organized and lively political discussions took place where the people gathered to discuss their future, their opposition to the U.S. occupation of south Korea and the need to end the military dictatorship.

On May 24, 15,000 people attended a memorial service in memory of those who died at the beginning of the uprising at the hands of the special forces. A day later, on May 25, about 50,000 people gathered for a rally in Gwangju and adopted a resolution calling for the abolition of martial law and the release of Kim Dae-jung.[1]

Soon after this, the U.S. government of Jimmy Carter intervened because the Gwangju Uprising was seen as a threat to U.S. strategic interests on the Korean peninsula and Asia. The U.S. ordered the Chun regime to move troops from the De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) separating north and south Korea to re-occupy Gwangju. On May 27, at 3:30 am, the army swarmed Gwangju in Operation Fascinating Vacations.

The people of Gwangju courageously resisted this act of state-terror. In the pitched battles against these soldiers under the command of the U.S. military, thousands of civilians were killed and close to 15,000 people were injured. More than 1,500 people were taken into custody and many were tortured and killed. Seven people were executed and 14 received life-sentences for taking a stand against the U.S. sponsored military dictatorship and to demand their rights.

Memorial in Gwangju to those who lost their lives during the uprising.

While the Gwangju People's Uprising was defeated by this craven brutality, the people's bravery left an indelible mark and delivered a decisive blow to U.S. imperialism on the Korean peninsula. It signalled a turning point in the struggle of the Korean people's collective striving to rid their nation of the U.S. military occupation of the south. This occupation since the end of the Second World War has brought nothing but misery to the people and has stood in the way of instituting democratic reforms in south Korea as well as the desire of the Korean people to reunify their divided country.

The Gwangju People's Uprising today finds expression in the determination of the Korean people south and north to oppose the criminal activities of the U.S.-installed puppet government of President Park Gyeun-Hae in south Korea which shamelessly kowtows before the U.S. imperialists, while at the same time imposing increasingly brutal neo-liberal austerity measures on the south Korean people. Furthermore the Park regime continues to use the 1948 U.S.-imposed anti-communist National Security Law to criminalize and persecute the democratic leadership of the south Korean people. Under these conditions, the 35th anniversary of the heroic Gwangju People's Uprising serves as a beacon to all the fighting forces in Korea as well as in the world who are joined in the struggle to rid the world of U.S. imperialism once and for all.

On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the Gwangju People's Uprising, TML calls on the working class and people of Canada to intensify their support for the heroic Korean people in their just struggle against the U.S. military occupation of south Korea, to resolutely oppose the U.S. nuclear blackmail and military provocations against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and to vigorously support the Korean people's 70-year struggle to achieve the independent and peaceful reunification of their divided country. As well, the Harper government must be condemned for its open support of the puppet anti-communist regime in south Korea as well as its anti-communist slanders against the DPRK about "human rights abuses," "gulags" and the like.

All humanity is indebted to the heroic Korean people for playing their role in defeating the Axis powers in the Second World War as well as defeating the U.S./UN forces including Canada during the Korean War to defend their right to independence and peace. It is high time that the U.S. pulls its troops out of south Korea and stops annual nuclear war games aimed at the DPRK. It must normalize relations with the DPRK as it has begun to do with Cuba. This will be much welcomed by the Korean people and peace-loving humanity.

Hail the 35th Anniversary of the Heroic Gwangju People's Uprising!
U.S. Troops Out of Korea!

Note

1. Kim Dae-jung, who passed away in August 2009, was at the time of the uprising a well-known political prisoner. He would later become the eighth President of the Republic of Korea and play a significant role in moving forward the north-south dialogue for the peaceful reunification of Korea. Along with the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong Il, Kim Dae-jung co-signed the historic June 15 North-South Joint Declaration which paved the way for a new period in the struggle for Korean reunification.

Firm Stand Against Provocations by
U.S. Secretary of State

In response to provocative remarks made against it by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry during a recent visit to south Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) stated unequivocally that it would stand firm on its principles, defend its right to be and oppose any and all efforts by the U.S. to threaten its security and independence. Furthermore, it pointed out that Kerry's comments only reveal the failure of U.S. policy towards the DPRK and demonstrate how isolated the U.S. has become with its anti-DPRK policies.

At a press conference with south Korean Foreign Minister Yu Byung-se on May 18, Kerry stated that the underwater ballistic missile test successfully conducted by the DPRK on May 9 was in "flagrant disregard for international laws" and that all that the DPRK is doing now "is isolating themselves further and creating greater risks to the region and their own country." Kerry then called for increasing international pressure on the DPRK, once again referencing that country's alleged "human rights" violations.

The DPRK responded in a Foreign Ministry statement on May 20 emphasizing that the testing of the ballistic missile was for defence purposes, which is necessary in light of ongoing U.S. military war preparations and nuclear blackmail against it. The statement notes as well that the Obama administration has to take sole responsibility for sabotaging all possibilities for peaceful and constructive U.S.-DPRK relations. It recalled in particular that in January this year, the DPRK proposed a moratorium on its nuclear testing if the "U.S. temporarily discontinues the provocative joint military exercises against it." This offer was rejected outright and the opportunity to normalize relations, de-escalate tensions on the Korean peninsula and hold fruitful dialogue between the two countries to denuclearize the Korean peninsula was once again lost.

In its Foreign Ministry statement, the DPRK again demanded that the U.S. administration stop these provocations or face the consequences.

Obama's Maxim

- DPRK Permanent Mission to UN -

Failure teaches a lot -- this is an axiom that often trips off Obama's tongue.

Then what is the lesson the incumbent U.S. President must learn from his predecessors' unsuccessful tussle with the DPRK over the past 70 years?

Eisenhower's Surrender

On June 25, 1950, the United States unleashed a war against the burgeoning DPRK out of an aggressive ambition to secure a bridgehead for its world supremacy on the Korean peninsula. It enlisted for the Korean front a colossal two million-strong force including the mercenaries of its 15 satellite countries, the south Korean troops and the remnants of the former Japanese army, to say nothing of its own army, navy and air forces. However, it lost one battle after another on the front line. Truman drank a bitter cup and left the White House.

Inaugurated in early 1953, Eisenhower initiated a new offensive to turn the tide of the war. This last-ditch venture, too, ended in a fiasco.

On July 27, 1953 the United States signed the Armistice Agreement, which was tantamount to a letter of surrender. In a radio speech, 59 minutes after the signing of the truce, Eisenhower described it as tragic and heartrending.

Johnson's Apology

On January 23, 1968, the U.S. armed spy ship Pueblo was captured in the act of committing espionage in the territorial waters of the DPRK.

The then-U.S. President Johnson called a meeting of the National Security Council at the White House, in which he dubbed the capture of the vessel an act of war against the United States. He ordered that a huge task force led by the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise be dispatched to the waters off the Korean peninsula.

The United States issued an ultimatum to repatriate the vessel and its crew, or it would retaliate. The DPRK responded by declaring that it would retaliate against the "retaliation" and the "all-out war" in kind. The superpower had no option but to admit its criminal action and sign a letter of apology. Johnson called it the singular apology in America's history.

The spyship USS Pueblo, now permanently moored on the Taedong River in Pyongyang.

Bush's "Feat"

Upon taking office in early 2001, Bush labelled the DPRK as part of the Axis of Evil and nullified the DPRK-USA Agreed Framework [on nuclear energy and for the normalization of relations] that had been signed during his predecessor's term. His administration went to extremes in pressuring the DPRK politically, economically and militarily, and openly threatened preemptive nuclear strikes against it.

Bush accomplished a remarkable "feat" by orchestrating a new uproar on the nuclear issue. In the face of the United States' ever-increasing nuclear threat, the DPRK declared that it could possess a nuclear deterrent or something else more powerful to defend its sovereignty and dignity.

And soon afterwards the DPRK carried out a successful nuclear test to affirm that the declaration was not a bluff.

Conclusively speaking, Bush wielded the stick of the sole superpower, only to help the DPRK become a nuclear state.

Lesson for Obama

While running for the presidency, Obama used to clamour about the "recourse to diplomacy" in improving relations with the DPRK, as he might have realized from the lesson taught by his predecessors that a punitive or confrontational policy will not lead to progress.

But it turned out to be just a gimmick. Upon entering the White House, Obama adopted a policy of "strategic patience," which was not designed to improve its relations with the DPRK.

The former Deputy Secretary of State, who was an active protagonist of this policy in the Obama administration, admitted that Obama could find no other alternative to debilitate the DPRK than by destroying its self-defensive nuclear deterrent.

The DPRK judged that in a major shift of policy the United States was scheming to buy time and there was no change in its ultimate goal to topple the government. It announced that it would simultaneously conduct economic construction and build up nuclear forces.

American hardliners asserted that Obama's "strategic patience" afforded the DPRK an opportunity to develop its rocket technology and manufacture miniaturized nuclear warheads, further threatening the security of the United States. Against this background Obama has returned to the tough stand towards the DPRK, spearheading an outcry about "human rights" against it.

Recently, Obama was driven into a tight corner by his scandalous act of golfing in Hawaii while the domestic situation plunged into a chaotic mess because of [the protests against] rampant racial discrimination from the end of last year to the beginning of this year. He again provoked the DPRK by issuing a "presidential executive order" aimed at imposing additional sanctions upon it.

The DPRK declared  that is is through with the United States and will take counter-measures to end the U.S. provocations.

What then should Obama learn from the seven decades of his predecessors' high-handedness and from his own ineffectual policy? Failure teaches a lot and will teach him a bitter lesson.

(April 20, 2015. Slightly edited for grammar by TML.)

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca