June 10, 2017 - No. 21

No to Canada's Warmongering Defence Policy!

Step Up the Struggle to Make Canada
a Zone for Peace

Anti-Social and Anti-National Consequences of
Militarizing the Economy

"Interoperability" -- Euphemism for Integration and Annexation
of Canadian Forces in the Service of Empire-Building

- Tony Seed -

NATO Leaders Summit Advances European Military Buildup
Imperialist "Terrorism and Burden Sharing" Agenda
Increases Danger of War

Cynical Ploy to Justify Increased Military Spending
- Charlie Vita -
Announcements on U.S. Military Presence in Europe and
Establishment of "Terrorism Intelligence Cell"

Trump's Warmongering Trip to the Middle East
U.S. Administration's Strategy of Divide and Rule
- Sam Heaton -
Agreements Target Resistance to Colonialism,
Imperialism and Occupation

- Hilary LeBlanc -

17th Anniversary of the Korean North-South Joint Declaration
The Korean People's Movement for Reunification
Is Determined to Prevail

- Yi Nicholls -

New UN Mission in Haiti
Imperialist Intervention and Occupation are the Cause of
Instability and Insecurity, Not the Solution

- Enver Villamizar -

Canada's Anti-Democratic Interference in Venezuelan Affairs
Parliamentary Subcommittee Continues to
Advance Pretexts for Regime Change

- Margaret Villamizar -

Canadian Forces Take Part in U.S. Military Exercise
Off Coast of Venezuela

No to Canada's Warmongering Defence Policy!

Step Up the Struggle to Make Canada
a Zone for Peace

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) calls on everyone to condemn the "new defence policy" announced by the Trudeau Liberals on June 7. The policy does not respond to Canada's defence needs but to the demands of the U.S. imperialists through NATO and the biggest defence monopolies and other private interests to increase military spending and step up war preparations. The announcement included a 70 per cent increase to Canada's military budget over the next 10 years, increasing the size of the armed forces, the adoption of drone and cyber-warfare, further militarization of the arctic and purchasing additional warplanes and ships.

The scenarios the Liberal government is presenting in which Canadian soldiers will be sent to fight wars of aggression and occupation overseas, and a "defence policy" contrived on the basis of consultations it held from April to July 2016 with such "stakeholders" as the arms industry and foreign powers, pose grave dangers. In line with the Liberal government's public relations approach, Canada's participation in and launching of wars is presented as a factor for a "more stable and peaceful world." It is not. The great insecurity felt by the world's peoples today is a direct result of the imperialist wars that have devastated and threatened countries and whole regions. Canada's "new defence policy," called "Strong, Secure, Engaged" and filled with other similar buzz-phrases promises further war under a more dizzying array of pretexts that will put Canadians and peoples everywhere in harm's way.

Some of the pretexts for war laid out in the policy documents are:

- Detect, deter, and defend against threats to or attacks on Canada;
- Detect, deter, and defend against threats to or attacks on North America, in partnership with the United States, including through NORAD;
- Lead and/or contribute forces to NATO and coalition efforts to deter and defeat potential adversaries, including terrorists, to support global stability;
- Lead and/or contribute to international peace operations and stabilization missions with the United Nations, NATO, and other multilateral partners;
- Engage in capacity building to support the security of other nations and their ability to contribute to security abroad;
- Provide assistance to civil authorities and law enforcement, including counter-terrorism, in support of national security and the security of Canadians abroad.

This reckless course announced by the Trudeau government is a coup d'état for the defence industry. The arms industry in Canada is one with that in the United States, which is "home" to the largest contractors. This is so much the case that Canada's direct arms sales to the United States are not even officially reported. Unlike sales to other countries, they do not require permits. Figuring out where a Canadian "defence industry" begins and a U.S. one ends is a vain pursuit, let alone investigating the idea promoted that this will be "good for the economy" and "create jobs."

The more than $30 billion in announced additional military spending over the next decade alone, most of which will be paid to the biggest arms monopolies, will result in the great parasitism of Canada's economy and social wealth. This figure does not include costs related to future military deployments or any of the government's subsequent "decisions related to continental defence and NORAD modernization." Although it is a truism to note how far these sums of money would go towards providing for the people's well-being, just as significant is the fact that this wealth is directed away from the all-sided development of the economy towards militarism.[1]

Underscoring the insecurity felt by Canadians and others today is the people's lack of control over their lives and work, including the direction of their societies. This "defence policy" is a clear example of the consequences of this lack of control and of a depraved ruling elite usurping control from the vast majority. CPC(M-L) affirms that the people have the right to deliberate on matters of war and peace. The Trudeau Liberals' Defence Policy Review and consultation has instead empowered private interests and imperialists to determine where Canada stands on these matters, resulting in a more aggressive, warmongering course for the country. It must be rejected.

No to Paying the Rich Arms Monopolies!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!
Step Up the Struggle to Make Canada a Zone for Peace!


1. As one example, studies estimate that for $10 billion annually Canada could fully fund public post-secondary education and eliminate student fees. Universal child care has been estimated at $11 billion annually. The great need for additional resources for Canada's health care system is also well known.

Haut de


Anti-Social and Anti-National Consequences of Militarizing the Economy

Canada's Defence Policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, was unveiled on June 7. The policy was originally set to be released in December 2016 but has been delayed several times. Who it is designed to serve was made more than clear when the policy was revealed to the U.S. weeks ahead of its public release in Canada.

The phrase "Strong, Secure, Engaged" is elaborated as follows:

"Strong at home, with a military ready and able to defend its sovereignty, and to assist in times of natural disaster, support search and rescue, or respond to other emergencies;

"Secure in North America, active in a renewed defence partnership in NORAD and with the United States; and

"Engaged in the world, with Defence doing its part in Canadian contributions to a more stable and peaceful world."

Since its Canadian release, Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan has been making appearances to promote the policy, including at a meeting of the Vancouver Board of Trade on Friday, June 9. The "new policy," which contains a massive increase in military spending is to "do our part on the international stage to protect our interests and support our allies, guided by values of inclusion, compassion, accountable governance, and respect for diversity and human rights," the Department of National Defence said.

The Trudeau Liberals talk about "Open and Accountable Government." Who is it open and accountable to? One is supposed to understand that it is to the people, but how can it be so when the citizens cannot exercise control over it, not even on issues of war and peace? Canada's defence policy makes clear that the Trudeau government is accountable to the interests of the financial oligarchy who will benefit tremendously from the windfall profits to be made from the more frantic military buildup. The idea that is promoted that Canada's economy will be strengthened by militarization, also has feet of clay.

According to the documents released, Canada's annual military budget will increase as follows (table in $billions):

16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27  10 year  20 year
18.90 20.68 21.42 21.71 24.27 25.31 26.04 29.87 31.74 31.93 32.67 265.68 553.00

This increase amounts to more than $62.3 billion over a 20-year period. Total funding for Canada's military over the next 20 years is estimated at $553 billion but will be far more. The documents note, "While some operations can be managed from within the existing defence budget, for others National Defence will seek additional funding." This does not include "funding decisions necessary for future military deployments as well as decisions related to continental defence and NORAD modernization."

The media and official circles obscure the real aim of the militarization of the economy by falsely asserting that it will strengthen the economy, or that it is for "defensive" purposes and to guarantee peace. It has no aim other than to support aggression and to make maximum capitalist profits for the defence contractors and other big financial interests. Workers have to be especially vigilant as they are constantly told that military production has benefits, such as the "creation of jobs" and that technological breakthroughs in military fields will provide them with job security.

Further evidence of who the Trudeau government is accountable to is the fact that the "costing" for the new defence policy was all produced by private consulting firms. The Department of National Defence (DND) relied primarily on "global defence costing experts from Deloitte, who contributed expertise gained from Defence Reviews in allied nations." As well, "a detailed third party review" was conducted by "five external accounting firms: Ernst & Young, KPMG, FMC, Samson and Associates, and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton (RCGT)."

At a 2014 summit, NATO member states formally agreed to the demand of the United States that each spend at least two per cent of GDP on military, a demand that U.S. President Trump has reiterated. Canada's new defence policy announces that "after consultation with allies," Canada has changed the way it calculates military spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). According to the policy, Canada "has been under-reporting its defence spending" for NATO purposes, including "the exclusion of defence spending incurred by other government departments." Based on the new calculations, Canada's 2016/2017 defence spending amounts to 1.19 per cent of GDP, and will be 1.40 per cent of GDP by 2024/25. By 2024/25, purchases of "major equipment" will amount to 32.2 per cent of all military spending, above the NATO demand of 20 per cent.

Canada's armed forces will increase in size, with the number of Regular Force soldiers increasing by 3,500 to 71,500 while the Reserve Force will increase by 1,500 to 30,000 members. Canada will purchase 15 new warships and 88 fighter jets to replace the existing CF-18s. This policy builds on the purchase of 65 new jets, previously announced. The defence policy does not commit to buy either the Boeing Super Hornets as an interim replacement or the Lockheed Martin F-35. Canada has contributed around $450 million to the F-35 development program to date.

The "new policy" leans heavily on specializing Canada's armed forces in black ops and cyber-warfare, whose target is the peoples of this country and abroad. DND will create 120 new military intelligence positions and 180 new civilian intelligence positions, as well as build "Canadian Forces Intelligence Command" capacity. It prioritizes "the expansion of CAF Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JISR) capabilities, while enhancing intelligence collection, analysis and fusion capabilities, and supporting and leveraging the expertise of Canada's defence and security academic community."

Canada will purchase and utilize combat drones "capable of conducting surveillance and precision strikes." The new policy announces that Canada will further "Develop active cyber capabilities and employ them against potential adversaries in support of government-authorized military missions."

Canada's new defence policy is a boon not only to the biggest private defence contractors through their privileged positions within DND. Canadian universities and research centres are also increasingly being turned over to the defence industry. In that regard, DND will adopt a research model "that draws more heavily on academic and private sector research and development (R&D)," documents say. Focus areas include: "surveillance, cyber tools for defence, space, artificial intelligence, remotely piloted systems, data analytics, and solutions to counter improvised explosive devices."

The negative consequences of the policy do not end there. The Globe and Mail reports, "While the document is supposed to be comprehensive, the Liberals have yet to make key decisions, such as whether to join the American ballistic missile defence (BMD) system." In fact, referring to upcoming meetings that will "modernize" NORAD arrangements, Sajjan did not rule out Canada joining the U.S. BMD program. Far from it, his answer shows all options are on the table. "Our policy is not changing on BMD. What we are going to be doing is to look at all of those threats, from air, maritime and underwater,"Sajjan said.

On NORAD, the policy states that Canada will "expand our capacity to meet NORAD commitments by improving aerospace and maritime domain awareness and response, and by enhancing satellite capability. We will also procure an advanced fighter capability and ensure we remain interoperable with our American allies."

This "new defence policy" is not for peace but for war. It is not only anti-national but also anti-social. It puts the state treasury at the disposal of the all-out militarization of the economy, which has ruinous effects, the propaganda of the DND and the monopoly-owned media that it is a boon for jobs and stability notwithstanding. The fundamentals of the economic system determine its state of being, not self-serving public relations exercises of governments that are accountable to private interests. These public relations exercises are also intended to cover up the consequences to the economy which will result when its all-out militarization takes place.

One such consequence is the effect on inflation. Heavy expenditures for military purposes give rise to inflation because, in the final analysis, the increase in these expenditures and the militarization of the economy in general represent a reduction in the production of material goods and services for the working people and hence a reduction in the circulation of such goods. Instead of the production of goods for the working people, goods are produced which serve to maintain a standing army, forces of repression and to increase the military arsenal. The weapons produced do not go into circulation in the economy. The massive military spending contributes to creating deficits which the government will seek to pay off by printing more money, as well as through other means such as raising taxes, cutting back on services, etc. In this way, an inflationary disproportion is created, referred to as "too many dollars chasing too few goods and services."

TML Weekly will provide further information in subsequent issues on the disastrous effects of Canada's increasing militarization of its economy. TML Weekly calls on Canadians to oppose this militarization of the economy and the accelerating war preparations. All out to step up efforts to make Canada a zone for peace!

Haut de


"Interoperability" -- Euphemism for Integration
and Annexation of Canadian Forces in the
Service of Empire-Building

The "new defence policy" of the Trudeau Liberals espouses the goal of greater "interoperability" with U.S. and NATO military operations. This is repeated no less than 23 times.

This exposes the brazen deception behind Chrystia Freeland's June 6 speech whereby Canada is declared to be "forging a new, sovereign path in light of a turbulent international political climate" and against "isolationism" to justify unprecedented military expansion in the name of "hard power." "To rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state," she said. "Such a dependence would not be in Canada's interest."

Interoperability serves a definite aim. NATO itself defines interoperability as "the ability for Allies to act together coherently, effectively and efficiently to achieve tactical, operational and strategic objectives."

Interoperability has been a mantra of the Canadian Armed Forces since the Pearson Liberals and Paul Hellyer integrated the branches of the forces during the 1960s. The installation of the Pearson Liberals was a U.S. regime change operation following the refusal of the Diefenbaker government to allow the U.S. to place nuclear Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.

Officials use this euphemism to justify maintaining and increasing military budgets, as significant funds are demanded to keep up with the military technology used by the United States. Michael Byers wrote in 2015 "interoperability is an ambiguous concept that can easily be manipulated to generate desired results."

It is closely linked with the U.S. dictate to NATO "allies" to adopt NATO's so-called "standardization" of arms and technology. The USA used this demand as a club against the rival arms monopolies from Europe to increase its domination of the world market and the integration of all military forces under U.S. strategic command. One example concerns the Royal Canadian Navy's decision to replace the British-made Tigerfish torpedoes on the Victoria-class submarines with American-made Mark 48 torpedoes. The Navy is the branch of the Canadian forces most highly integrated  into the U.S. Armed Forces.

Today French Rafales land on U.S. aircraft carriers, while Eurofighter Typhoons are operated by the British, German, Italian and Spanish air forces in operations with the United States. Along with arms, interoperability is repeatedly used to justify participating in U.S. and NATO military and naval exercises in Canada or the U.S. itself, as well as throughout the world. The commander-in-chief of NATO's armed forces by treaty as well as of NORAD is always an American.

By the U.S. Constitution, all U.S. commanders are subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, the U.S. President. In fact, this means that through the NORAD treaty it is Donald Trump who is the commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces -- the man whom the media claim the Trudeau policy is directed against!

The occasional appointment of a Canadian officer to command this or that exercise is touted as an example of the colonized armed force proving its worth as an equal in the Roman pantheon and even as a "bilateral" or "multilateral" example of maintaining sovereignty.

Interoperability is an operating principle of the Department of National Defence dictating the appointment of the highest and most senior commanders of the Canadian Forces. Over the last 15 years or more, there has not been one Chief of Staff who has not been vetted or trained by the U.S. Armed Forces as their lackey.

It also provides for their seamless integration into the profitable ranks of the U.S. arms monopolies based in Canada. Gen. Bouchard, eulogized as a "hero" by the Harper war government in obscene ceremonies on Parliament Hill and at the Grey Cup for his brave command of NATO's air destruction of Libya in 2011 -- a war crime -- was immediately appointed head Canadian lobbyist by Lockheed Martin.

One of the main aims of the integration of the Canadian Forces as well as those of Mexico into the U.S. military is to seamlessly operate as one unit within the continent of the Americas under the banner of "hemispheric security" and "binational" or "trinational" integration. It is also to open the door wide for U.S. armed forces to easily enter into Canada and Mexico under one pretext or another without facing significant resistance. Since 9/11 and the orchestrated blaming of Canada for the entry of terrorists into the United States, successive governments have carried out detailed work at different levels of the state in this direction.

Today there is not a single day in the year when U.S. armed forces are not exercising on Canadian soil in the name of "interoperability." Interoperability is not reciprocal. Military exercises rehearsing "interoperability" aim to acquire "domain awareness" (of geography, topography, demographics, transportation systems and routes) and are presented as "joint" operations. Today all Canadian land, sea and waterways shared with the U.S., such as the Great Lakes, and aerospace are now under U.S. military command. U.S. security forces operate in Canada without even the knowledge of various sections of Canada's national security apparatus, which are supposed to be protecting Canadians from internal and external threats.

Along with the U.S. nuclear submarine base at Nanoose on Vancouver Island, the U.S. maintains well over 50 other installations within Canada, including CIA, FBI, Coast Guard and Customs spaces, many of them invisible to the public eye. Along with the military command level, the process of "binational integration" is occurring in the areas of immigration, customs, police and intelligence, ports, including the deployment of units of related agencies such as the CIA, FBI, Coast Guard and Customs under U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) within Canada on a permanent basis on Canadian soil.

This new regional command, NORTHCOM was announced under the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) on April 17, 2002 by then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.[1] NORTHCOM was to, "as directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations," Rumsfeld said.

NORTHCOM was allocated responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean including Jamaica and Puerto Rico, and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. SOUTHCOM exercises control over Central and South America.

Secret discussions were held in 2013 to "fully integrate military forces" of the U.S. and Canada. The meetings for a "Canada-U.S. Integrated forces program" were "led at the highest levels, with then Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson and the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey (now retired), meeting on 'several occasions' to hash out a plan that included an option for 'fully integrated forces.'" CBC reported, "The planning was deliberate and sustained, and it happened at the highest levels of both forces." Ostensibly, "efforts were ultimately shut down and refocused on improving interoperability between the forces."[2]

Lawson, an air force general, was previously Deputy Commander NORAD from July 2011 to August 2012. In 1988, Lawson had been promoted to Major and was posted to Montgomery, Alabama to attend the United States Air Force Air Command and Staff College. In 2000, he completed the United States Air Force Air War College.[3]

An unequal agreement pushed through in December 2002 amidst the hysteria following 9/11 allows U.S. troops to enter Canada in response to a "threat, attack or civil emergency" concerning critical infrastructure or to protect "potential targets" such as nuclear power plants or oil and gas pipelines. Further, agreements under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Visiting Warships Act grant immunity to American and foreign military personnel from prosecution in Canada.

The Defence Policy Review leading to the Trudeau Liberals' "new defence policy" focused on whether the military is "properly" equipped, not its aim or who it serves. This followed the pattern established by the Chrétien Liberals in 1994/95, when they conducted a review of defence and foreign policy but did not question Canada's membership in NATO and NORAD. Since then, subsequent governments have all been war governments that have systematically placed Canada's military under the direct control of the U.S. military and intelligence agencies and U.S. warmongering. Interoperability is one of the mantras serving this perverse aim.

Sovereignty Yes, Annexation No!
Get Canada Out of NATO!
Dismantle NATO and NORAD!
Make Canada a Zone for Peace!


1. "Northern Command to Assume Defense Duties October 1," American Forces Press Service, 25 September 2002.

2. James Cudmore, "Canadian military explored plan to fully integrate forces with U.S.," CBC News, September 30, 2015.

3. Biography: T. J. Lawson, CMM, CD CANADIAN FORCES. NORAD.

Haut de


NATO Leaders Summit Advances European Military Buildup

Imperialist "Terrorism and Burden Sharing" Agenda Increases Danger of War

In Brussels 10,000 people participate in march and rally, called by Belgian college students,
on May 24, 2017, the day NATO heads of state and government arrived.

From May 24 to 25, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participated in the NATO Leaders' Summit held in Brussels, Belgium where the organization is based. The meeting, which coincided with the opening of a new NATO headquarters that has been under construction since December 2010, revealed sharpening contradictions between European so-called Atlanticists, with whom Canada sided, and the agenda of the U.S. Trump Administration to force NATO members to finance its own war preparations.[1]

Despite the contradictions among NATO members, all colluded with the aim set by the U.S. for the May 2017 NATO Leaders' Summit to advance European military build-up. Speaking in Brussels on May 25, U.S. President Donald Trump described this mission as follows: "The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATO's eastern and southern borders."

In this vein, the U.S. was successful in setting the agenda for the meeting as "terrorism and burden sharing." This meant securing official NATO participation in the U.S. mission in Iraq and Syria and other so-called anti-terror initiatives as well as stepped up war preparations and military spending from NATO members to meet the U.S. target of two per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Canada responded to this U.S. demand with the announcement of a new defence policy on June 7 that will see military spending increase by 70 per cent over the next 10 years, reaching 1.4 per cent of GDP. Canada currently spends around one per cent of GDP on its armed forces, excluding the tens of billions currently designated for procurement of new armaments and vehicles.

All NATO members have been in formal agreement to spend two per cent of GDP on their military forces since 2014, and reiterated that commitment several times since. In that regard, the meeting agreed to "develop annual national plans, setting out how Allies intend to meet the defence investment pledge we made together in 2014. The national plans will cover three major areas: cash, capabilities, and contributions," the NATO Secretary General said. He added that by 2015, all NATO members had ceased cuts to military spending, and in 2016, "total [military] spending across Europe and Canada increased by billions of dollars." The annual national plans intend to "keep up the momentum," he said.

The annual plans of NATO members are to be completed by December and are expected to explain:

1. How countries will meet the two per cent of GDP commitment, 20 per cent of which is to be spent on "major equipment";
2. How to invest funding in key military capabilities; and
3. How countries intend to contribute to NATO missions, operations and other engagements.

The NATO meeting also officially announced Montenegro, a former Yugoslav republic as the 29th member of the military bloc, whose status was finalized on June 5.


1. "Atlanticism" is defined by Collins English Dictionary as "Advocation of or support for cooperation among western European and North American nations regarding political, economic, and defense issues."

Haut de


Cynical Ploy to Justify Increased Military Spending

Brussels, May 24, 2017

A controversy arose at the May 24-25 NATO Leaders' Summit in Brussels after U.S. President Trump's remarks at the ceremony dedicating two memorials at the new NATO headquarters: one commemorating September 11, 2001 and the other Article 5 of the NATO Charter, the mutual defence clause. This incident and the response of NATO members underscores the fact that, despite contention within the ruling circles and the private defence contractors and intelligence agencies allied to competing imperialist interests, they also collude to the detriment of the peoples everywhere.

Reports inform that Trump did not deliver the following line which was included in his written speech: "We face many threats, but I stand here before you with a clear message: the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance and to Article 5 is unwavering." Trump's failure to uphold Article 5 of the NATO Charter, whether intentional or not, is a departure from the past practice of U.S. presidents making special mention of the agreement when addressing NATO meetings.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty that established NATO, signed in Washington, DC on April 4 1949, states that "an armed attack against one or more [members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." It mandates the military bloc to take, "individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Article 5 has only been invoked once, by the U.S. following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. NATO undertook eight official missions related to this invocation of Article 5.

The monopoly media, think-tanks and officials from various countries raised alarm that Trump's failure to endorse Article 5 indicates a new policy on the part of the U.S. They used this lapse to suggest that NATO members can no longer rely on the U.S. for their defence in case of attack and must henceforth be prepared to go it alone. Subsequently, Trump's Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster and other officials as well as White House spokespersons reiterated the U.S. will in fact adhere to Article 5.

The suggestion that NATO members will not be defended by the U.S. in case of attack has turned out to be a most cynical ploy.[1] It is now being used by Canada, Germany and others to justify the very thing that the U.S. is calling for -- increased military spending. Indeed, Trump himself used the occasion of his remarks to the NATO meeting to further demand members step up their funding of war preparations.

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying" and owe "massive amounts," Trump said. "We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even two per cent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness and the size of forces. Two per cent is the bare minimum for confronting today's very real and very vicious threats," he added.

Canada's response came in the form of a warmongering speech in the House of Commons on June 6 by Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland. "Why do we spend billions on defence, if we are not immediately threatened?" Freeland asked. To answer her own misleading question, Freeland referenced "climate change... civil war, poverty, drought and natural disasters" and then said that Canada spends billions on its military due to the "dictatorship in North Korea, crimes against humanity in Syria, the monstrous extremists of Daesh, and Russian military adventurism and expansionism." Freeland said these things "all pose clear strategic threats" to what she called the liberal democratic world.

Picking up on the controversy over Trump's failure to cite Article 5 of the NATO Charter, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs Freeland stated that "doing our fair share is clearly necessary. [...] It is by pulling our weight in this partnership, and in all our international partnerships, that we, in fact, have weight." Freeland even went so far as to suggest that Canada's militarism is to ensure that the country is not a "client state" of the U.S. and that "such a dependence would not be in Canada's interest." Freeland concluded, "NATO and Article 5 are at the heart of Canada's national security policy."

Canada's servile media and pundits declared Freeland's speech, variously, "defiant," "radical," "strong on principles," a rejection of "Trump's nationalist policies," a "push back" against "Trump's isolationism," "remarkable," "a finger in Trump's eye" and a "major policy shift." Freeland was applauded by Canada's ruling elite for presenting the implementation of U.S. imperialist demands as opposition to the direction of the U.S. and even a "sovereign course."

This "controversy" has been taken up by Germany and others in the so-called Atlanticist camp with claims that to oppose Trump, other NATO powers must heed his demands to step up war preparations.

Besides the fact that NATO should have been dismantled once and for all when it was deprived of the official pretext for its existence -- the so-called threat of communism embodied by the Soviet Union -- its continued expansion beyond the borders of the North Atlantic since that time is crisis-ridden and increases the danger of war. Despite the lack of its previous alleged raison d'être, NATO has continued to bring the countries bordering Russia under U.S. control and prepare the conditions for another devastating conflict. New pretexts such as hysteria about "Russian aggression" and "defence of democracy" have been seized as a rationale for escalating war preparations throughout Europe.

Experience has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that NATO is an aggressive military alliance. However, the past arrangements whereby, through Article 5 of the NATO Charter, European powers came under U.S. hegemony have not succeeded in making NATO the sole gendarme of the world and are themselves in crisis. After the post-World War II arrangements whereby the United Nations Security Council was to be the arbiter of all matters related to war and peace ceased to function, efforts to make NATO the world's policeman also failed due to the contention within the ranks of the imperialists and their intelligence agencies and military and financial interests. This is evidenced today by the deepening contradictions between the U.S. and Germany and aim to be "on par" with the U.S. and NATO through a unified European armed forces.

In response, the U.S. Trump Administration has taken the path of not recognizing any rule of law whatever, not even its pretence or the so-called international order based on rules that Freeland and other "Atlanticists" claim existed. The Trump administration expects everyone to buckle under to U.S. demands or face nuclear war. Others, such as Germany and Canada, are scrambling to give their war preparations a veneer of legality and justification by presenting them as humanitarian and beneficial. No matter the pretext, both the contention and the collusion amongst the imperialists pose grave dangers to the world's peoples.


1. A "ploy" is "an action calculated to frustrate an opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously; a manoeuvre."

Haut de


Announcements on U.S. Military Presence in Europe and Establishment of "Terrorism Intelligence Cell"

Despite the U.S. ploy concerning Article 5 of the NATO Charter and mutual defence, on the eve of the NATO meeting, the U.S. government announced $4.8 billion for the "European Reassurance Initiative," a special military fund allocated to "protect against Russian aggression." The money will go towards an increased U.S. troop presence, military infrastructure and war exercises in Europe.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called this a 40 per cent increase in funding for the U.S. military presence in Europe, and said that it "enables an increase of military presence of U.S. forces, more exercises, more equipment, more training, more prepositioned supplies, weapons, ammunition, and more investments in infrastructure." He concluded, "So after many years of a decline in U.S. military presence in Europe we now see for the first time in many years an increase."

Air Force Maj. Gen. David W. Allvin told media that this would include a greater "U.S. military rotational presence throughout the theatre that is capable of deterring and, if required, responding to any regional threats," and additional "strategic placement of equipment throughout the theatre," meaning more heavy weapons and weapons of mass destruction throughout Europe.

The Secretary General also announced, "NATO will become a full member of the [U.S.-led Global Coalition to fight ISIL], in which all 28 Allies already take part." Stoltenberg stated that NATO will "not take part in combat operations in Iraq and Syria." This was widely reported but diverts from the fact that NATO does not have its own military force but relies on the participation of its member countries, almost all of which are already participating militarily in the U.S. mission in Iraq and Syria. Instead, NATO will now provide other direct support.

The meeting further agreed that NATO will establish a "terrorism intelligence cell within our new Intelligence Division" which will share information between NATO members, including on what are called "foreign nationals fighting with ISIL."

Haut de


Trump's Warmongering Trip to the Middle East

U.S. Administration's Strategy of Divide and Rule

Protest against Trump's visit to Palestine, May 23, 2017.

U.S. President Donald Trump visited Saudi Arabia on May 20 and 21 in his first trip outside the United States since his inauguration. From Saudi Arabia, Trump travelled to occupied Palestine and the Vatican, then attended NATO and G7 meetings in Brussels, Belgium and Sicily, Italy respectively. According to Trump's National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, the trip was aimed at "reaffirming America's global leadership."

Since the presidency of Gerald Ford that began in 1974, the first trips taken by U.S. heads of state have been to Canada, Mexico or Britain. However it is widely known that a state visit by Trump to any of these three countries would result in massive protests and denunciations of the host governments.

The Saudi Kingdom has not only been a British and U.S. outpost in the region since its creation but has been widely accused of overt and covert support for terrorism worldwide.[1] It is also playing the leading role in the cruel British and U.S.-backed blockade and war against Yemen that has brought the people to starvation and killed more than 10,000 civilians. Despite their massive support of terrorist groups in Syria and innumerable crimes committed, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have been unable to achieve their aims of regime change in Syria on the basis of these proxy forces. In that regard, the visit of Trump pushed for further direct military action by the Saudi Kingdom and others under U.S. leadership.

Trump took the opportunity to consolidate the U.S.-Saudi relationship on the backs of the peoples of the Middle East. This included signing unprecedented weapons deals, establishing new military arrangements among U.S.-backed monarchies in the region and pushing divide and rule against the countries and peoples of the region. Despite the well-known role of both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in sponsoring terrorism, Trump used his Middle East trip to target Iran, Syria and the resistance movements, including in Palestine, and falsely accuse them of terrorism. Iran was singled out as the main source of terrorism and insecurity in the region.

Push for Zionist-Saudi Cooperation Against People's Resistance

On May 22 and 23 Trump visited Jerusalem in occupied Palestine, meeting the Israeli President and Prime Minister as well as the President of the Palestinian Authority. Hours after landing in Israel, Trump visited an area of Jerusalem that has been under illegal occupation since 1967 and is not recognized internationally as part of Israel. This was the first time a sitting U.S. President has visited the site. Trump's arrival in Israel came via the first ever direct flight from Saudi Arabia.

Trump called for increased Saudi-Israeli collaboration against countries and peoples not under U.S. dictate, raising the spectre of Iran. "There is a growing realization among your Arab neighbors that they have common cause with you in the threat posed by Iran," Trump said. "What's happened with Iran has brought many other parts of the Middle East towards Israel." He also stated that under his administration Iran would not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons, raising the spurious "threat" used to justify sanctions and other measures against Iran in the past.

U.S.-Saudi-Israeli Plans Put Into Effect

Saudi Arabia and its regional allies targeted a fellow Gulf monarchy, Qatar, for its alleged cooperation with Iran and its support for Palestinian resistance movements, which the Saudis and Zionists declare to be terrorism. On June 5, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and others severed all diplomatic contacts as well as all land, air and sea traffic with Qatar and imposed an economic blockade.

U.S. President Trump quickly took credit for the development, stating, "So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off." Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir at a speech in Paris on June 6 demanded Qatar end support for Palestinian resistance organization Hamas. Qatar is host to a U.S. airbase with more than 8,000 troops.

Then, on June 7, 17 people were killed and 52 injured in two terrorist attacks in Iran for which ISIL took responsibility. One attack was against the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomenini. The other, an attack by gunmen and a suicide bomber, was against the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) which was in session at the time. The attacks took place less than a month after the re-election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. According to media, these were the first terrorist attacks inside Iran in a decade. The White House issued the following ominous statement by President Trump:

"We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote."

On June 2, the New York Times reported that the CIA has appointed Michael D'Andrea to head its Iran Mission Centre. According to the report, D'Andrea was a prominent figure in the post-9/11 detention and torture program, organized terrorist attacks targeting resistance groups in Syria and later oversaw President Obama's drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen.


1. Shortly after Trump's visit, British media reported that the government's Home Office suppressed a report on foreign funding of so-called Jihadi groups centred in Saudi Arabia. Like the U.S. and Canada, Britain has significantly increased its weapons sales to Saudi Arabia.

(Photos: TML, Maan)

Haut de


Agreements Target Resistance to Colonialism, Imperialism and Occupation

To target peoples of the Middle East and their political movements, Trump and the Saudi King, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud signed a "Joint Strategic Vision" on May 20 to "embark on new initiatives to counter violent extremist messaging, disrupt financing of terrorism, and advance defense cooperation." A "Strategic Joint Consultative Group" has been formed to implement the "strategic partnership" between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

As well, a $460-billion agreement has been signed for weapons sales from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia over 10 years, with $110 billion allocated immediately. According to media reports, Saudi Arabia will purchase Littoral Combat Ships (for operations close to shore, likely to enforce Saudi Arabia's ongoing naval blockade of Yemen as well as control strategic shipping lanes in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden), THAAD missile defence systems, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, missiles, bombs and munitions, communications, and cyber-security technology. This new agreement is set to increase a hundredfold annual Saudi arms purchases from the U.S.[1]

Trump claimed that the agreement "supports the long-term security of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region in the face of malign Iranian influence and Iranian related threats." The weapons deal also "bolsters the Kingdom's ability to provide for its own security and continue contributing to counterterrorism operations across the region, reducing the burden on U.S. military forces," Trump said.

Trump asserted that Iran was behind all acts of "terrorism" in the region, which he equated with the resistance movements against Israeli occupation Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. Speaking to representatives of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, Trump stated, "No discussion of stamping out [terrorism and extremism] would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three -- safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran."

"From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror."

"Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve."

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia further announced their intent to establish an "integrated regional security architecture" amongst countries in the Middle East, in which military and security forces of Gulf monarchies and other U.S.-backed states are placed under joint U.S.-Saudi control for deployment against the peoples of the region.

To support these nefarious aims, two other "security" institutions were launched during the visit. A "Terrorist Financing Targeting Center" is to be co-chaired by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and joined by all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Also established was a "Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology." Both are to be headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Trump and the Saudi King also announced greater cooperation between the U.S.-led "Global Coalition Against ISIS" and the Saudi-led "Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism."[2]

To undermine the resistance to Zionist occupation which prevailed during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia announced that they will support the Lebanese state in "enforcing its sovereignty on all of its territory, disarm terrorist organizations such as Hizballah, and bring all weapons under the legitimate supervision of the Lebanese army."

In addition to the signing of military and arms deals, various business deals were signed between U.S. monopolies and Saudi state-owned business.


1. To put the size of the Saudi weapons deal in context, Valentin Katasonov writes for Strategic Culture Foundation that "between 2011 and 2015 the U.S. sold a variety of weapons abroad, with a total value of $46.4 billion, accounting for almost a third of the entire international arms market (32.8 per cent). During that time, Saudi Arabia was the world's biggest weapons importer (almost exclusively from the U.S.) -- with purchases totaling $4.57 billion, an average of less than $1 billion per year."

2. The "Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism" was founded by Saudi Arabia and first announced in December 2015 by Saudi Minister of Defence Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. The Alliance is said to have 39 members including: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen. It has a Joint Command Centre in Riyadh and is commanded by former Pakistani Army head, General Raheel Sharif. Iran, Iraq and Syria are not part of the Alliance.

Haut de


17th Anniversary of the Korean North-South Joint Declaration

The Korean People's Movement for Reunification Is Determined to Prevail

Public Meeting in Toronto
All Out for Peace and Reunification on the Korean Peninsula!

Saturday, June 17 -- 2:00-5:00 pm
Rm 2214, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. W.
Speakers: Hack Pil Chung and Philip Fernandez

Join this public meeting to commemorate the 17th anniversary of the historic June 15, 2000 North-South Joint Declaration signed between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) that paved the way for almost a decade of relationship-building, peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Get informed about current developments and discuss the need to make sure Canadians are a factor
for peace and
that Korea be peacefully reunited.

For information and to RSVP: (647) 907-7915 or corfedca@yahoo.ca
Organized by: Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and
Korean Federation in Canada

Also Take Part in the Toronto Picket Against
U.S. War Preparations on the Korean Peninsula

Wednesday, June 14 -- 5:00-6:00 pm
Christie Subway Station (Christie and Bloor)

June 15, 2017 marks the 17th anniversary of the signing of the June 15 North-South Joint Declaration between north and south Korea. This was an historic event which gave impetus and encouragement to the Korean people's movement for the reunification of their divided country, which is their ardent desire.

Leader of the DPRK Kim Jong-Il (right) and then-south Korean President Kim Dae-jung take part in the historic June 15, 2000
summit of the two Koreas.

It was the United States which divided Korea through force of arms following the Second World War, and which keeps Korea divided to this day. If the U.S. military occupation of south Korea is ended and the Korean people are left to solve their own problems without outside interference, the whole country will move toward reunification. This is what the U.S. and countries such as Canada, which participated in the Korean War, will not permit. The U.S. refusal to sign a Peace Treaty since the end of hostilities in the Korean War is to make sure that the Korean people are not able to exercise their sovereign will and establish institutions which genuinely reflect it.

The U.S. divided Korea along the 38th parallel to impose its geopolitical imperialist interests in the Cold War period. Korea was to become a forward staging ground for U.S. wars of aggression against China and the Soviet Union and the Korean people were to be cannon-fodder in these plans. The south of Korea was first occupied by the U.S. Army Military Government in Korea from 1945 to 1948 to ensure that the U.S. could lay claim to all the factories, mines, and other industries that the Japanese had developed in Korea for their war machine during World War Two. The U.S. then instigated the Korean War in 1950 to expand its occupation to all of Korea but this plan was defeated by the Korean people united around the Korean People's Army, which forced the U.S. to sign the Armistice Agreement in 1953.

The U.S. continues to maintain a hostile presence on the Korean Peninsula and its ongoing refusal to sign a peace treaty with the DPRK according to the terms of the Armistice Agreement which ended the fighting in the Korean War shows its true intentions. The signing of such a treaty would not only contribute to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, but would stabilize the region which would favour not only the Korean people but also the peoples of Asia and the world. Such a peace treaty would also be an important step towards Korea's national reunification. In this regard, another factor in the U.S., along with Canada, the UK and other countries that invaded Korea in 1950 refusing to permit reunification is their deathly fear of a reunified Korea which would be an economic powerhouse, a champion for the independence and self-determination of all nations and peoples, and a nail in the coffin of Anglo-American imperialism.

Today the U.S., joined by Canada is beating the war-drums against the DPRK to keep the Korean people divided and U.S. troops and weapons of mass destruction in the south. The U.S. and Canada spread disinformation about the system, the people and government of the DPRK to sabotage the movement for reunification.

The Korean people can make headway in their striving to reunify their country so long as both sides are guided by the spirit of genuine openness and co-operation codified in the June 15 Joint Declaration. When the pro-U.S. Lee Myung-bak government took office in south Korea in 2007, the U.S. again introduced a hostile spirit in north-south relations. This hostile attitude was carried forward by the government of Park Geun-hye, which came to power in February 2013. President Park, the first woman President of south Korea, was deposed due to her rampant corruption. She is the daughter of the anti-communist pro-U.S. dictator Park Jung-hee who ruled south Korea with an iron-fist from 1961 to 1979, when he was assassinated by the head of his own security unit. President Park was herself hostile to the independent Korean re-unification movement and openly said that south Korea must forge stronger economic and military bi-lateral relations with the U.S. She extended the U.S.-south Korea Joint Military Command structure beyond December 2015 in violation of an earlier agreement signed between the U.S. and south Korea and did so to keep the Command in the hands of the U.S. What is more, the Park government agreed that south Korea would assume more of the "non-military" costs of the U.S. military presence in south Korea which amounts to U.S.$1.5 billion today. Under her regime, south Korea became the single greatest purchaser of U.S. weapons for the foreseeable future. The Park government also stepped up criminalization of the Korean reunification movement and targeting and criminalizing of pro-reunification activists under the notorious anti-communist National Security Law introduced by the U.S. into south Korea in 1948.

This year, however, under the new government of Moon Jae-in in south Korea, there are prospects to revitalize north-south relations. President Moon has indicated that he is keen to re-open the Kaesong Industrial Zone which operated for more than a decade as a joint north-south economic project for mutual benefit until it was unilaterally ended by the Park government in March 2016. Moon's new government has so far approved close to 10 requests from humanitarian organizations for contact with organizations in the north, with many other requests pending approval. Especially significant is that 100 members of the South Korean Committee for Implementing the June 15 Joint Statement have approval to travel to Pyongyang to celebrate the 17th anniversary of the North-South Joint Declaration. These are all positive developments that encourage the efforts for the Korean people to come together to resolve the problem of the re-unification of Korea, and together stay the hands of the U.S. imperialists.

Driving the U.S. military occupiers out of south Korea is necessary for national reunification to succeed. Despite the challenges facing them, the Korean people, relying on the justice of their cause, their own political unity and through their own peaceful efforts are holding high the banner of national reunification and carrying it forward.

U.S. Troops Out of Korea!
Korea Is One!

Haut de


New UN Mission in Haiti

Imperialist Intervention and Occupation are the Cause of Instability and Insecurity, Not the Solution

On April 11, the Security Council of the United Nations held a briefing on the situation in Haiti in which a plan was adopted to transition the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, to a new policing mission. Sandra Honoré, Special Representative and Head of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti briefed the Council on developments since October 2016 and announced that the current UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSTAH) that was to end on April 15, would be extended for six months and that a transition was beginning to a new UN mission in Haiti under a new name. The new force would be "a smaller peacekeeping operation with concentrated focus on the rule of law and police development...[and] human rights monitoring," Honoré said. According to a report from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres the new armed force would be comprised of close to 300 UN police officers to "support political stability [and] good governance, including electoral oversight and reform." The ongoing presence of foreign occupying troops is in violation of Haiti's constitution which, except for Haitian armed forces and police, forbids any "other armed corps" on the national territory.

Canada's representative at the Security Council briefing eagerly supported the transition. Marc-André Blanchard said that the recent Haitian elections (in which two per cent of the one million registered voters participated out of a population of six million eligible) "presented an opportunity to facilitate the transition to a new United Nations mission." In other words, Canada, the U.S. and France, which carried out the coup d'état against Haiti's democratically-elected government in 2004, got the result they wanted in this election and now is the time to shift the mission. Disregarding the notorious conduct of the so-called peacekeepers in Haiti, and with no sense of shame, Blanchard said a more "compact, focused peace operation" must play a key role in strengthening the capacities of the Haitian National Police. Ignoring the crimes of Canadian police that have come to light, especially against women and children in Haiti, Blanchard added that peace and security on the island nation are vital for all Haitians, particularly women, children and the most vulnerable. The progress made, while undeniable, remains fragile and incomplete, Blanchard said, emphasizing that it must be preserved and consolidated through an effective and responsible transition that would take the situation on the ground into consideration. "The coming months will be decisive in the preparation and therefore in the success of this transition," he said.

In March 2016 Le Devoir reported that the Trudeau government was seeking to take over command of the UN mission in Haiti when it was set to be extended in October of that year.[1] Haitians' refusal to accept fraudulent elections throughout 2016 delayed plans to "transition" to a new mission. Canada's remarks at the Security Council indicate that Canada may well now seek to place itself at the head of the new mission so as to further interfere in Haiti's internal affairs, including by reforming its electoral system at a time that Canada's own electoral system is widely seen as undemocratic and in need of renewal. Canada has delayed announcing where it will commit the some 600 troops it has dedicated to "peace operations" as announced shortly after the 2015 federal election. This commitment was allegedly evidence of a "return to peacekeeping," while the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President forced the Liberals to postpone announcements of where those soldiers will be sent.

Canada has been training and commanding the Haitian National Police since the establishment of the MINUSTAH force as well as working within the Haitian government overseeing reform of the justice system and funding new prisons. "Death squad democracy" in which Canadian RCMP and provincial police trained former death squad members as police to carry out the same attacks against the people has been Canada's contribution to Haiti. It is unacceptable that such a role should be strengthened today. It is the height of hypocrisy that the Trudeau government speaks about its support for refugees when its criminal actions and violations of international law in Haiti, especially under the Chrétien government and since, have created thousands of refugees and displaced people from Haiti. Not a few of these refugees have been persecuted or blocked from obtaining citizenship in Canada as a result of their political affiliation with the democratically-elected government in Haiti that Canada helped overthrow. That the Canadian government may now present the involvement of Canadian police as a way to assist Haiti's democracy is unacceptable and must not pass. Canada must instead pay reparations to the Haitian people and stop meddling in their affairs. It must also hold to account those Canadian police who have committed sexual crimes in Haiti and ensure that the victims have redress.

Imperialists Seek to Absolve Themselves of
Responsibility for Their Crimes

While Haitians have known of the crimes committed against them by the forces of MINUSTAH for years, more are coming to light internationally now as the UN seeks to "transition" to a new mission. On March 31 it was reported that U.S. officials knew from the time of the cholera outbreak in Haiti that has killed more than 10,000 people that responsibility likely lay with UN forces, and sought to contain and divert such information and prevent responsibility being assigned.[2]

This comes after the admission in December 2016 by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the organization's role in poisoning Haiti's water supply with cholera. Along with an apology, Ban proposed a plan to end the epidemic. UN member states, including the United States, have refused to provide the $400 million promised for this. Meanwhile, in the most hypocritical fashion the U.S. laid blame for various sexual crimes on military and police forces serving with the UN occupation force, MINUSTAH, to hide the decisive role of the U.S. in overseeing the occupation and repression in Haiti.

An Associated Press investigation into crimes of UN peacekeepers around the world found that some 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation by UN peacekeepers and other personnel were reported in Haiti alone between 2004 and 2016. An internal UN report said that 134 Sri Lankan peacekeepers exploited nine children in a sex ring from 2004 to 2007. It also reported on many cases of rape and other sexual crimes by other UN forces. However, the UN did not begin officially documenting the countries of origin of UN soldiers accused of crimes until 2015. This report and others have been cited by U.S. officials to divert attention from U.S. crimes against the Haitian people by calling for reform of UN peacekeeping to stop sexual violence and abuse.


1. "Oppose Canada's Decision to Send Troops to Haiti!," TML Weekly, March 26, 2016.

2. Jonathan M. Katz, "What they knew, when they knew it," Slate.com, March 31, 2017.

Haut de


Canada's Anti-Democratic Interference in Venezuelan Affairs

Parliamentary Subcommittee Continues to Advance Pretexts for Regime Change

Toronto picket, June 2, 2017

On May 16, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development met to hear witnesses speak on "the deteriorating situation in Venezuela." A good part of the discussion centred on how Canada could help "rescue democracy" in that country. The meeting took place one day after an op-ed appeared in the Globe and Mail entitled "Canada can help save Venezuela's democracy." The item was written by Lilian Tintori, who represents a section of the U.S.-linked opposition forces calling for international intervention to help them carry out regime change in Venezuela.

Tintori is the wife of convicted Venezuelan criminal and 2002 coup d'état participant Leopoldo López, currently serving a sentence for inciting violence leading to the deaths of 43 people in 2014. She was the main witness at what the committee billed as a briefing on the human rights situation in Venezuela. She was accompanied by Lopez's mother as well as his Washington, DC-based lawyer Jared Genser and former Liberal MP and cabinet minister Irwin Cotler who has been used to promote in Canada the false claim that Lopez is a "prisoner of conscience."

Genser's biography on his law firm's website indicates that he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Earlier this year the Latin American director of the Council on Foreign Relations appeared before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee to present it with a portfolio of actions and measures the United States could take to carry out regime change in Venezuela.[1]

"Rescuing Democracy" in Venezuela

No one on the Subcommittee pointed out that appealing to foreign governments to "help save Venezuela's democracy" smacks of calling on them to get involved in regime change, and as such should not be entertained by Canada. No one stood up to say that upholding human rights in Venezuela requires putting an end to all foreign interference in Venezuela's affairs, including the sordid role Canada has been playing at the Organization of American States (OAS), not to mention through the sub-committee itself. Instead, discussion centred on what Canada could do at the OAS to more effectively serve the cause of the anti-democratic coup forces the Trudeau government has aligned itself with. The results could be seen in the hostile declaration Canada put forward against Venezuela alongside the U.S., Mexico, Peru and Panama but failed to get adopted at the May 31 Meeting of Consultation of OAS Foreign Ministers.[2]

Despite the defeat it suffered at that meeting thanks to the united front of Caribbean states and several others from South and Central America that upheld their countries' dignity in the face of U.S. bribes and blackmail, Canada can be expected to continue pushing the imperialist regime change agenda against Venezuela at the OAS General Assembly when it meets in Cancun, Mexico June 19-21.

What Kind of Study?

It is telling that as part of the Subcommittee's "study" to produce recommendations for the Trudeau government, it has shown no interest in hearing from anyone other than those who have been virulent opponents of Venezuela's social progress over the past 18 years. Not only are representatives of Venezuela's government and governing parties not invited to testify but the myriad organizations representing workers and other collectives of the Venezuelan people who have been part of the majority supporting the country's Bolivarian Revolution are also considered not worthy of an audience.

Absent the voice of Venezuela's working people and constitutional government, what else could the Subcommittee's study reflect but the assumptions, allegations and demands of the elite and reactionary forces that have been continually paraded before it as witnesses. Besides this, the committee is inundated with the opinions of so-called experts paid to justify Canada's increasingly aggressive foreign policy and who serve as the Subcommittee's advisers regarding "what to do about Venezuela."

Canadian MPs should refuse to act as tools for imperialist schemes against sovereign countries and peoples whether in the name of human rights, democracy, humanitarian assistance or any other high-sounding ideals. They do themselves and Canada no honour by covering up that interference, destabilization and regime change are the real aims of Canada and the U.S. imperialists in Venezuela.


1. For more information see "Who is Behind the U.S. State Department's Coup Plot in Venezuela?" TML Weekly, June 3, 2017.

2. See "Oppose Canada's Nefarious Role! Hands Off Venezuela! TML Weekly, April 22, 2017  and "Imperialist Scheme at Organization of American States Unravels" TML Weekly, June 3, 2017.

Haut de


Canadian Forces Take Part in U.S. Military Exercise
Off Coast of Venezuela

From June 6 to 17 Canadian military personnel are participating in Operation Tradewinds, a military exercise in the Caribbean sponsored and led by U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM). The operation is being conducted in two phases: from June 6-12 in Barbados and from June 13-17 in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Department of National Defence (DND) describes Operation Tradewinds as "a multinational maritime interdiction, ground security and interagency exercise that focuses on countering transnational organized crime and practicing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief [...] in order to promote regional security cooperation." DND says about 90 Canadian sailors and soldiers have been sent to participate in the USSOUTHCOM exercise along with a maritime coastal defence ship, the HMCS Kingston. It reports that a joint Canadian Forces and Global Affairs Canada disaster assessment team has also been deployed and that the team will "train in responding to humanitarian crises."

Counting the U.S., 20 countries are participating in the exercise including Canada, Britain, France, Mexico and various Caribbean states. In all some 2,500 military personnel are said to be involved.

Trinidad and Tobago is located just off the coast of Venezuela. The holding of humanitarian and disaster relief exercises close to Venezuela's coast comes at a time when U.S.-allied opposition forces there have been sowing anarchy and chaos in the streets, hoping to portray the situation in Venezuela as one of "ungovernability" and claim the population is in need of urgent "humanitarian assistance."

In April, USSOUTHCOM Command Chief Kurt Tidd stated, "The growing humanitarian crisis in Venezuela could eventually compel a regional response."

In November, the U.S. will participate in joint military exercises with Brazil, Peru and Colombia in Brazil's Amazon region which borders Venezuela. This will involve the installation of a temporary military base on the triple border of the three countries. The U.S. was invited to participate by Michel Temer, the leader of Brazil installed by a U.S.-backed coup d'etat against elected President Dilma Rousseff in August.

(With files from DND, Mint Press News)

Haut de



Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca