June 10, 2017 - No. 21
No to Canada's
Warmongering Defence Policy!
Step Up the
Struggle to Make Canada
Zone for Peace
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 -
Summit Advances European Military Buildup
• Imperialist "Terrorism and Burden Sharing"
Increases Danger of War
• Cynical Ploy to Justify Increased Military
- Charlie Vita -
• Announcements on U.S. Military Presence in
Establishment of "Terrorism Intelligence Cell"
Trip to the Middle East
• U.S. Administration's Strategy of
Divide and Rule
- Sam Heaton -
• Agreements Target Resistance to
Imperialism and Occupation
- Hilary LeBlanc -
17th Anniversary of
Korean North-South Joint Declaration
• The Korean People's Movement for
Is Determined to Prevail
- Yi Nicholls -
New UN Mission in
• Imperialist Intervention and
Occupation are the Cause of
Instability and Insecurity, Not the Solution
- Enver Villamizar -
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
Off Coast of Venezuela
No to Canada's Warmongering Defence
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
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
- Detect, deter, and defend against threats to or
- Detect, deter, and defend against threats to or attacks
on North America, in partnership with the United States, including
- 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
- Engage in capacity building to support the security
of other nations and their ability to contribute to security
- 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
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
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
Underscoring the insecurity felt by Canadians and
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!
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.
Anti-Social and Anti-National Consequences of
Militarizing the Economy
Canada's Defence Policy, Strong, Secure,
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
revealed to the U.S. weeks ahead of its public release in Canada.
The phrase "Strong, Secure,
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
"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
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
The Trudeau Liberals talk about "Open and Accountable
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):
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
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
At a 2014 summit, NATO member states formally agreed to
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On NORAD, the policy states that Canada will "expand
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
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
the economy which will result when its all-out militarization takes
One such consequence is the effect on inflation. Heavy
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
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
"Interoperability" -- Euphemism for Integration
Annexation of Canadian Forces in the
Service of Empire-Building
The "new defence policy" of the Trudeau Liberals
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
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
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
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
It is closely linked with the U.S. dictate to NATO
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,
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
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
The occasional appointment of a Canadian officer to
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
Interoperability is an operating principle of the
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
It also provides for their seamless integration into
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
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.
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
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
American Unified Command Plan (UCP) on April 17, 2002 by
then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 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
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
Secret discussions were held in 2013 to "fully
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."
Lawson, an air force general, was previously Deputy
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
An unequal agreement pushed through in December 2002
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
"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,
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
Sovereignty Yes, Annexation No!
Get Canada Out of
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
integrate forces with U.S.," CBC News, September 30, 2015.
3. Biography: T. J. Lawson, CMM, CD
CANADIAN FORCES. NORAD.
NATO Leaders Summit Advances European
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.
Despite the contradictions among NATO members, all
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
of GDP on its armed forces, excluding the tens of billions currently
designated for procurement of new armaments
All NATO members have been in formal agreement to spend
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
per cent of which is to be spent on "major equipment";
2. How to invest
funding in key military capabilities; and
How countries intend to contribute to NATO missions, operations and
The NATO meeting also officially announced Montenegro,
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
western European and North American nations
regarding political, economic, and defense issues."
Cynical Ploy to Justify Increased Military Spending
Brussels, May 24, 2017
A controversy arose at the May 24-25 NATO Leaders'
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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. 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
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
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
Canada's servile media and pundits declared Freeland's
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
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,
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.
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.
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
1. A "ploy" is "an action calculated to frustrate an
opponent or gain an advantage indirectly or deviously; a manoeuvre."
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
increase in funding for the U.S. military presence in Europe, and said
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
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
The Secretary General also announced, "NATO will become
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
The meeting further agreed that NATO will establish a
intelligence cell within our new Intelligence Division" which will
share information between NATO members,
including on what are called "foreign nationals fighting with ISIL."
Trump's Warmongering Trip to the Middle
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
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,
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. 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.
Trump took the opportunity to consolidate the
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
Push for Zionist-Saudi Cooperation Against People's
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
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
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
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
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
On June 2, the New York Times reported that the
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.
Agreements Target Resistance to Colonialism,
To target peoples of the Middle East and their
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
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
Trump claimed that the agreement "supports the
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
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
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
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
The U.S. and Saudi Arabia further announced their
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
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
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"
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.
17th Anniversary of the Korean
The Korean People's Movement for Reunification Is
the Korean Peninsula!
2214, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 252 Bloor St. W.
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
Korean Federation in Canada
Also Take Part in the Toronto Picket
Preparations on the Korean Peninsula
June 14 -- 5:00-6:00 pm
Christie Subway Station (Christie and Bloor)
June 15, 2017 marks the 17th anniversary of the signing
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
so to keep the Command in the hands of the U.S. What is more, the Park
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
future. The Park government also stepped up criminalization of
reunification movement and targeting and criminalizing of
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
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
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
together stay the hands of the U.S. imperialists.
Driving the U.S. military occupiers out of south Korea
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!
New UN Mission in Haiti
Imperialist Intervention and Occupation are the Cause
Instability and Insecurity, Not the Solution
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
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
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. Haitians' refusal to
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
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
Imperialists Seek to Absolve Themselves of
Responsibility for Their Crimes
While Haitians have known of the crimes committed
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.
This comes after the admission in December 2016 by
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
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.
Canada's Anti-Democratic Interference in
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
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
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
"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.
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
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
Weekly, April 22, 2017
Scheme at Organization of American States Unravels" TML Weekly, June
Canadian Forces Take Part in U.S. Military Exercise
Off Coast of Venezuela
From June 6 to 17 Canadian military personnel are
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.
deployed and that the team will "train in responding to humanitarian
Counting the U.S., 20 countries are participating in
including Canada, Britain, France, Mexico and various Caribbean states.
In all some 2,500 military personnel are said to
Trinidad and Tobago is located just off the coast of
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,
humanitarian crisis in Venezuela could eventually compel a regional
In November, the U.S. will participate in joint
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.
ISSUES | HOME