June 24, 2017 - No. 23
for Aggressive War and Occupation
Threats Against Korea!
Government's Support for New U.S. Aggression in Syria
• Canadian Soldiers Arrive in Latvia
for Aggressive NATO Mission
• Scope of Canadian Mission in
Big Powers Collude and
Contend for Control of Europe
• G7 Summit Takes Up Imperialist
Foreign Policy Concerns
• Rivalry Between U.S. and Germany
• New European Union Measures to Expand
Results of French
• Macron's Weak Mandate Presented as
a Ringing Endorsement
by the French People
- Christian Legeais -
Anti-Fascist Memorials in Poland
• Polish Ruling Class Falsifications About
Liberation from Nazi Rule
- Dougal MacDonald -
• Readers Note
Canada's Unacceptable Mission in Ukraine
• Longstanding, Far-Ranging and Unprecedented
Canadian Forces Mobilized for Aggressive
Condemn Canada's Participation in
U.S. Threats Against Korea!
Activists protest at the U.S. naval base on Jeju Island, south Korea,
June 20, 2017, to oppose the arrival of warships from the U.S., Canada
and south Korea for military exercises.
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
the deployment of Canadian warships to the illegitimate U.S./south
Korean naval base on U.S.-occupied Jeju Island to participate in
war games that threaten Korea, China and the peoples of the
Asia-Pacific. The deployment comes as the U.S. has increased its
hostile naval presence in Korean waters, directed specifically
against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its
resistance to U.S. dictate. The new U.S. administration has
stepped up threats to use nuclear weapons against Korea, blackmail
against the Korean people. Canada's
participation in U.S. aggression against Korea, under cover of an
"expeditionary" mission in Asia, is unacceptable.
On June 22, two Halifax-class Canadian warships, the
HMCS Winnipeg and HMCS Ottawa, arrived at the
Korean naval base on Jeju Island, Korea. They join the USS Dewey,
a U.S. destroyer equipped with a ballistic
defence system which docked on June 20 and another destroyer, the
USS Stedham which arrived on March 25. All four ships are
stationed at the Jeju base to take part in aggressive U.S. naval
exercises in Korean waters June 23-25. The Canadian ships
are part of a six-month deployment in the Indo-Asia-Pacific
region called POSEIDON CUTLASS 17.
Jeju Island residents have condemned the exercises and
presence of U.S. and Canadian ships. The Gangjeong Village
Association (representing residents of the village where the base
is located), the National Provincial Residents' Measures
Committee to Stop the Jeju Naval Base and Achieve an Island of
Peace, and the National Committee for Countermeasures against the
Jeju Naval Base held a press conference in front of the base on
June 20 opposing the arrival of the USS Dewey and calling for
an end to military exercises. The groups noted that the use of
the Jeju base for U.S. war games makes its use as a U.S. military
base "a foregone conclusion" that will "only exacerbate the
threat to peace on the Korean Peninsula and the military
frictions in Northeast Asia." The groups added, "the fact that even
Canada is taking part in these combined military exercises only adds to
our concern. [...] We will not stop in our resistance to keep Jeju an
island of life and peace," they pledged.
Protests against the U.S. and Canadian warships arriving at Jeju Island
on June 20, 2017, included a team of kayakers, who paddled out to the
ships to ensure the people's rejection of the naval base and their
presence was clearly conveyed to those aboard the ships.
The U.S. navy base on Jeju Island was completed in 2016
the face of broad opposition from the people of the island and
across Korea. It took the U.S. imperialists and pro-U.S. south
Korean governments almost 25 years after the project was first
announced in 1993 to get the naval base built, mostly as a result
of the staunch resistance of Koreans, and Jeju residents in
particular. Construction was not approved until 2007, to take
place on the site of Gangjeong village, on the basis of a "vote"
widely recognized to have been fraudulent. Koreans repeatedly delayed
construction using all available methods, including legal
challenges, blockades, sit-ins and campaigns across the country.
Besides the unacceptable continued presence of U.S. military
forces in Korea and their use of Jeju island to advance U.S.
imperialist geopolitical interests, Koreans pointed to the huge
environmental damage the base and naval traffic will cause to this
ecologically sensitive area.
Jeju Island is significant as the
a mass uprising of Koreans against the U.S. military occupation
of their country, which broke out on April 3, 1948, after
increasing repression against those favouring independence from
U.S. military rule. The uprising was met with the massacre by the
U.S. of up to 80,000 islanders out of a population of 250,000.
More than 40,000 homes were demolished and the majority of the
island's villages destroyed. Mass graves are still being
discovered to this day. Despite the brutal response of the U.S.
imperialists, the resistance of Jeju residents continued for years,
including through guerrilla warfare.
The arrival of the USS Stedham at Jeju Island
25 was the first docking of a U.S. naval ship on Jeju Island
since the destroyer USS Craig in May 1948 during the Jeju
Canada's Aggressive Naval Presence in Asia
Jeju Island residents took particular offence at being forced to accept
several tons of sewage
and garbage from Canadian naval vessels, such
that some of the waste disposal vehicles
(shown here) were blocked from
leaving the base. Municipal authorities report that they were
informed, despite being responsible for ensuring that no foreign
introduced into the island's sensitive ecosystem.
According to a March 6 report in the Times
Colonist, Canada's navy says it is "systematically" building its
in the Asia-Pacific. "We are systematically moving from no
capacity in the Indo-Asia Pacific, to [one frigate] Vancouver
last year, to [two frigates] Ottawa
and Winnipeg this year. Next
year, we will go out again with two frigates and a [supply
ship]," said Rear Admiral Art McDonald.
Canada's missions in Asia are "expeditionary," McDonald
said. In military terms "expeditionary" refers to deploying
one's armed forces to fight abroad, rather than for
defensive purposes. The Times Colonist report waxed
eloquent on this point, saying "Defence of the homeland is
important, but Canada spends a large part of its military
resources in missions overseas. It's a tradition and a talent for
extended outreach that McDonald said the rest of the world has
come to expect." Rear Admiral McDonald added, "The heavy lifting
that the Canadian Forces are doing across the world is what
Canadians are known for."
CPC(M-L) calls on Canadians to speak out against the
deployment of Canada's navy and armed forces for "expeditionary"
purposes. These missions do not contribute to peace
and stability. The expansion of Canada's "expeditionary" naval
missions to include threatening the peoples of Asia further puts
the lie to the Liberal government's claim of the urgent need to
increase Canada's naval capacity and spend enormous sums on new
warships. The Liberals do not have in mind the defence of Canada
or its people but to embroil them in war.
Public meeting in Toronto, June 17, 2017, calls for the peaceful and
reunification of Korea.
Trudeau Government's Support for New
U.S. Aggression in Syria
The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
the shooting down by the United States of a Syrian plane in the
al-Rasafah region in the southern Raqqa countryside of Syria on
June 18. CPC(M-L) calls on Canada to immediately withdraw all
military reconnaissance and fighter jet-refuelling planes
operating under U.S. command over Syrian territory and renounce
its support for U.S. aggressive actions in Syria.
CPC(M-L) also condemns Canada's utter silence on the
matter and its attempts to hide the role Canadian troops and
military planes are playing in U.S. hostilities in Syria. Silence on
matter of illegal acts of war and occupation of a sovereign
country is not acceptable. Canada must not only end its support
for U.S. military adventures in the middle east but take a stand
against this intolerable escalation of hostilities.
The U.S. Trump administration's imperialist "diplomacy"
commits unprovoked acts of aggression to shock the whole world
and brandishes the threats of all-out warfare, using the "Mother
of All Bombs" such as deployed against Afghanistan on April 13 or
even nuclear weapons. In the case of the latest attack on Syria
it then blames the victim and claims the attack was in
"self-defence." The aim is to smash any possibilities of solving
problems in a manner which favours humankind and is not based on
Might Makes Right.
Thus far, instead of opposing the use of force in
international affairs the Trudeau government has supported all
U.S. attacks against the Syrian government. While Minister of
Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland claims that under the Trudeau
government Canada is on a "sovereign course," the government
conciliates with and contributes Canada's armed forces to every
U.S. aggression. The Trudeau government is indeed rogue and its
warmongering makes it not fit to represent Canadians, while its
determination to cover up this fact with public relations schemes makes
it truly dangerous. As it talks about re-establishing Canada's role as
a "peacekeeper," the Trudeau government's cooperation with the
dangerous situation the U.S. is creating in Syria and surrounding
countries is giving rise to greater instability and forcing more people
to flee their homelands for fear of all-out war breaking out between
the U.S. and Russia or Iran in the region.
The U.S. aggression against a Syrian jet over its own
territory had no legitimate justification. U.S. claims that it
was defending so-called "democratic forces" from "pro-regime"
military are a fraud and cover up that the U.S. is escalating the
military conflict in Syria so that no political or diplomatic
solution can take hold in which the Syrian people themselves can
decide the fate of their country.
The U.S. began to step up its
aggression in Syria as government forces gained the upper hand against
ISIS which is now said to be on the verge of defeat in that country.
This as well as the specific examples of attacking Syrian forces to the
benefit of ISIS shows how the U.S. defends ISIS and will do anything to
advance its goal of regime change in Syria or at least prevent the
Syrian people turning their success into victory. The situation in
Libya today as a result of carrying forward its goal of regime change
to completion using brutal NATO air bombardment and support for
terrorist groups is a tragedy and shows the consequences of this U.S.
desperation. Canada too participated in this crime and, during the
British election the role of British intelligence agencies in
instigating armed revolt against the Libyan state by terrorists came to
light after the same forces carried out an attack in Manchester.
The immediate effect of the U.S. attack on a Syrian jet
is that Russia halted cooperation with the U.S. through their
Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in
Syria. The general "deconfliction" line between the armed forces of the
two countries was suspended in April following the U.S. missile attack
against a Syrian air base. Russian authorities noted that the U.S. did
not use the Memorandum on air safety to resolve the issue of the Syrian
jet and attacked unprovoked. The Russian Defence Ministry declared, "In
the areas of combat missions of Russian air fleet in Syrian skies, any
airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the
[U.S.-led] international coalition, located to the west of the
Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defence
forces as air targets." Clearly the U.S. actions are creating a
dangerous and unstable situation in which anything can happen.
The shooting down of the Syrian aircraft, while a
new escalation, is not an isolated incident. Two days later, on
June 20 the U.S. military reported that it also shot down an
unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) inside Syria, claiming it was
armed and advancing on its forces with "hostile intent."
Meanwhile the killing of civilians by the U.S.-led coalition is
an ongoing occurrence. On the night of June 19 a family of twelve
were killed by airstrikes carried out by coalition jets in the
Tal al-Shayer area of Hasaka province, near the border with Iraq.
Videos published June 8 and 9 further show the U.S. air force
using white phosphorous munitions on the civilian neighbourhoods
of Jezra and el-Sebahiya in Raqqa, which has been called a likely
war crime by international organizations. All of this is taking
place as the U.S. continues to increase its military presence
inside the country, including deployment of Special Forces and
Meanwhile Prime Minister Trudeau issued a statement on
20, World Refugee Day, stating: "Today, over 65 million people
are displaced around the world, and more than 22 million of them
are refugees. They flee unlivable situations in their homelands,
crossing deserts and seas to escape, and carrying dreams of a new
life even as they struggle with intense loss. These hardships
particularly affect women, who bear different and
disproportionate effects of conflict and insecurity."
"We have a global
responsibility to respond to this
and to support those who are forced to leave home," he added. "We
must address the root causes of forced migration by seeking
diplomatic solutions for violent conflicts and standing united in
the fight against terrorism. We must also redouble our efforts on
climate change, so that it does not further exacerbate insecurity
in the world."
The Canadian people have had enough of such
drivel. Not only does the Trudeau government remain utterly
silent on brazen acts of war which create further instability in
Syria and the world, it actively supports the perpetrators. Any
government that truly has a concern for refugees and those
displaced by conflict must oppose the use of force in
international affairs and not permit its military to be placed at
the disposal of acts of war and aggression against other
countries under any circumstances.
No to the Use of Force in International
Hands Off Syria!
Get Canada's Military Out of the Middle
Canadian Soldiers Arrive in Latvia for
Canada's leadership of the NATO battlegroup in Latvia is part of NATO's
aggressive Enhanced Forward Presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltic
states aimed at threatening Russia
(click to enlarge).
The first 100 Canadian soldiers of the more than 450 who
will be deployed to Latvia arrived there on June 9 from CFB Edmonton
others deploying on subsequent days from CFB Gagetown and elsewhere.
According to the Department of National Defence, an
advance party of 50 soldiers was already in Latvia. Canada is
leading a permanent NATO military presence in Latvia with
soldiers from Albania, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Spain. Other
NATO "battlegroups" in Estonia, Lithuania and Poland, all
bordering Russia or Belarus, are led by the United Kingdom,
Germany and the U.S., respectively.
The NATO mission is part of the effort to isolate
further militarize the countries bordering Russia and bring them
under U.S. imperialist control. This has carried on with the
eastward expansion of NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union
but has accelerated since the 2014 U.S. coup in Ukraine. Along
with soldiers from NATO member countries, eastern Europe and the
Baltics are also being flooded with U.S. weapons and military
vehicles as well as ballistic missile defence systems. The U.S.
continues to base nearly 500 publicly-admitted nuclear bombs in
Europe which can be deployed under NATO command.
A June 12 CBC News report
from Latvia interviewed
Riga, but was not able to find anyone who agreed with
the official line of the need for NATO deploying to defend
against "Russian aggression." One man told the CBC that the "fear
is minimal" while others "view the arrival of NATO battle group
as unnecessarily provocative," the report said. One person said,
"I don't think it's necessary to annoy the Russians," while
another, whom the CBC made sure to identify as a "Russian
speaker" said "I don't think there's any kind of threat." The
only person the CBC could find to speak in support of the mission
was its commander, Lt.-Col. Wade Rutland, who said the mission is
"entirely defensive and proportionate in response to Russian
A subsequent CBC article June 16 on "Anti-Canada
in Latvia attempted to clarify the previous report, stating "the
article suggested a majority of Latvians supported the mission
but there were [sic] also dissent." The June 12 article in fact
said nothing about the majority of Latvians supporting Canada's
military occupation of their country. The June 16 report warned
that "Latvia is awash with over-the-air Russian TV and radio
programs and a number of pro-Kremlin blogs and websites
disseminate multiple stories every day that cast the NATO
military alliance in a bad light."
The CBC linked to a local news report referencing a
parliamentary debate on whether NATO soldiers would be travelling
through the country with live weapons, and under what conditions
they would be permitted to discharge their weapons, as an example
of this "anti-NATO news" and "anti-Canadian propaganda."
Scope of Canadian Mission in Ukraine Expanded
Canada is stepping up its illegal military intervention
the Ukrainian civil war and its troops are now permitted to
deploy in any part of the country, the Canadian Press reported on
June 14. In an interview, the mission commander Lt.-Col. Mark
Lubiniecki stated that restrictions keeping Canadian soldiers in
the western half of the country were removed when the mission was
extended in March. Lubiniecki said Canadian soldiers must keep a
certain distance from the Russian border, but would not reveal
News reports failed to mention that Canada's military
deployment is in violation of the 2015 Minsk ceasefire agreement
and subsequent Minsk II agreement which bar foreign troops from
taking part in the conflict. Despite the clear violation Canada,
the U.S. and Britain continued to send troops after the
agreements had gone into effect.
Canadian troops are in
Ukraine for Operation UNIFIER,
the Department of National Defence says is "to support Ukrainian
armed forces in Ukraine. The operation's focus is to assist them
with military training. This will help them improve and build
their military capacity. The CAF coordinates its training with
training by the U.S. and other countries that help in the same
way. Military training is one part of Canada's overall support to
Ukraine." Within the "Ukrainian armed forces" are not only
regular forces which have been depleted by desertions and low
morale since the 2014 U.S.-backed Ukrainian coup, but a "National
Guard" made up of fascist paramilitary groups formed after the
coup to suppress the people's resistance. They have been widely
accused of terrible crimes against the people and war crimes,
particularly targeting so-called pro-Russian Ukrainians,
communists and those opposing the coup government. Since the
coup, Canada has provided $700 million to Ukraine including for
The coup in January 2014 and subsequent civil war have
more than 10,000 lives and displaced millions. More than a
million have become internally displaced persons while nearly two
million are refugees in Russia. Canada joined the war following
the U.S. in support of the coup regime based in Kiev, which is
fighting and imposing a blockade against the Donbass region that
has proclaimed its own republics which seek autonomous status and
protection of their rights.
Canada's increased footprint in Ukraine comes as part
Liberals' stated aim for Canada to exercise "global leadership"
including the justifications that Canada must spend tens of
billions of dollars on military funding in the name of bringing
itself up to par with demands from the aggressive NATO military
alliance for massive increases to military spending. While troop
numbers for Operation Unifier have not been increased at this
time, Canada is sending troops to Latvia with the same aim as
Operation UNIFIER -- the encirclement and isolation of Russia,
justified on the basis of disinformation about "Russian
What is the Trudeau
up to with the surprise
announcement that soldiers can be deployed throughout Ukraine? As in
Iraq, Canada officially declares it is not part of a
combat mission in Ukraine. In the case of Iraq this has been shown to
be a lie time and
time again and furthermore covers up the aggressive aim of both
missions. Canadians should demand answers about the Trudeau
government's unacceptable escalation of Canada's role in
imperialist intervention in Ukraine.
TML Weekly is providing below a Supplement on
in the internal affairs of Ukraine and its people. Far from being a new
development since the
crisis in that country became acute with the decision of foreign powers
to overthrow its
elected government in 2013/2014, Canada's intervention is longstanding,
unprecedented. The anti-people aims of this intervention underscore the
urgent necessity for
Canadians to step up the work to make Canada a zone for peace and
organize an anti-war
TML Weekly thanks Tony Seed for his contribution
in researching, compiling
and preparing this material as well as for his insights. The material
has been further
enriched using files from Bill Shpikula and the Hardial Bains Resource
publication and dissemination of this important information aims to
contribute to giving
expression to the Canadian people's aspiration for their country to
contribute to peace and
security on a world scale, not war preparations and imperialist
Big Powers Collude and Contend for
Control of Europe
G7 Summit Takes Up Imperialist Foreign
Mass action against G7 meeting in Taormina, Sicily,
2017. Banner reads in part, "Sicily marching against the world's
On May 26 and 27, heads of state and government of the
countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom
and United States, plus the European Union) met in Sicily for the
2017 G7 Leaders' Summit. According to the Final Communique, the
meeting hoped to "send a message of confidence in the future,
ensuring that citizens' needs are at the center of our policies."
Contradicting the pretence of "citizen-centred policies,"
thousands protested outside the meeting to denounce the G7 member
states, highlighting in particular their responsibility for the refugee
war and insecurity around the world.
The meeting resulted in
statements, while various private meetings between heads of state
and government took place on the sidelines.
The statements released were:
- On the fight against terrorism and violent
- A "People-Centered Action Plan on
Innovation, Skills and Labor;" and
- A "Roadmap for a
Gender-Responsive Economic Environment."
A major focus of the Leaders' Communique was U.S.
foreign policy preoccupations. The Communique began with a
commitment to "strengthening a rules-based international order
that promotes peace among nations, safeguards sovereignty,
territorial integrity and political independence of all states
and ensures the protection of human rights."
The Leaders' Communique casts blame upon the Syrian
government, Russia and Iran for the conflict in Syria and calls
for Russia and Iran to "stop this tragedy." It threatens the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which it labels "a top
priority in the international agenda [that] increasingly poses
new levels of threat of a grave nature to international peace and
stability and the non-proliferation regime through its repeated
and ongoing breaches of international law." The statement also
blames Russia for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and commends
the coup regime in Ukraine for its progress in an "ambitious and
yet necessary reform agenda."
Coming days before the U.S. announced its withdrawal
Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Leaders' Communique stated,
"The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its
policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement [on
greenhouse gas emissions] and thus is not in a position to join
the consensus on these topics. Understanding this process, the
heads of state and of government of Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom and the presidents of the
European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their
strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement."
The communique on terrorism and extremism emphasized
over the internet, including removal of so-called extremist
messages. It stated, "We encourage industry to act urgently in
developing and sharing new technology and tools to improve the
automatic detection of content promoting incitement to violence,
and we commit to supporting industry efforts in this vein,
including the proposed industry-led forum for combatting online
"We will support the promotion of alternative and
narratives rooted in our common values and with due respect to
the principle of freedom of expression," the final communique
said. It noted that the G7 countries "agree to task our Interior
Ministers to meet, as soon as possible, to focus on implementation of
the [commitments contained in the communique] and to work collectively
with the private sector and civil society to defeat terrorism."
Canada will host the 2018 G7 Leaders Summit in
Quebec at the Fairmont Le Manoir Richelieu, with the dates to be
Leaders' Communique also speaks about the "Global Economy" and
achieving "sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth." It states
that, "inequalities -- not just in income, but in all their
forms -- represent a major source of concern" that "undermines
confidence and limits future growth potential." It states that
"free, fair and mutually beneficial trade and investment, while
creating reciprocal benefits, are key engines for growth and job
creation" and commits to "keep our markets open and to fight
protectionism." The statement calls "for the removal of all
trade-distorting practices -- including dumping, discriminatory
non-tariff barriers, forced technology transfers, subsidies and
other support by governments and related institutions that
distort markets -- so as to foster a truly level playing field."
It further welcomes "the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity,
established by the G20 and facilitated by the OECD, and urges all
Members to promptly deliver on effective policy solutions that
enhance market function and adjustment in order to address the
root causes of global steel excess capacity."
Rivalry Between U.S. and Germany Deepens
February 18, 2017 protest against Munich Security Conference
Instead of NATO -- No to War!" (V.K.
Recent meetings of the big powers in Europe brought to
further contradictions between the U.S. and Germany over who will
control Europe. This inter-imperialist rivalry has expressed
itself in the form of Germany striving to become "torchbearer of
the west" in the face of a U.S. that has allegedly turned away
from "moral and political leadership."
In line with this effort to assert its hegemony in
Germany is increasing the size of its armed forces, increasing
military spending and has brought under its direct military
command brigades from the Netherlands, Czech Republic and
Romanian armed forces in preparation for a German-led European
military union. According to reports, Germany is also negotiating
with France to exercise control over the French nuclear
To the acclaim of the German ruling elite, Chancellor
Merkel has begun to more forcefully assert this German aspiration
to supplant the U.S. in Europe.
Following the NATO and G7 meetings, German Chancellor
announced at a May 28 campaign event in Bavaria, "The times in
which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have
experienced in the past few days. We Europeans must really take
our destiny in our own hands. Of course we need to have friendly
relations with the U.S. and with the UK and with other
neighbours, including Russia. We have to know that we must fight
for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans."
Merkel further called the G7 discussion with Trump on
change "very unsatisfactory." Merkel said, "Here we have a
situation that six members, or seven if you want to add in the
[European Union], stand against one." According to media reports,
in the discussions between G7 leaders, Merkel told Trump, "If the
world's largest economic power were to pull out, the field would
be left to the Chinese." Shortly after, Trump announced that the
U.S. will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Guy Verhofstadt, a Belgian member of the European Union
Parliament, who is in charge of negotiations with Britain concerning
exit from the EU, said following Merkel's remarks, "It's now time for
EU to reinvent itself and move forward."
While in Europe, U.S. President Trump criticized
trade surplus with the U.S. and threatened to block the import of
German cars. This merely highlighted the irrational statements
that are made, because U.S. and German car companies have in a
number of cases merged. For instance, German auto manufacturers
Opel and Ford-Werke are both U.S.-owned. To harm one is to harm
the other. Despite this, Gary Cohn, the White House's chief
economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council,
said of Trump's comments about Germany's trade surplus, "We do to
you what you do to us."
Merkel's comments about the need for Germany to exercise
"European" leadership echo those of other German elites, foreign
policy think-tanks and the Munich Security Conference in February
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble on June 20
added that "If the United States is starting to take a skeptical view
of its role as the guardian of global order... I would see this as a
call to action directed at Europe, including Germany." Schaeuble warned
of Russia and China being "given a free hand to dominate the spheres of
influence that they have defined for themselves" and said that Europe
and Germany must prevent this "end of our liberal world order."
Weekly, February 25, 2017.
New European Union Measures to
Expand Military Integration
Commission proposals for further EU military integrations. The summit
declaration endorsed proposals for joint financing for research and
development in Europe's arms industries and to work out financing
details for joint military battle groups, among other things. With
Britain -- which opposed a defence union -- leaving the European Union,
Germany, and to a lesser extent France, see the time as ripe for
consolidating a military union under the leadership of the biggest
European powers. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on June 13, "It
must be our goal to develop common, pan-European capabilities" and
announced that she is working with French President Emmanuel Macron to
by the EU
along including new funding for the EU-based arms monopolies. On June
7, the European Commission, the 28-member Cabinet of the European
Union, launched a 5.5 billion euros (CAD$8.29 billion) per year
European Defence Fund to "coordinate, supplement and amplify national
investments in defence research, in the development of prototypes and
in the acquisition of defence equipment and technology."
of EU member states, adopted a decision to create a Military
Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) body within the EU Military
Staff. The MPCC will "assume command of EU non-executive military
missions" which currently comprise several training missions in African
countries. The European Commission informs that the MPCC will be the
"static, out-of-area command and control structure at the military
strategic level, responsible for the operational planning and conduct
of non-executive missions, including the building up, launching,
sustaining and recovery of European Union forces."
steps in forming a European security and defence union under the
slogan, "A Europe that Defends and Protects." European Commission
President Jean-Claude Juncker declared, "The protection of Europe can
no longer be outsourced. Even our biggest military powers -- and I
could count them on one, maximum two, fingers -- cannot combat all the
challenges and threats alone." Juncker said that the need for European
military integration and rearmament is not a consequence of the Trump
administration, but that "Over the past decade it has become crystal
clear that our American partners consider that they are shouldering too
much of the burden for their wealthy European allies. We have no other
choice than to defend our own interests in the Middle East, in climate
change, in our trade agreements."
Vice-President for Jobs, Growth,
Investment and Competitiveness Jyrki Katainen stated, "In today's
world, a strong NATO and a strong EU are more important than they
ever have been before. Without duplicating what already exists,
Europe needs to take its security and defence into its own hands
in order to be a stronger partner to our allies."
In preparation for the June 9 meeting, the European
issued a report authored by Katainen, the former Prime Minister
of Finland and Federica Mogherini, Vice-President of the European
Commission / High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs
and Security Policy, and a former Italian Minister of Foreign
Affairs. The Reflection Paper on the Future of European
Defence states, "An unprecedented momentum is currently
drawing the EU and NATO closer together." It outlines "different
scenarios of possible futures for European security and defence
by 2025, and maps our possible ways forward."
The Reflection Paper
provides various poll results and
statistics in a manner that presents the creation of a European
military bloc as responding to citizens' needs and aspirations.
It notes that total European military spending is 227 billion
euros ($342 billion) versus 545 billion euros ($823 billion) by
the U.S., and that these figures amount to only 1.34 per cent of
EU gross domestic product versus 3.3 per cent of U.S. GDP. EU
member countries have approximately 1.8 million active military
personnel compared to 1.4 million from the U.S.
Speaking on June 9, European Commission President
noted that European Union members spend only $30,000 per soldier
versus more than $120,000 per soldier for the U.S. "No wonder
then that less than three per cent of European troops are
deployable at this very moment. That shows that we need to invest
more, and invest in a more efficient way," Juncker said.
The Reflection Paper
sets out three possible scenarios
EU defence union.
1. Security and Defence Cooperation
This scenario envisages an informal but deepening
cooperation in military affairs among EU member states, with the EU
able to "deploy civilian missions and relatively small-scale military
missions and operations aimed at crisis management." NATO would remain
the primary military organization and "where both the EU and NATO are
present, NATO would continue to rely on the deeper military
capabilities at its disposal, whereas the EU would exploit its broader
toolbox and link up its 'softer' tools, instruments and actions to its
targeted military missions and operations."
2. Shared Security and Defence
EU member states would "show far greater financial and
operational solidarity in the field of defence, building on a
broader and deeper understanding of respective threat perceptions
and convergence of strategic cultures." This would enhance the EU
ability to "project military power and engage fully in external
crisis management and in building partners' security and defence
capabilities." The EU and NATO would "systematically cooperate
and coordinate in mobilising the full range of their respective
tools and instruments." Whereas NATO would be the main
organization to mobilize in response to "collective defence"
issues among NATO members, the EU would "take more decisive
action in dealing with threats and challenges falling below
For the EU to be able to take on this new military role,
"Decision-making would become quicker and would match the speed
of the rapidly changing strategic context. The EU would
ultimately become a stronger and more responsive security
provider, with the strategic autonomy to act alone or alongside
its core partners." The just-launched European Defence Fund is
portrayed as the spearhead of increasing EU military
3. Common Defence and Security
In this scenario, "Solidarity and mutual assistance
Member States in security and defence would become the norm,
building on the full exploitation of Article 42 of the Treaty on
European Union which includes the progressive framing of a common
Union defence policy, leading to common defence."
NATO and the EU would then stand on equal footing. The
"protection of Europe" would "become a mutually reinforcing
responsibility of the EU and NATO. Complementing NATO, Europe's
Common Security and Defence would enhance Europe's resilience and
protect against different forms of aggression against the Union,
as well as provide the reassurance our citizens expect."
In the "Common Defence and Security" scenario, the EU
"run high-end operations to better protect Europe." "Threat
assessment" and "contingency planning" would be carried out at
the EU level. This would be "underpinned by a greater level of
integration of Member States' defence forces..." EU armed forces
would be "pre-positioned" and "made permanently available for
rapid deployment on behalf of the Union." This would also "be
underpinned by a genuine European defence market, with a European
mechanism to monitor and protect key strategic activities from
hostile external takeovers."
The EU Commission Reflection Paper presents
options as a matter of how quickly EU member states "want to
build a genuine European Security and Defence Union" and to what
extent they are "willing to anticipate rather than to react to
the strategic context."
In conclusion, the EU Commission paper states, "The
the European Union as a peace project for generations to come now
rests also on the foundation of a Security and Defence Union:
looking at 2025, Member States will decide the path and speed
they want to go to protect our citizens."
Results of French Elections
Macron's Weak Mandate Presented as a Ringing
the French People
Parliamentary elections were held in France between June
11-18 to elect 577 members to the National Assembly for a
five-year term. The election results, announced by France's
Ministry of the Interior on June 19, reveal that 27,127,488
registered voters abstained from casting a ballot. This
represents an abstention rate of 56.36 per cent, the highest ever
in parliamentary elections of the Fifth Republic.
The distribution of seats in the new National Assembly
- Macron's La République en marche! has 306
seats, with 16.55
per cent of registered voters. This is a far cry from the "major
endorsement of Emmanuel Macron and his movement" touted by the
ruling circles and their media. (During the first round of
presidential elections, Macron garnered the support of 18.19 per cent
of registered voters).
- The MoDem (Mouvement démocrate), the centrist
with Macron, has 42 seats, with 2.33 per cent of the registered
- Les Républicains have 112 seats, with 8.54 per
cent of the
- The Parti socialiste has 30 seats.
- Jean-Luc Mélenchon's party, La France
insoumise, has 17
- Le Front national of Marine Le Pen has 8 seats.
Why, despite the strong abstention rate, are the results
presented as an endorsement of Emmanuel Macron by the people of
France? What they actually show is the demise of the illusion
maintained by the ruling circles and their media that Macron
would "get France out of the old politics" with his "civil
society-based movement," defined as "everything that transcends
Just days before the first round, following a June 7
of Ministers meeting, Macron defined what was at stake during the
elections, declaring that in order to ensure an absolute
majority for his government and La République en marche!, "the
French have a simple answer to give to a simple question. The
question is: stop, or go forward [and] whether we want action or
What Macron means by "action versus impotence" is to
declare the inevitability of the perpetuation of human rights
violations, the constitutional enshrinement of the state of emergency
and the strengthening of police powers. This also means the
intensification of the
neo-liberal agenda, which has deepened the crisis in which the
French nation-state is mired, as well as rule by decree. It also
signifies the continuation of the warmongering and adventurist
policies of France within NATO, the European Union in Sub-Saharan
Africa and the Middle East.
The new legislature opens on June 27, following the
of the new President of the National Assembly. The first measures
that Macron and his government will carry out will be to impose
on the National Assembly the extension of the state of emergency
and its enshrinement in the constitution, as well as rule by
decree in order to pass their neo-liberal legislation, in
particular the Labour Law. This anti-worker law will serve to
criminalize the demands of the workers for the affirmation of
their rights. The majority of the French people did not vote for
Demolition of Anti-Fascist Memorials in
Polish Ruling Class Falsifications About
Country's Liberation from Nazi Rule
Monument in Rzeszow celebrating the liberation of the city from the
Nazis. In 2016 the city rejected calls from Poland’s historical legacy
institute to remove such memorials.
On June 22, 2017, the Polish government's lower house
to amend the "decommunization laws" to demolish all monuments and
memorials honouring the Soviet Union's liberation of Poland from
the Nazis. The fact that the amendments were passed on the 76th
anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union would appear
to be no accident. The majority of parties of the Polish
parliament endorsed the amendments in the first and second
readings. A total of 408 MPs voted yes, seven said no, and
another 15 abstained. The war against monuments is
clearly aimed at trying to erase from the Polish people's memory
the fact that the Red Army and their own patriots, many of whom
were communists, saved them from total annihilation by
Hitler's Nazis. But facts are stubborn things and the facts of
history do not change despite the efforts of the modern day
falsifiers of history.
So what are the facts about the liberation of Poland?
AM on September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in a massive
assault. Hitler's Wehrmacht of 1,850,000 troops, 3,200 tanks,
2,000 combat aircraft, and 11 warships -- over two-thirds of Germany's
entire combat force -- destroyed the Polish state and massacred the
Polish people. Behind the
Wehrmacht followed Himmler's
S.S. Einsatzgruppen, killing squads specialized in mass murder.
The Polish people were greatly outnumbered but fought back
bravely. The leaders of Poland fled to Rumania on September 17
but the Polish people's spirit of resistance remained strong.
Many Poles fought courageously in the communist-led underground
Resistance. Poles formed their own patriotic Polish divisions and
fought alongside the Red Army against the Nazis all the way to
Gravestones with red stars in Polish cemetery honour the Red Army
soldiers who died in the
liberation of Poland.
Against Poland, the Nazis perpetrated one of the worst
crimes history has ever known. Poland suffered the largest number of
casualties per population of any European country. A total of about 6
million people were killed. Direct extermination by mass murder, death
camps, and so on took some 4,450,000 Polish lives including 2,700,000
Polish Jews exterminated; 2,000,000 children and youth were murdered;
more than 50,000 Roma were exterminated; some 12,000 mentally
handicapped people were murdered; and thousands of Polish prisoners of
war, soldiers, and officers were systematically shot.
Some 40,000 Polish intellectuals, political
and other leaders were shot by the S.S. within the first six
weeks of the Nazi occupation. Beginning in May 1939, Nazi
Operation Tannenberg, which was part of Hitler's Generalplan Ost
(Masterplan East), had already identified and listed more than
61,000 Polish activists, intelligentsia, scholars, former
officers, and others, who were to be interned or shot, mainly by
the S.S. Einzatsgruppen. The murder of 5,000-6,000 Poles in
Fordon, Bydgoszcz in October-November 1939 is just one example of
the many executions the S.S. and the Wehrmacht carried out.
Another example is the murder of the 4,143 Polish officers found
buried in Katyn Forest.
Monument in Warsaw honours the fighting unity of the Red Army and the
Polish Army in defeating the Nazis and liberating Poland.
The Soviet Army marched into the territory of Poland on
September 17, only after the Polish state had collapsed, the
Polish army had disintegrated, the government had ceased to
function, and its leaders had fled. Further, the part of Poland
the Soviet Union marched into was the territories of the Ukraine
and Byelorussia that Poland had forcibly annexed from the Soviet
Union during the Polish-Russian War of 1919-20, when Poland was
one of the 14 invading imperialist countries that attempted but
failed to strangle the newborn Soviet socialist republic. Only about eight per cent of the people
in the Ukraine and Byelorussia were of Polish origin. "As a result of
the Soviet Union's timely entry into what had been territories of the
Polish State, Hitler was forced to accept a line of demarcation between
his troops and the Red Army. [...] [The] Red Army saved millions of
people inhabiting those areas, from suffering the fate which Hitler
reserved for the rest of the Polish people."
Even the arch-reactionary Winston
justified the Soviet march into eastern Poland.
Today, the modern-day Hitlerites, including the rulers
Poland, masquerading as democrats, continue to spread the vicious
lies that "both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland"
and that "Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union secretly conspired to
divide Poland between them." These lies, meant to equate the
Soviet Union with Nazi Germany, were first put forth by Hitler
himself, who referred to "secret protocols" to divide Poland in a
speech where he declared war on the Soviet Union. The "secret
protocols" were resurrected again by the Nazi defendants at
Nuremburg where the Presidium threw them out as a forgery. It was
only when the U.S. took up the mantle of Hitlerism after the
Second World War and became the modern day master of Goebbels'
big lie technique that Hitler's concoction about "secret
protocols" became a so-called historical fact.
The real historical facts clarify why Hitler attacked
Poland. In 1939 Poland was an imperialist country created by Britain
and France through the 1919 Versailles Treaty. One of Poland's aims
"was to add the rich agricultural regions of the Ukraine to Polish
territory and extend Polish territory [...] from the Baltic Sea to the
Black Sea. [...] The Polish landlords and bourgeoisie dreamed of
restoring the Polish empire of medieval times."
Financed and armed by the
British and French monopolies who wanted to regain their lost
profits and privileges, the
Polish rulers attacked the
Soviet Union in 1918, occupying large parts of the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, and Lithuania. During the following 18 years of
semi-fascist Polish rule, the workers and peasants in those
regions were viciously exploited by the Polish landlords and
As war clouds loomed over Europe, the Polish ruling
considered Britain and France to be their allies and the Soviet
Union their avowed enemy. The Anglo-American and French
imperialists wanted to ensure their own world domination so they
followed the policy of appeasing Hitler and egging him on toward
the East to attack the Soviet Union, rather than organizing
collective security with the Soviet Union. Poland also hoped that
Hitler would go east and attack the Soviet Union, and that Poland
could seize Soviet territory. Thus Poland refused to settle
outstanding border questions so as to make the Soviet defence
line against the Nazis as deep as possible within Soviet
territory and refused the Soviets permission to enter Poland to
stop the Nazi advance. Instead of taking all measures necessary
to defend against the impending Nazi invasion, the Polish rulers
wanted to manoeuvre for advantages for themselves.
In attacking Poland, Hitler was both taking up the
Anglo-American policy of going east and implementing his own
plan, outlined in Mein Kampf,
to increase Germany's "living
space" (lebensraum) by taking
over the Ukraine as part of his
plan to enslave the entire world. Hitler made his barbaric
intentions toward Poland very clear. Only ten days before the
attack, Hitler in his Obersalzburg speech instructed his generals
to "send to death mercilessly and without compassion men, women,
and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall
we gain the living space (lebensraum)
need." Tragically, in
paid very dearly for its own imperialist ambitions and its
rejection of Soviet assistance.
Polish people warmly great the soldiers of the Red Army and Polish army
their city in 1945.
Today, the reactionary Polish ruling circles continue
spread the same lies that the Nazis did and try to throw mud on
the wartime exploits of the Soviet Union. On September 1, 2009,
Polish President Lech Kaczynski called for "glory to all the
soldiers who fought in World War Two against German Nazism and
Bolshevik totalitarianism." Soon after, the April 10, 2010 crash
of a Polish airliner near Smolensk, in which Kaczynski and 95
others died, was used by the Polish rulers and others around the
world to resurrect the old lie that the Soviet Union and not the
Nazis committed the wartime Katyn Forest Massacre. Such
deliberate falsification ignores the fact that it was the Nazis
who killed 6 million Poles and that it was the Red Army, together
with a Polish Army, that finally liberated Poland from the Nazi
occupiers and returned to the Polish people the lost land in the
West formerly taken by the Nazis.
1. Much of the German military
equipment used in the invasion was built by U.S.-owned companies
such as Ford, General Motors, and Focke Wulfe (I.T.& T.)
2. An estimated 7 million Russian men,
women, and children were killed during the 1918 invasion.
3. See Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the
World War, Toronto: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin
4. Poland had already concluded a
non-aggression pact with Germany in January 1934, the first state
to form such an alliance with the Nazi administration.
5. See Hardial Bains, Causes and Lessons of the
World War, Toronto: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin
6. These included oil giant Royal Dutch
Shell, the Metro-Vickers arms trust, and the big banking houses
such as Baring, Hambros, and Credit Lyonnais. Soon-to-be U.S.
president Herbert Hoover also had large investments in Czarist
7. See E.L. Woodward, E. L. and Riftlep, Rohan (eds.), Documents
series. London: HMSO. 7:258-260, 1954.
Following its July 1 edition, TML Weekly will
publish irregularly until
September. In the meantime, due to the amount of material to cover and
the speed of
developments, TML Daily will also be published. Readers,
supporters and contributors
are encouraged to continue sending views, reports and photos.
Readers are also encouraged to support the publication
of TML Weekly
by making a
financial contribution to the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada and
by continuing the
work to sign up subscribers and new readers.*
- TML Weekly
Editorial and Technical Staff
* To donate by
mail, send cheque or money order payable
MLPC. Send to: P.O. Box 666, Postal Station C, Montreal, Quebec
H2L 4L5. Please include full name and address for contributions
over $20, as the MLPC will issue a tax receipt. The maximum
contribution to a registered political party permitted by law in
2017 is $1,550.00.
ISSUES | HOME