June 24, 2017 - No. 23

Canadian Forces Mobilized for Aggressive War and Occupation

Condemn Canada's Participation in
U.S. Threats Against Korea!

Trudeau Government's Support for New U.S. Aggression in Syria
Canadian Soldiers Arrive in Latvia for Aggressive NATO Mission
Scope of Canadian Mission in Ukraine Expanded

Big Powers Collude and Contend for Control of Europe
G7 Summit Takes Up Imperialist Foreign Policy Concerns 
Rivalry Between U.S. and Germany Deepens
New European Union Measures to Expand Military Integration

Results of French Elections
Macron's Weak Mandate Presented as a Ringing Endorsement
by the French People

- Christian Legeais -

Demolition of Anti-Fascist Memorials in Poland
Polish Ruling Class Falsifications About Country's
Liberation from Nazi Rule

- Dougal MacDonald -

Readers Note

Canada's Unacceptable Mission in Ukraine

Longstanding, Far-Ranging and Unprecedented Intervention

Canadian Forces Mobilized for Aggressive War and Occupation

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) condemns the deployment of Canadian warships to the illegitimate U.S./south Korean naval base on U.S.-occupied Jeju Island to participate in aggressive 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 U.S./south Korean naval base on Jeju Island, Korea. They join the USS Dewey, a U.S. destroyer equipped with a ballistic missile 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 the 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 in 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 its 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 location of 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 on March 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 Island Uprising.

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
not informed, despite being responsible for ensuring that no foreign organisms are
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 capacity 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 independent
reunification of Korea.

(With files from Hankyoreh, TML. Photos: TML, D.H. Song, E. Pang, H.Y. Choi.)

Haut de


Trudeau Government's Support for New
U.S. Aggression in Syria

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) condemns 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 its 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 the 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 provocative 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 heavy weaponry.

Meanwhile Prime Minister Trudeau issued a statement on June 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 crisis 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 sanctimonious 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 Affairs!
Hands Off Syria!
Get Canada's Military Out of the Middle East!

Haut de


Canadian Soldiers Arrive in Latvia for
Aggressive NATO Mission

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 with 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 Russia, 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 locals in 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 actions."

A subsequent CBC article June 16 on "Anti-Canada propaganda" 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 Latvian 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."

Haut de


Scope of Canadian Mission in Ukraine Expanded

Canada is stepping up its illegal military intervention in 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 how far.

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, which 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 military equipment.

The coup in January 2014 and subsequent civil war have taken 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 of the 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 aggression."

What is the Trudeau government 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 Canada's longstanding interference 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, far-ranging and 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 government.

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 Centre. The 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 adventures.

Haut de


Big Powers Collude and Contend for Control of Europe

G7 Summit Takes Up Imperialist Foreign
Policy Concerns 

Mass action against G7 meeting in Taormina, Sicily, May 27, 2017. Banner reads in part, "Sicily marching against the world's powerful."

On May 26 and 27, heads of state and government of the G7 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 crises, poverty, war and insecurity around the world.

The meeting resulted in four official 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 extremism; 

- A Leaders' Communique; 

- 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. imperialist 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."[1]

Coming days before the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the 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 control 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 extremism."

"We will support the promotion of alternative and positive 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 Charlevoix, Quebec at the Fairmont Le Manoir Richelieu, with the dates to be determined.


1. The 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."

(Photos: Centre Sociale Liotru, Sapienza Clandestina, Radio Ondad Urto, il Turpiloquio)

Haut de


Rivalry Between U.S. and Germany Deepens

Banner at February 18, 2017 protest against Munich Security Conference reads "Peace
Instead of NATO -- No to War!" (V.K. Wurzburg)

Recent meetings of the big powers in Europe brought to light 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 Europe, 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 arsenal.

To the acclaim of the German ruling elite, Chancellor Angela 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 Merkel 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 climate 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 its 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 Germany's 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 2017.[1]

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."


1. See TML Weekly, February 25, 2017.

(With files from german-foreign-policy.com)

Haut de


New European Union Measures to
Expand Military Integration

A European Union leaders' summit on June 22 and 23 endorsed European 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 do so.

In advance of the summit, several new initiatives were announced 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."

The next day, the European Council, comprised of the heads of state or government 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."

EU leaders then met in Prague, Czech Republic on June 9 to debate the next 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."

EU Commission 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 Commission 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 Juncker 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 for an 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 [that] threshold."

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 capacity.

3. Common Defence and Security

In this scenario, "Solidarity and mutual assistance between 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 would "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 these three 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 future of 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."

Haut de


Results of French Elections

Macron's Weak Mandate Presented as a Ringing Endorsement by 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 is as follows:

- 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 party allied with Macron, has 42 seats, with 2.33 per cent of the registered vote.

- Les Républicains have 112 seats, with 8.54 per cent of the registered vote.

- The Parti socialiste has 30 seats.

- Jean-Luc Mélenchon's party, La France insoumise, has 17 seats.

- 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 parties."

Just days before the first round, following a June 7 Council 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 impotence?"

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 election 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 that.

Haut de


Demolition of Anti-Fascist Memorials in Poland

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 voted 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? At 4:15 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[1]. 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 Berlin.

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 personalities, 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.[2] 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."[3] Even the arch-reactionary Winston Churchill publicly justified the Soviet march into eastern Poland.

Today, the modern-day Hitlerites, including the rulers of 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.[4]

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."[5] Financed and armed by the British and French monopolies who wanted to regain their lost profits and privileges,[6] 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 industrialists.

As war clouds loomed over Europe, the Polish ruling circles 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) which we need."[7 Tragically, in the end, Poland 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 liberating
their city in 1945.

Today, the reactionary Polish ruling circles continue to 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 Second World War, Toronto: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Institute, 1990.

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 Second World War, Toronto: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Institute, 1990.

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 Russia.

7. See E.L. Woodward, E. L. and Riftlep, Rohan (eds.), Documents on British Foreign Policy: 1919-1939, 3rd series. London: HMSO. 7:258-260, 1954.

Haut de


Readers Note

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 to: 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.

Haut de



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