June 9, 2018 - No. 22
The G7 Does Not
June 7 Unity March
in Quebec City
Presence at G7
• Citizens of La Malbaie Say NO! to
The Irrationality of
Steel and Aluminum Tariffs
• Failure of G7 Seen in
- K.C. Adams -
Opposition to Trudeau
Government's Bailout of Kinder Morgan
• National Day of Action at MPs'
Participation in NATO War Exercises
• Make Canada a Zone for Peace
- Yi Nicholls -
General Assembly of Organization of American
• U.S. Fails Again in Attempt to
18th Anniversary of
15 North-South Joint Declaration
• Conferences for Peace on the
• DPRK's Northern Nuclear Test Site
• Statement of Unity by Korean
Americans and Allies
on Historic Inter-Korean Summit and Upcoming
74th Anniversary of
• The Landing at Normandy
- Hilary LeBlanc -
• Normandy Landing and the Re-Writing of
- François Lazure -
The G7 Does Not Represent Us!
June 7 Unity March in Quebec City
The evening of June 7 on the eve of the G7 Summit in
La Malbaie, several hundred people took to the streets of Quebec City
to firmly declare that
the G7 does not represent us. The action was organized by the
Anti-G7 Resistance Network, the Regroupement d'éducation
populaire en action communautaire des regions de Québec et
(RÉPAC), the Comité populaire Saint-Jean-Baptiste,
Eau Secours and Ni Québec, ni Canada: projet anticolonial.
These community groups defend the most vulnerable from the anti-social
austerity agenda, including people on welfare and the
working poor; defend immigrants and refugees, demanding legal status
for all and opposing deportations; fight for social housing, the
environment and stand with Indigenous peoples.
The theme running through
all the interventions and the demonstration was that the G7 does
not represent us; it represents capitalism and its most
oppressive, colonialist and militarist features, under the cover of
pretty phrases. "With the G7, the militarists speak of
peace, the misogynists speak of women's equality, and the
capitalists speak of the environment," said a representative of
the Anti-G7 Resistance Network.
The RÉPAC representative said that this action
together people from all walks of life, active on various
fronts, who came to deliver a message of unity against the G7. She
said that people are refusing to gather in what the ruling elite
and its police forces have decreed the "free expression" space, a
fenced-in area at La Malbaie. She said that people are going to
protest in the streets, in full view of everyone.
An Innu activist then welcomed everyone to what she
Innu, Algonquin, Cree, Atikamekw and other lands known as Quebec.
She said the G7 is pursuing the colonialist and genocidal
undertaking against Indigenous peoples that has been ongoing since
colonization. She specifically denounced the "strategy of
extinguishing Aboriginal hereditary rights and Aboriginal title"
that is being pursued today. She said that from missionary times, to
Indian reserves, to today's reconciliation, it is the goals
of the colonizers that are served, to the detriment of Indigenous
peoples' hereditary and treaty rights and at the expense of
Mother Earth. She denounced
the efforts of the G7 countries to take over even more Indigenous
territories by buying off Indigenous leaders and making them believe
that First Nations' place is at the table,
while their peoples' rights are being suppressed.
A representative of the Anti-G7 Resistance Network
briefly with the five themes proposed by the
Trudeau government for the G7 Summit, highlighting the blatant
contradiction between the nice sounding phrases and what is
actually going on. With respect to the Trudeau government's claim
that the G7 is "building a more peaceful and secure world," he pointed
out that people in their millions are being forced out of
their homes and countries by the wars in which the G7 countries
are involved and then deprived of rights when the G7
countries receive them as refugees and immigrants. He denounced
the arms sales by G7 countries around the world as a way of making
private investments secure.
Other speakers also addressed how the G7 does not
Participants then marched through
very busy streets of downtown Quebec City. Passers-by waved in
support of the action while some people on their balconies banged pots
and pans, a reminder of the students' militant struggle in 2012. At one
point, in front of a federal
government building, federal public servants, members of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada, walked out with their flags and
signs in support of the demonstrators. For about an hour and a
half, the marchers chanted slogans against the G7, capitalism and
colonialism, the omnipresent police deployment in the
city, deportations and
other attacks on the people and called for status for all.
Police were everywhere, heavily armed and in
riot gear, often with dogs, looking like the Robocop of U.S.
movies. Some followed the protesters while others were stationed
in front of official buildings. At least three arrests were made
during the protest, according to media reports the following
day for "uttering threats," although what the protesters saw with
their own eyes were young people being kidnapped from the
demonstration, grabbed by the police and forced into police
cars. The protesters vigorously denounced the arrests but made
sure they stayed together as a group and continued the march.
NORAD's Presence at G7
Radio-Canada announced June 3 that NORAD had set up two
military camps to carry out radar aerial
surveillance. One camp is located at
Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and the other in
Mayor Gervais Darais had this to say
about the military: "They do not identify themselves, they have
had no contact with the municipality. The only contact we had
with them was last March, when they asked us to open up the
seasonal road leading to the site."
The mayor of Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies said that around a
U.S. and Canadian soldiers have been deployed to the community. The
rented land to the military for $1,000 per day.
Both municipalities are located on the south shore of
St. Lawrence River.
Citizens of La Malbaie Say NO! to G7
La Malbaie area community groups, including
Centre-Femmes aux Plurielles and Groupe Action Jeunesse de
Charlevoix, organized a march June 3 to oppose the
holding of the G7 Summit in their region. Part of their action included
forming a human chain along the fence surrounding the
"free expression zone."
In an interview, organizers highlighted the importance
action as a means to express their opposition to the
anti-democratic character of the G7, the consequences of the
anti-social policies of G7 member countries for their peoples, as
well as the danger of war they represent. A
representative from Centre-Femmes aux Plurielles also pointed out
that the vast sums of money being injected into the holding of
the G7 for purposes of political repression and to limit the
right to peaceful protest should have been invested in social
During the action, citizens
expressed their anger at the
occupation of their region by heads of state and their police
powers. They noted, in particular, that authorization permits
have been required since Monday, June 4 for 800 residents and
workers from the community's population of 8,000; that farmers are
spreading fertilizer during the Summit, and the all-pervasive police
presence in their streets, waterways and air space.
Speaking about all the measures that have been
taken in the name of security, in particular the huge 3.7
metre-high fence surrounding the Summit area, one participant told the
press: "As day by day, little by little we
saw it being erected, more and more we
feel walled up, cornered, we have no freedom of action [...].
This creates stress, anxiety."
Many organizations and participants said they would
actions in Quebec City to continue to let it be known that the G7
is not welcome in Quebec.
The Irrationality of Steel and Aluminum
Failure of G7 Seen in International Trade Agenda
Commentators have spoken and written reams regarding
President Trump's imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum and his
refusal to sign a new NAFTA deal. This trade agenda is dominating the
G7 Summit with claims that most members are opposed to tariffs and
trade wars and want a rules-based system. All are united, however, when
it comes to the global neo-liberal direction they have set for their
economies and they refuse to admit that the G7 has given rise to
disasters all over the world. G7 leaders and media speak as if the sky
is falling and nothing can be done or understood of Trump's actions.
International trade is made to appear as imponderable and beyond the
grasp of mere mortals.
First, anything is knowable
investigation, discussion and analysis, including the actions of
humans. Humans act according to the social conditions, the level
of the productive forces, their outlook, interests, and the
historical crib into which they are born. Trump acts according to his
social conditions, outlook, private interests, and imperialist
historical crib. His actions appear irrational with regard to
trade because imperialist international trade has descended into
anarchy and chaos, features of irrationality. International trade
is captured within a contradiction. Its present condition demands
cooperation but cut-throat competition between private interests to
dominate the markets and sources of raw materials prevails. However,
irrationality of the conditions, and their descent into chaos and
crisis, meaning can be found, in particular the necessity for
change and how to bring about that change.
Aluminum Imports into U.S. and the 10 Per Cent
The oligarchs in control of the steel and
sectors are global actors with private interests scattered
throughout the world. Oligopolies such as those formed by mining and
aluminum producer Rio Tinto and global aluminum producer Alcoa are
larger than many states in terms of gross income and the new value
their workers produce. The concentration of social wealth and power in
the hands of a few is unlike anything the world has ever seen. Alcoa
has private interests in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere. Although these
giants export aluminum into the U.S. market, they appear to gain from
the Trump 10 per cent tariff, as market prices for the metal have risen
since the tariff became a talking point last January.
The tariff acts similarly to a sales tax on the buyer.
U.S. federal government will receive over $2 billion in tax
revenue annually from the tariff. Generally, the tax is added to
the market price the U.S. consumer must pay. This is particularly
the case with aluminum as current internal U.S. production and
potential for increase are very limited with regard to overall
Trump's remarks that the aluminum tariff is meant to
jobs in the U.S. sector do not appear to have substance. In fact,
they appear irrational. The existing smelter capacity in the U.S.
is incapable of supplying the demand. Rebuilding smelter capacity
would take years to accomplish and may itself be an irrational
response under current conditions. The rise in market prices from
tariffs could possibly allow Alcoa to re-commission several
stalled U.S. aluminum smelters it owns and controls but as yet it
has not made any steps in this regard. The amount of potential
production in the U.S. is not large, and besides, international
production from Alcoa can meet demand and increasing U.S.
production would depress prices. The current higher prices could
stimulate more internal recycling of aluminum but again even that
amount would come nowhere near to meeting current demand without
the global supply from Canada, China, Russia and elsewhere.
The aluminum producers Rio Tinto, Alcoa and Alouette
form the Aluminum Association of Canada. Together, the big three
or rather big two dominate primary aluminum production in Canada.
They have nine plants in Quebec and one in Kitimat, BC with a
total of 8,000 workers. The Aluminerie Alouette Inc. smelter in
Sept-Iles, Quebec alone produces 606,000 metric tonnes a year,
which is only 134,000 tonnes short of the current entire U.S.
primary production of 740,000 tonnes. Rio Tinto owns 40 per cent
of the Alouette smelter. Canadians do not control any of the big
To meet demand, especially for their war economy, U.S.
of aluminum import over 6 million metric tonnes a year. U.S.
manufacturers have greatly benefited from cheaper imported
aluminum. U.S. government 2017 statistics report the main
suppliers as follows (the amounts, in U.S. dollars, include both
recycled aluminum imports):
1. Canada: $8.5 billion
2. China: $3.5 billion (15.1%)
3. Russia: $1.6 billion (7%)
4. United Arab Emirates: $1.5
5. Mexico: $1 billion (4.3%)
6. Bahrain: $621.1
7. Argentina: $570.8 million (2.4%)
$561.7 million (2.4%)
9. India: $484.1 million (2.1%)
Aluminum Association of Canada, along with similar associations
from the U.S., Europe and Japan, held a forum in Montreal June
3-4 prior to the G7 Summit. The apparent goal of those primary
aluminum producers and recyclers was to form a united front
against the competition from Chinese production, which has become
The communiqué from the forum does not mention
Trump tariff but only the need to resist the dominance of Chinese
competitors in the sector. They will present their views and
demands at the G7 Summit and later at the G20 Summit. The forum
did not specify how their members would counter the dominance of
Chinese (and Russian) competitors in the sector or what they
wanted the G7 leaders to do.
Total global production of
aluminum for 2017 = 63,404,000 metric tonnes
Chinese production (estimated) = 35,905,000 metric tonnes
Total North American
production = 3,950,000
Canada produced 3,210,000 metric tonnes
The U.S. produced 740,000
tonnes in 2017 and imported 6,000,000 metric tonnes of both
primary and recycled aluminum.
In 2012, the U.S. produced 2,070,000 metric tonnes.
that productive capacity has been decommissioned, as imported
aluminum from Canada, China and Russia is far more cheaply
produced. The main already-produced value needed for primary
aluminum production is bauxite and electricity. The
transferred-value from electricity forms around one-third of the
final price of production. The price of production of electricity
is much higher in the U.S. than in Canada, China and Russia.
Trump's tariffs on aluminum imports will only make a
dent in the 6 million imported tonnes. Some U.S. production may
come on stream, probably from increased recycling. The biggest
difference will be the higher market price, not only in the U.S.
but worldwide, at least for a time. The higher price is also a
result of the global economic recovery from the 2008 crisis and
the ever-increasing war preparations and global sales of military
planes, missiles, bombs, ships and other means of
Private interests concentrated within global companies
characterized as oligopolies and cartels, such as Rio Tinto and
Alcoa, have become supranational entities. They marshal their
power of privilege, control, social wealth and contacts to
manipulate in their favour the affairs of economies and states.
They confront other private interests in a permanent condition of
competition and collusion. The competition and collusion to serve
their private interests and not the common good reduce all other
considerations to secondary pragmatic issues, only of concern if
they affect their primary aim and motive to expropriate as much
as possible of the new value workers produce.
For example, Rio Tinto together with Alcoa have locked
workers at their jointly owned aluminum smelter in Bécancour,
Quebec to force higher prices in North America and put pressure
on workers and the Quebec government to accept concessions on
terms of employment and the price of electricity. This action
directly contradicts the interests of the working people at the
smelter, in their community and throughout Quebec and Canada.
The entire world is blocked from moving forward. The
of these private interests, these uber rich oligarchs
concentrated in oligopolies and cartels, reduce the working people
to spectators of their own economy, into impotent onlookers of
the affairs that affect their lives. The main business and
actions of states have been reduced to serving the private
interests of competing oligarchs resulting in a continual
condition of civil war for political power and control.
Nothing wrong in itself can
be determined from having an
aluminum sector far beyond the needs of Canadians and geared to
exports. But who made this decision to invest in this way,
including hydroelectric production, to serve the war economy of
the United States, and the reasoning of those in control lie
hidden behind a wall of secrecy of the global cartels. Not even
Canadian managers are in control let alone working people. The
decisions are made elsewhere in secret conclaves of the
oligarchs. For example, the local managers at the Rio Tinto/Alcoa
aluminum smelter in Bécancour, Quebec say they have no mandate
permission from those in control to negotiate and settle with
their locked out workers and Quebec government. The supranational
control and decisions of the oligarchs have surpassed even the
mysteries of state, as the situation degenerates into global
anarchy, recurring crises, constant war and irrationality.
The decisions of Trump, Trudeau and other G7 members on
trade are of this obscurantist nature. They reflect the irrationality
of a world
gone mad in competition to serve powerful private interests in a
race to be first and dominant. Imperialist competition is in
contradiction with the necessity for cooperation to solve the
problems of today's economy and world. The ruling oligarchs and
their mania to serve their private interests and all else be damned is
out of sync with the modern world and its socialized
productive forces. Today's world and its peoples are
interconnected; their economies are interrelated. They need
cooperation for mutual benefit and development to solve their
problems and allow the productive forces of industrial mass
production and social product to reach their full potential to
guarantee the well-being and security of all and not the narrow
private interests of a privileged few. They need the human
factor/social consciousness and empowerment now of the working
people to bring this necessary cooperation and unity into
This world of socialized productive forces has the
capacity to sort out all problems facing humans and the social
and natural environment. What is absent from making it happen? There is
not any attempt to make rational the irrationality of the actions
of the oligopolies and their political servants and states and
their unbridled competition to favour their narrow private
interests. Crucially absent is the empowerment and control of the
actual producers, the working people within the socialized
economy where they work and live. The pro-social aim, outlook and
potential control of the working people are in conformity with
the modern social and productive conditions. They are the
necessary human factor to sort things out. The struggle is
centred on empowering and bringing into being the control and
pro-social aim of the working people.
International trade under the modern productive forces
understandable only within the pro-social outlook, interests, and
social conditions of the actual producers who create the social
wealth and reproduce their own human condition and the socialized
economy. The working people, the mere mortals who are the
essential human factor of the modern world, have to empower
themselves now and emerge from under the suffocating anti-social
control and outlook of the imperialist oligarchs. They have to
become masters of their own thinking, outlook and interests and
extend their control to all the affairs of the economy and state
that affect their lives. This is the only way to make
international trade rational. This is the only way to bring sense
to their lives and open a path forward.
2. Figures from the International
Aluminium Institute. For list of aluminum smelters worldwide click
Opposition to Trudeau Government's
National Day of Action at MPs' Constituency Offices
Vancouver, June 4, 2018.
Broad opposition to the
Trudeau Liberal government's
purchase of Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion
project continues across the country. On June 4, more than 100
protests were held from coast to coast at the constituency offices of
Signs and slogans decried the use
of public funds to bail out a private U.S. oil monopoly, the fact that
Canadians are totally shut out of decision-making on this matter
and that the Trudeau government has reneged on yet another
commitment, in this case that the affected Indigenous peoples are
consulted and give their consent to the project. People
rejected Prime Minister Trudeau's justification that this
pay-the-rich scheme is in the "national interest" and resolutely
opposed such illegitimate decisions being taken in their name.
Copies of a petition opposing the project and the government's
bailout were delivered at these actions as well. More than
250,000 people have signed this petition.
Prince George, BC
Comox Valley, BC
Port Alberni, BC
Victoria, BC, May 31
Maple Ridge, BC
Red Deer, AB
Edmonton, AB, June 5
Prince Albert, SK
North Bay, ON
Canada's Warmongering Participation in
Make Canada a Zone for Peace
The Trudeau government is a war government
its role in the U.S.-led aggressive NATO military alliance occupying
the first half of June it is participating in two war exercises as part
of Operation Reassurance, Canada's contribution to NATO deployments in
supporting the counterrevolutionary
Ukraine. One of these is Summer Shield, taking
in Camp Adazi, Latvia from June 2 to 13 with the Latvian
National Armed Forces.
The other war games, Sabre Strike 18, being held in
Poland and the Baltic states, began on
June 3 and continue to June 15. Sabre Strike 18 is under the
overall command of U.S. Army Europe and involves some 18,000
troops from 19 countries organized into NATO's four Forward
Presence Battle Groups in the region. The U.S. leads the battle
group in Poland, while Germany, Britain and Canada command three
others in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, respectively. Sabre
Strike 18 will coincide with the Swift Response airborne drill
in Latvia, which culminates on June 8 and involves 800 paratroopers
from the U.S., Latvia, Lithuania, Israel and Poland.
The heightened war preparations pose a real danger to
cause of world peace. "The long-standing U.S. Army Europe-led
cooperative training exercise [Sabre Strike] is designed to
enhance readiness and interoperability among allies and regional
partners," the U.S. Army said. While it claims to be preparing
for aggression, saying that the manoeuvres will "demonstrate the
alliance's determination and ability to act as one in response to
any aggression," the fact is that it is the U.S. and colonial
powers of Old Europe which intervene in the affairs of sovereign
countries and commit aggression.
This year marks a worrisome increase in war games by
its allies in the region over last year. Already about 100 war
exercises have been organized, 20 per cent more than during the same
in 2017. The size of the exercises has also been
increasing. The number of troops involved in Sabre Strike was
2,000 in 2013; 4,700 in 2014; 6,000 in 2015; 9,000 in 2016 and
11,000 in 2017.
In May, NATO held the large Siil (Hedgehog)
in Estonia and northern Latvia involving more than 15,000
NATO informed in a June 7 press release, "In
NATO exercises are planned for 2018. Allies will lead around 180
national and multinational exercises this year. In 2017, NATO
conducted 108 exercises and Allies held 162 national and
"The exercises led by NATO and Allies this year include
around 45 exercises with a primary focus on the land domain, 12
exercises mainly in the air domain, and 15 exercises focused
mainly on maritime operations. Others train cyber defence, crisis
response decision-making or specific capabilities.
"More than 40 NATO and Allied exercises in 2018 will
tackling challenges from the South. Defending Allies in the
eastern part of NATO is the focus of another 30 exercises. Nine
NATO and Allied exercises will have a special focus on the
Expansion of NATO Forces in Europe and Update
Outside of these war games, NATO has stationed
6,000 troops in the region, and the U.S. Army is occupying Poland
with a new European headquarters to command the forces.
Meanwhile the Polish government is said to be "considering a
proposal to host a permanent contingent of U.S. troops, as Italy
and Germany already do." As in all cases when the U.S. occupies a
country, it makes it pay the cost and provides its troops with
immunity for the crimes they commit in that country. An
"information document" by the Polish Defence Ministry seen by
news agencies suggests that Poland could spend $1.5 to $2 billion "to
help cover the cost of permanently basing a U.S. tank unit in
The NATO Defence Ministers' Meeting is taking place June
8 and 9 in Brussels, Belgium and it will set the agenda for this year's
NATO Summit there July 11 and 12.
Analysts say that the NATO
Readiness Initiative will increase
the strength of the NATO response force from 20,000 to about
50,000 by creating a pool of 30,000 troops with organic aviation
and ships ready to be operationally deployed within 30 days. The
initiative belongs to the U.S. with Germany to take the lead.
On June 7, NATO Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg said of the agenda for the Defence Ministers'
"I expect we will also agree a NATO Readiness
the 'Four Thirties' -- to ensure that by 2020, we have 30
mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels
ready within 30 days or less, because in a more unpredictable
world, we need to be sure we have the right forces in the right
places at the right time."
"We will discuss our progress in many areas, including
defence and maritime security. And we will also take stock of our
efforts to achieve more defence spending and better
burden-sharing among Allies," Stoltenberg said.
NATO war preparations against Russia include the new
response command centre in Ulm, southern Germany, and another one
in the U.S. in Virginia.
"This force as well as other units will become part of
training events and the soldiers will be deployed on a temporary
basis, but holding regular exercises presupposes the creation of
infrastructure to be used by troops upon arrival for launching
offensive actions. Correspondingly, logistics are being beefed
up," Stoltenberg said.
Upcoming War Games in the Region
Other 2018 exercises near Russia's borders
include Trident Juncture to be held in Norway and the surrounding areas
the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea from October 25 to
November 7. It will involve some 35,000 troops from all 29 NATO member
countries plus partner nations Sweden,
Finland and others, 70 ships and about 130 aircraft.
Poland will hold the Anakonda war exercises in
November, involving 100,000 servicemen, 5,000 vehicles, 150
aircraft and 45 warships. The online journal Strategic Culture writes,
Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley believes it is. According to him,
'Having large-scale NATO forces in the Baltic States and
Poland, as well as the lack of transparency -- we see serious
preparation for a great war.'"
Deployment of U.S. Missiles in Europe
The expansion of U.S./NATO aggression against
also takes the form of missile batteries to be deployed in
Europe. It is reported that discussions are underway to deploy
the U.S. THAAD ballistic missile defence system in Germany. "The
move would plug a radar gap [which] emerged as a result of
postponing the deployment of a second Aegis Ashore system in
Poland. The Polish government has announced plans to purchase
U.S. Patriot PAC-3 MSE air defence systems," Strategic
Culture writes. Both the THAAD and Patriot systems have
rather limited capability against sophisticated ICBMs but Aegis
Ashore is more effective, it says:
"Modernization will take place, advanced missiles and
will be moved to the already existing sites. The main thing is
that the infrastructure, the foundation to build ballistic
missile defence and surface targets strike capability, will be in
place. And the only target is Russia. The Aegis Ashore can launch
intermediate range surface-to-surface missiles against Russian
territory in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty. In a couple of years, Poland will host it. The THAAD's
radar can greatly enhance the Aegis Ashore capabilities by
relaying data to them. The AN/TPY-2 has an estimated range from
1,500 km (932 mi) to 3,000 km (1,864 mi). The maximum
instrumented range is 2,000 km (1,242 mi) to enable it to monitor
large chunks of Russia's territory."
Get Canada Out of NATO and Make Canada a Zone for
Reports on the war
preparations present them as
necessary to contend with threats from enemies and seek to
overwhelm us with accounts of the firing and destructive power
being deployed and the interoperability of the armed forces of U.S.
"allies." However, despite their destructive power and the suffering
cause, weapons are never decisive in war; people are decisive. It is
criminal to prepare war in Europe which suffered so much
from the first two great wars, World War I and World War II,
which saw many Canadian losses as well. Canadians should reject
Canada's participation in these war games and any attempts to
justify them based on hysteria about enemies and that war
preparations are necessary to defend the national interest.
Already Canadian forces have been integrated into those of the
United States. To instigate conflict in the name of peace is a
crime against the peace as defined by the Nuremburg Tribunal.
Canadians must not permit the Trudeau war government to
it acts in their name. Get Canada out of NATO and NORAD and make
Canada a Zone for Peace!
48th General Assembly of Organization of
U.S. Fails Again in Attempt to Suspend Venezuela
At the 48th General Assembly of the Organization of
American States (OAS) held June 4-5 in Washington, D.C., the U.S. and a
group of countries under its domination failed in their attempt to
suspend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela from the organization. A
resolution calling for Venezuela's suspension based on allegations of
an "unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional order" in the
country fell well short of the 24 votes required for it to take effect
when 15 countries, many of them small Caribbean island states, either
voted against it or abstained, thus denying the U.S. and its "Lima
Group" the chance to claim an institutional mandate for their nefarious
activities against Venezuela.
As host of this year's General Assembly, the U.S made
clear that its main objective for the meeting was to get the
organization and its members to kick Venezuela out -- largely a
symbolic act aimed at isolating the government of Venezuela
internationally as part of its economic, financial and political
blockade of the country. In fact, Venezuela announced in April 2017,
more than a year ago, that it was withdrawing from the U.S.-dominated
body of its own volition -- a two-year process under OAS rules of
In May, a special session of the OAS Permanent Council
convoked by the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving it a platform
to browbeat countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that had
so far resisted the pressure to take punitive action against
Venezuela. At that meeting U.S. Vice-President Mike Pence called on
members of the OAS to suspend Venezuela at the General Assembly. He
repeated his harangue at a reception for OAS officials a month later at
a White House reception the evening of June 4. There he called
on "the community of free nations, from across this New World, to
expel the Maduro dictatorship from the Organization of American
States." He said that by supporting the U.S. in this initiative
they would be proving their commitment "to forge stronger bonds
with the United States." He assured them that in return they
would receive benefits "ranging from our financial investments,
economic growth, energy, infrastructure, security, and
It has been reported that these carrots eventually gave
way to the stick of threats and extortion when it became apparent that
the U.S. did not have the required support of 24 member states that its
ambassador to the OAS, Carlos Trujillo, had bragged about just days
Before the vote was taken, President Evo Morales of
Bolivia, whose country was one of four who voted against the U.S.
resolution on June 5, condemned the interventionist intention of the
U.S. Vice President. The U.S. has been defeated in its coup plan
against Venezuela, and is now trying to use the OAS assembly as a
"repressive stick" to suspend our sister nation, Morales said.
off the table after the
resolution passed but without the two-thirds majority support needed to
activate provisions of the OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter having
to do with suspending a member state, its sponsors said they would ask
for a special session of the General Assembly to be called at an
unspecified future date to try again. Venezuela's Minister of Foreign
Affairs Jorge Arreaza said the 19 countries who supported the
resolution were enabling the U.S. to continue its economic warfare and
supporting the possibility of a military intervention. "Let that be on
your conscience," he told them. At the same time he noted that not even
with all the pressure put on them could the U.S. and its gang defeat
the dignity and courage of the peoples of the Caribbean. Arreaza then
reminded those present that Venezuela was already more than halfway
through the process of leaving the OAS, which he called the U.S.
Ministry of Colonies, as Cuba refers to it, making this the last
General Assembly Venezuela would attend. We will go to the Venezuelan
people and solve our problems among ourselves without your interference
or intervention he said to loud applause from around the room.
1. The 19 countries that voted
in favour of the resolution
put forward by the U.S. with the support of Canada, Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Peru were: Argentina, Bahamas,
Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican
Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, and the U.S.
The four countries that voted in opposition were:
Venezuela, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica.
The 11 countries that abstained were: El Salvador, St.
and Nevis, Surinam, Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda,
Belize, Grenada, Haiti, Ecuador, Uruguay and Nicaragua.
18th Anniversary of June 15 North-South
Conferences for Peace on the Korean Peninsula
respectively to discuss the vital issue of peace on the Korean
Peninsula. Ending the state of war on the Korean Peninsula concerns not
only the Korean people but all humanity. The conferences will feature
speakers and a video presentation and, in Toronto, Korean drummers will
also perform. The conferences are taking place on the 18th anniversary
of the June 15, 2000 North-South Joint Declaration signed
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the
Republic of Korea (ROK). This Joint Declaration paved the way for
improved relations on the Korean Peninsula for a decade before it
was scuttled by the pro-U.S. Lee Myung-bak and Park Gyeun-hye
regimes in the ROK.
The issue of peace is all the more pressing in light of
historic Panmunjom Summit on April 27 and the Panmunjom
Declaration signed by Kim Jong Un of the DPRK and Moon Jae-in of
the ROK. It must be resolved in the spirit of goodwill and
cooperation. Meanwhile, the peoples of the world await the
outcome of the DPRK-U.S. Summit in Singapore on June 12. They
ardently desire a permanent and lasting peace agreement between
the U.S. and the DPRK and ROK. The Conference will review these
developments and what can be done to make sure Canada is a factor
for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Hall South, Room KHS 369, 50 Gould St.
in Canada. Co-sponsored by Science for Peace
For more information, call (647) 907-7915 or
Centre, 1655 William St. Canucks Room
For more information: 778-846-3823
DPRK's Northern Nuclear Test Site Dismantled
The northern nuclear test site of the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was completely dismantled according
to the decision made at the Third Plenary Meeting of the Seventh
Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK). The Korean
Central News Agency reported:
After the publication of
the decision at the April plenary
meeting of the WPK Central Committee on dismantling the nuclear
test ground, relevant institutions including the Nuclear Weapons
Institute of the DPRK immediately stopped all preparations and
projects for nuclear tests and carried out phased
The tunnels and all kinds of equipment, information
communications and power systems and construction and operation
equipment, that had been installed at the observation centre,
control centre and research institute in the northern nuclear
test site, were dismantled and withdrawn.
A ceremony to mark the complete dismantling of the test
site was held May 24.
The process of the dismantlement was covered in the
by reporters from China, Russia, the U.S., Britain and south Korea.
They were briefed on the methods and order of dismantlement of the test
site and toured the tunnels where nuclear tests had previously
been carried out and the test observation centres.
Following this, the final
step was the demolition by explosives of the tunnels, tunnel entrances
and above ground structures including the observation centres, in full
view of all those present.
on the spot, affirming this action as the
expression of the DPRK's firm peace-loving stand to join in the
international aspiration and efforts for a total halt to nuclear tests
and make a positive contribution to building a nuclear-free world.
Statement of Unity by Korean Americans and Allies
Inter-Korean Summit and
Upcoming U.S.-DPRK Summit
On June 7, a broad group of Korean-American
and organizations and their allies published a statement in
support of the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity, and
Reunification and the upcoming U.S.-Democratic People's Republic
of Korea (DPRK) Summit on June 12 in Singapore. The text of the
Since the historic April 27 summit between the leaders
north and south Korea at Panmunjom, longstanding tensions and war
threats on the Korean Peninsula have given way to the promise of
peace and reconciliation. Soon, another historic summit, between
the United States and north Korea, will take place in Singapore.
The two parties, which not too long ago were on the brink of war,
will finally sit down to discuss a peaceful settlement to the
Korean War. All eyes of the world will be on this momentous
event, which could determine not only the fate of the Korean
Peninsula and Northeast Asia but also the prospect of global
We -- Korean Americans who have long fought for peace
the self-determined unification of the Korean Peninsula, and
allies who stand on the side of peace and justice and share a
critical stake in the struggle for peace in Korea -- wish to make
clear our views on the recent Inter-Korean Summit and the
upcoming U.S.-north Korea Summit.
1. We applaud the
Panmunjom Declaration for Peace,
Prosperity, and Unification of the Korean Peninsula.
In the Panmunjom
Declaration, the leaders of north and south
Korea "solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and
the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean
Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun." They also
pledged to work together for independent unification.
The two leaders held hands as they crossed back and
over the military demarcation line, demonstrating that the
arbitrary line no longer has the power it once possessed as a
symbol of division and confrontation. Should the governments of
north and south Korea as well as the 80 million Koreans on the
peninsula and the diaspora come together to implement the
Panmunjom Declaration, we can realize peace, prosperity, and
unification of the Korean Peninsula.
2. We welcome the
U.S.-north Korea summit.
We hope the scheduled U.S.-north Korea summit will end
decades of hostile relations between the United States and north
Korea and usher in a new era of peace -- on the Korean Peninsula,
in Northeast Asia as well as for the rest of the world.
We recommend the
1) The United States and north Korea should agree to
denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and faithfully carry out the
In the Panmunjom Declaration, north and south Korea
"confirmed the common goal of realizing, through complete
denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula."
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula means not only
eliminating north Korea's nuclear weapons but also denuclearizing
the land, air, and seas of the entire peninsula. This is not
north Korea's obligation alone. South Korea and the United
States, which has in the past introduced and deployed close to
one thousand tactical nuclear weapons in the southern half of the
peninsula, also need to take concrete steps to create a
The plan to "denuclearize the Korean peninsula" is
outlined in the following past agreements:
- the 1992 Joint Declaration
of south and north Korea on the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula;
- the 1994 Agreed Framework between the USA and DPRK; and
- the 2005 Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six
In the 2005 Joint Statement of the Six Party Talks,
Korea "committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing
nuclear programs," while the United States "affirmed that it has
no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention
to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional
weapons," and south Korea "reaffirmed its commitment not to
receive or deploy nuclear weapons in accordance with the 1992
Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean
Peninsula, while affirming that there exist no nuclear weapons
within its territory."
In keeping with the recent Inter-Korean Summit, the
U.S.-north Korea Summit should produce an agreement for the
"complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and ban the
testing, production, reception, possession, storage, stationing,
and/or use of nuclear weapons on the entire Korean Peninsula.
Moreover, the United States should stop all military action and
exercises that deploy or introduce its strategic assets on the
Korean Peninsula and abolish its nuclear umbrella over south
Genuine peace on the Korean Peninsula, which has housed
nuclear weapons in both the north and the south and has been the
site of acute military tensions for decades, should set a
historic precedent and lead to global nuclear disarmament.
Starting with the United States, all nuclear powers should take
concrete steps to create a nuclear-free world.
2) A peace treaty is necessary for a lasting peace
the Korean Peninsula.
The Panmunjom Declaration states, "During this year
marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice, south and north
Korea agreed to actively pursue trilateral meetings involving the
two Koreas and the United States, or quadrilateral meetings
involving the two Koreas, the United States and China with a view
to declaring an end to the [Korean] War, turning the Armistice
into a peace treaty, and establishing a permanent and solid peace
After the Korean War, the United States and north Korea
signed an armistice that established a highly unstable system
that has been at the root of all subsequent war threats on the
Korean Peninsula. It's time to declare an end to the Korean War
and replace the Armistice with a peace treaty to build a stable
and lasting peace system on the Korean Peninsula. Only a peace
treaty will prevent further threats of nuclear and conventional
war on the Korean Peninsula.
The United States and north Korea should take immediate
mutual steps to prevent military conflict and alleviate tensions.
They should establish and maintain a military hotline and
communications channel and halt all military exercises and other
provocative actions. The United States should withdraw the THAAD
missile defence system in south Korea. And in step with north and
south Korea, which have agreed to "carry out disarmament in a
phased manner" in the Panmunjom Declaration, U.S. Forces in Korea
should take corresponding measures to reduce its troops.
3) The United States and north Korea should end
and normalize relations.
The 2000 U.S.-DPRK Joint Communiqué states,
improving ties is a natural goal in relations among states and
that better relations would benefit both nations in the 21st
century while helping ensure peace and security on the Korean
Peninsula and in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. and the DPRK
sides stated that they are prepared to undertake a new direction
in their relations."
After agreeing to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and
replace the armistice with a peace treaty, the United States and
north Korea should begin talks to establish normal relations. As
they did in the 2000 Joint Communiqué, the United States and
north Korea should reaffirm "principles of respect for each
other's sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal
affairs" and a "commitment to make every effort in the future to
build a new relationship free from past enmity." The United
States and north Korea should normalize relations and promote
civilian exchanges in the areas of economy, culture, science,
education, sports, and travel to foster mutual understanding
between the peoples of both countries.
Above all, the United States needs to abolish its
seven-decade policy of hostility and sanctions that isolate north
Korea. It should lift all sanctions tied to north Korea's nuclear
program, take north Korea off the list of state sponsors of
terrorism, and unfreeze north Korea's assets. It should allow
U.S. citizens to freely travel to north Korea. The United States
and north Korea should also cooperate to recover the remains of
U.S. servicemen in north Korea from the time of the Korean War as
a step to addressing unresolved humanitarian issues and ending
3. We urge Washington's political leaders to put aside
politics for peace.
Past negotiations between the United States and north
have yielded meaningful moments of cooperation. There have been
times when both sides made significant compromises with the
shared goal of overcoming past hostilities and moving toward
normalizing relations. They have produced outstanding agreements
-- the 1993 DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement, the 1994 Agreed Framework,
the 2000 U.S.-DPRK Joint Communiqué, and the 2005 Joint
Declaration of the Six Party Talks -- that outline a path for
resolving the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, creating a
lasting peace system, and normalizing relations between the two
However, none of these agreements were implemented. As
result, mistrust between the United States and north Korea only
deepened and ultimately led us to the brink of nuclear war. With
each change in administration in the United States, hard-won
agreements made by the previous administration were essentially
scrapped as the incoming administration adopted a default
anti-north Korea posture. In light of this history, we have
concerns about whether an agreement produced by the upcoming
U.S.-north Korea Summit will actually be honored by the current
and future administrations. Trump's withdrawal from the Iran
nuclear deal underscores this concern.
The Trump administration should approach the upcoming
with north Korea with sincerity and a commitment to carrying out
whatever agreement is reached. We also urge Congress to put aside
partisan interests in the historic interest of achieving peace in
Korea and the world. We urge Congress to resolve to support the
Panmunjom Declaration between north and south Korea and the
upcoming U.S.-north Korea Summit.
4. We stand with all who struggle for a just and
The actions of the Trump and previous administrations
been detrimental to peace in the world. The United States is
responsible for endless war in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen,
bloodshed in Gaza, and escalating tension with Iran. While it
pours billions of dollars into waging wars and maintaining troops
abroad, its people face widespread unemployment and austerity
programs that cut them off from decent education, health care and
housing. U.S. militarism abroad has also led to increased
militarization of the police and state-sanctioned violence
against communities of colour and gender non-conforming people at
We stand with people of conscience everywhere who
peace, self-determination, and justice. It is our hope that the
Korean Peninsula -- once a land of strife, brutalized by over a
century of colonization, division and war -- will become a source
of strength and inspiration for all as a beacon for peace,
reconciliation, and unification in the 21st century.
74th Anniversary of D-Day
The Landing at Normandy
D-Day landing in Normandy, June 6, 1944.
On June 6, 1944, during World War II, an invasion force
British and Canadians landed on the coast of Normandy, France. This
date known to history as D-Day, refers to the long-awaited invasion of
northwest Europe to open a
Second Front against the Nazi forces of Adolf Hitler who had
occupied France and most of Europe and had been waging a savage
war against the Soviet Union. To that time, the Soviet Union had borne
the brunt of the
against Hitler. From 1941 to 1945, the Soviet peoples fought more than
75 per cent of the German and Axis forces and suffered the loss during
all-told, of more than 20 million people.
The landing at
Normandy is said to be the largest amphibious invasion in
history. The allies were able to establish a beachhead as part of
Operation Overlord. The First United States Army attacked
on the beaches, code-named "Utah" and "Omaha." The Second British
Army assaulted the beaches, code-named "Gold," "Juno" and "Sword"
with the Canadians responsible for Juno in the centre of the
British front. The venture was formidable because the Germans had
turned the coastline into a continuous fortress with
guns, pillboxes, wire, mines and other obstacles.
Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into
invasion area on D-Day, including 14,000 Canadians at Juno Beach.
The Royal Canadian Navy contributed 110 ships and 10,000 sailors
and the Royal Canadian Air Force contributed 15 fighter and
to the assault. Total Allied casualties on D-Day reached more
than 10,000, including 1,074 Canadians, of whom 359 were killed.
Eleven more months of fighting followed the Normandy landing until in
May 1945, the Red Army marched into Berlin and the Germans capitulated.
Today May 9 is celebrated as Victory in Europe Day to honour all those
who gave their lives to defeat the Nazi-fascists.
Canadian War Cemetery at Beny-sur-Mer, photo taken 2012. (R. Foot)
Historica Canada points out:
For years, Soviet leader
Joseph Stalin had pressured
British and Americans to open another front in the war, by
invading occupied France in the west. In the summer of 1943, the
Allies agreed they were ready to launch the invasion the
following year. American General Dwight Eisenhower was appointed
supreme commander of an amphibious invasion of unprecedented size
and scope, code-named Operation Overlord.
The Allies needed a French
harbour from which to
sustain a successful invasion force. However, the disastrous 1942
raid on the French port of Dieppe, in which 3,369 Canadians were
killed, wounded or captured, had convinced military planners that
a seaborne assault against a well-defended port was folly.
In fact, much of the French
side of the English
been turned into what was called the "Atlantic Wall" -- mile
after mile of concrete bunkers, machine gun nests, and other
fortifications built by the Germans, overlooking beaches and
tidal estuaries strewn with layers of barbed wire, anti-tank
ditches, mines and other obstacles designed to obstruct an
invading army. [...]
The Normandy campaign
finally ended on August 21, 1944,
Canadians playing an important role in closing the Falaise Gap
and assisting in the capture of approximately 150,000 German
soldiers. Now the pursuit of the enemy into the Netherlands,
Belgium and Germany could begin.
Today it is commonplace to
hear the Anglo-American and
European imperialists dismiss the feats of the Soviet peoples in
defeating Hitler, while claiming that it was the historic landing in
Normandy on June 6, 1944, which broke Hitler's back. This makes it
possible to claim that the United States played the decisive role in
saving the world from Hitlerism and describing current U.S. wars of
aggression and occupation as wars of liberation. All U.S.
military interventions since the landing at Normandy are said to
oppose dictatorships and tyrannies similar to Hitler's, thus
faithfully following in the tradition of the landing at Normandy.
This is not the case. The
broke Hitler's back in Stalingrad and then chased his Nazi forces all
back to Berlin where they were finally forced to surrender. This does
not take away from the fact that the Second Front kept many Nazi troops
engaged and away from the eastern front. German casualties (killed and
wounded) in the Normandy campaign were estimated at more than 200,000,
while the Allies suffered 209,000 casualties among the more than two
million soldiers who landed in France following the D-Day landing.
Among the Allied casualties were more than 18,700 Canadians, including
more than 5,000 soldiers killed. Had the Anglo-American powers joined
the anti-fascist front called for and established by the Soviet Union
under Stalin, losses caused by the Hitlerite occupation of Europe and
invasion of the Soviet Union would not have been so grave. Instead they
were driven by an aim to make sure they, not the Soviets, would control
the outcome of the war.
On this anniversary, Canadians pay deepest respects to
all the men and women who contributed to the defeat of the
Nazi-fascists and Japanese militarists in World War II. Their cause for
peace, democracy and freedom is not the same as the cause for which the
U.S. imperialists and big powers wage wars today. Today the fight to
secure peace, freedom and justice requires establishing anti-war
governments and making sure countries are zones for peace, not war.
Normandy Landing and the Re-Writing of History
In an article published on the 70th anniversary of
military historian Benoît Lemay, of the Royal Military
College of Kingston, Ontario pointed out, "There are many
misconceptions about the Normandy landing. It is believed to have
enabled the Allies to win the Second World War. A more nuanced view is
required. In fact, in June 1944, Germany had already lost. The landing
only served to accelerate the end of the war. It was the Russians on
the Eastern Front who did most of the work. For propaganda reasons,
during the Cold War years that followed, the West would try to minimize
the Soviet effort. It would be conveyed that it was the Allies who did
most of the work."
Lemay explained the motives
behind the landing: "In reality, the Allies landed in France not
only to defeat the Germans, but also to ensure that Western
Europe did not fall under the Soviet yoke. There was a political
aspect and economic interests."
During their meeting in Tehran at the end of November
the three leaders -- Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt -- agreed a
Second Front would be opened. It was the landing in Normandy on
June 6, 1944 that opened this Second Front, in the military
context created by the Red Army, where Germany had already
lost the war because of it and now had to fight on two sides.
According to the invasion plans, Caen was to be
liberated on the evening of June 6 but the fighting was so fierce, it
was only finally liberated 40 days later on July 17. The French
historian Claude Quétel explains, "On June 22, 1944, a
little more than a fortnight after the Normandy landings -- and
three years to the day after the invasion of the Soviet Union by
the Nazi armies -- Stalin attacked the Hitlerite troops from his
side. The objective: to hold down a maximum of German divisions
in the East to facilitate the progression of the Allies to the
West. Stalin went all out. For this operation, no less than 166
divisions, 1,300,000 men, 5,000 aircraft, 2,700 tanks were
mobilized. The main front is not the one thought to be in
Normandy: it was in the East"
However, Quétel writes, "This Soviet offensive,
largest since the beginning of the war, has often been obscured
in the Western world because of the Cold War and rewriting of
Quétel tells us: "The Russian victories in
and especially Kursk changed the game. The major risk for the
Anglo-Saxons was no longer to see Stalin sign a separate peace
with Hitler, but to see him win the final victory alone! It
became urgent to discuss strategy [...] with the Soviets. The
Tehran Conference brought Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin
together for the first time in this war."
Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill meet at the
November 28 to December 1, 1943.
Historian Antony Beevor summarized what happened a
days before the landing in Normandy: "Roosevelt wanted to remind
his subordinates that the Allies were not liberating France to
install General de Gaulle in power." The U.S goal was to "impose
a military government until elections were held," which would
take some time. This is why Roosevelt "insisted on creating an
occupation currency." The disagreements were serious in
Roosevelt's entourage, and "Churchill did his best to persuade
him that they had to work with de Gaulle."
Roosevelt yielded. De Gaulle was
then made aware of the landing that had been planned without his
knowledge in his own country. He learned about it on June 4, the day
before the landing was originally scheduled to take place; it was
postponed a day due to bad weather. The
"occupation" of part of Europe would take place anyway, but
without a U.S. "military government" and its "occupation
currency" in France.
In an interview, Beevor expressed the concern of the
Anglo-American Allies with regard to a surrender of Germany only
to the Soviet Union if the disembarkation of their troops was
Eisenhower's decision to
launch the operations on June
despite warnings from weather specialists, after a first
postponement on the 5th, was not only a courageous decision, it
was a historic stance. If he had said, "we postpone the date,"
the next possible window was exactly in the middle of the great
storm of June 19, one of the worst in the [English] Channel. He would
therefore have again had to suspend operations probably until the
spring of 1945. This would have had unimaginable consequences,
not only for the secrecy of the operations and for the
maintenance for a very long time of the armada assembled in Great
Britain, but, especially during this period, the Red Army would
not only have arrived in Berlin, but would have had time to cross
the Rhine and go, why not? all the way to La Rochelle [...] You can
imagine the scene!
In June 2014, during the commemoration of the 70th
anniversary of the landing in France, then-President François
Hollande said that the "fate of humanity was played out on June 6,
1944." He said that he "wanted this ceremony to be useful, not just for
the memory, not just for the evocation of the sacrifice, but also
because peace is threatened in the world today." He then invoked D-Day
as justification for France's violation of rights at home and
aggression and war abroad, saying, "It is because France itself has
experienced barbarity that it is doing its duty to preserve peace
everywhere, within the borders of Europe, as in Africa," he said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel likewise declared at
that commemoration: "This June 6, 1944 [...] was the beginning of the
liberation" since by
means of this landing, it was the "Allies who launched this
liberation movement to permanently free us from Nazism."
Then came U.S. President Barack Obama who said that "it
was here, on these shores, that the tide was turned in that common
struggle for freedom." In his words, Normandy became "this tiny sliver
of sand upon which hung more than the fate of a war, but rather the
course of human history."
In 2009, Obama said in his speech in France to mark the 65th
D-Day, "Had the Allies failed here, Hitler's
occupation of this continent might have continued indefinitely. [...]
Victory here secured a foothold in France [...] it made possible the
achievements that followed the liberation of Europe: the Marshall Plan,
the NATO alliance, the shared prosperity and security that flowed from
In a statement issued by the Prime Minister's Office on
June 4, 2014, then Prime
Minister Stephen Harper echoed these falsities, saying that Normandy
was "a turning point in the world’s history."
Harper was no less adamant to equate the landing at Normandy with
current U.S.-led wars of aggression and occupation. Canadian soldiers
buried in France "are a poignant reminder that our country will always
stand up for what is good, what is right and what is just. It was as
true then as it has been in the years since the Second World War in
places like Korea, Afghanistan and Libya," he said.
The decisive role of the Soviet Union in the military
defeat of fascist
Germany was accepted by everyone at the time, and admitted before
suicide and the end of the war. In fact, it was admitted even before
the landing at Normandy by the President of the United States, Franklin
D. Roosevelt, who honoured the city of Stalingrad on May 17, 1944, 20
days before the Normandy landing, declaring:
In the name of the people of the United States of
America, I present this scroll to the City of Stalingrad to commemorate
our admiration for its gallant defenders whose courage, fortitude, and
devotion during the siege of September 13, 1942 to January 31, 1943
will inspire forever the hearts of all free people. Their glorious
victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in
the war of the Allied Nations against the forces of aggression. 
Scroll presented by Roosevelt to city of Stalingrad, May 17, 1944.
Detail of scroll presented to city of Stalingrad, May 17, 1944.
The "turning point in the war" in January 1943 was
followed seven months later by the victory in Kursk in August 1943,
which also made history. In the report Stalin presented in Moscow
on November 26, 1943, on the occasion of the 26th anniversary of the
victory of the October socialist revolution, he said, "If the
Battle of Stalingrad announced the decline of the German fascist army,
the battle of Kursk placed it in front of a catastrophe."
"The cause of German fascism is lost, and the sanguinary 'New Order' it
has established is approaching collapse. [...] The time is long past
when the Hitlerite clique made a great noise about the Germans winning
world domination. Now as is known, the Germans have other matters than
world domination to worry about. They have to think about keeping body
and soul together."
In the May 1, 1944 issue of Pravda,
36 days before the
landing at Normandy, Stalin wrote: "Under the blows of the Red
Army the bloc of Fascist States is cracking and falling to pieces.
[...] These underlings of Hitler, whose countries have been occupied,
or are being occupied, by the Germans, cannot now fail to see that
Germany has lost the war."
Stalin emphasizes: "As a result of the successful offensive, the Red
Army has emerged on our State frontiers on a stretch of over 400
kilometres (250 miles), and liberated more than three-quarters of
occupied Soviet land from the German-fascist yoke. The aim now is to
clear the whole of our land from the fascist invaders and to
re-establish the State frontiers of the Soviet Union along the entire
line from the Black Sea to the Barents Sea."
Even though one quarter of the country remained to be liberated 36 days
before the landing in Normandy, Stalin notes that already "the Red Army
has emerged on our State frontiers with Rumania and Czechoslovakia and
now continues battering the enemy troops on the territory of Rumania.
[...] But our tasks cannot be confined to the expulsion of the enemy
troops from our Motherland. [...] To rid our country and the countries
allied with us from the danger of enslavement, the wounded German beast
must be pursued close on its heels and finished off in its own lair."
In short, the invaded Soviet motherland liberated herself and began to
liberate others. Initiated in Stalingrad, the march to defeat the Nazis
now continued beyond the national borders all the way to Berlin. For
Anglo-American imperialists to claim they defeated Hitler with
the invasion of Normandy does a great disservice to the anti-fascist
forces in Britain, the U.S., Canada and the European countries who
fought heroically to do their part in the war. It is done to claim that
wars of aggression and occupation today are for democracy, peace and
freedom and this dishonours the anti-fascist contribution of the
soldiers who fought in the Second Front even more.
1. La Presse, June 6, 2014. Translated from
3. Le Monde-Hors série:
résistances, libérations, May-July 2014, La
bataille de Normandie en neufs points, pp.20-23.
translated from French by TML.
5. Antony Beevor, The Second World War, Little,
and Company, New York, 2012.
6. Antony Beevor, "Ce
pas gagné d'avance," Le
Point, June 5, 2014, pp.58-62.
Quote translated from French by TML.
7. Le Monde, June 6, 2014. Translated
French by TML.
8. Barack Obama, Speech Commemorating the 70th
of D-Day, Normandy, June 6, 2014.
9. Speech by Barack Obama at the American Cemetery at
Normandy, June 6, 2009.
10. La Presse, op. cit.
11. J.V. Stalin, Correspondence
S. Truman Vol. 2 (1941 -
1945), footnote no. 67.
12. J.V. Stalin, Speech at Celebration Meeting of the Moscow Soviet of
Working People's Deputies and Moscow Party and Public Organizations,
November 6, 1943, Collected Works,
13. Order of the Day, No. 70, May 1, 1944, op. cit.
15. J.V. Stalin, Speech Delivered at a Meeting of Voters of the Stalin
Electoral District, Moscow. February 9, 1946.
(Translated from the original French
and abridged for publication by TML Weekly on the 74th anniversary of
ISSUES | HOME