|
June 1, 2019 - No. 20 Alberta
Government's Assault on the Polity |
The spring session of the
Alberta Legislature began May 22 with the
Speech from the Throne delivered by Lieutenant-Governor Lois Mitchell.
Based on the usual claim that the people have spoken and the government
now has a mandate to pay the rich and impose its anti-social agenda,
the Throne Speech declared the election "reflects a
movement towards democratic and economic renewal."
The resurrection of the
slogan "Open for Business" can hardly be called renewal. It has been
dragged from the pit of disgrace that was the Mike Harris anti-social
offensive in Ontario in the 1990s, and copied by the Ford government in
Ontario, the Legault government in Quebec and now Kenney in Alberta.
The cartel parties and
governments are put into power and removed
at the bidding of the financial oligarchy, so any talk of democratic
renewal has to begin somewhere other than in their backrooms and press
releases. The working people themselves have to gain power through
their own efforts and organizing, through their own empowerment
and speaking for themselves. Only then can they experience genuine
democratic renewal and march out on a path of economic renewal with a
new motive of production that guarantees the well-being and rights of
the people as a first priority and strives to humanize the social and
natural environment.
Introduced the following
day, May 28, Bill 3 reduces the nominal
corporate tax rate on net enterprise profit from 12 per cent to 8
per cent, becoming the lowest provincial rate in Canada.
Another bill, the Appropriation
Act
will provide interim estimates
for public services, to be followed by a full budget in the fall
sitting. The Throne Speech states, "That Budget will be informed
by the report of the Fiscal Review Panel chaired by former
Saskatchewan Finance Minister Janice MacKinnon, which will make
recommendations on how to restore balance to our province's
finances so that we stop encumbering future generations with
debt. My government will also engage in widespread public
consultations on how best to end deficit spending while
protecting front line public services."
The previous NDP government
provided extensive pay-the-rich
schemes to the energy cartels for "emissions reduction
technology." Oil sands companies are eager to introduce such
technology, as it reduces fuel use and therefore the price of
production of their commodities. They also want to be paid from
the public treasury to do what is in their self-interest and to
attract global investors. Kenney's pledge to reduce emissions
should be considered within the context of a pulling back by certain
sections of the financial oligarchy from investment in carbon
products and their use, and the growth of private investment and
public pay-the-rich schemes in green energy and related actions,
such as carbon capture.
The UNA asked the Alberta
Labour Relations Board (ALRB)
to
order that the collective bargaining process and arbitration
resume forthwith as required by law and the current collective
agreements. The ALRB responded by announcing an expedited hearing
to take place May 30.
In an article published by
the School of Public Policy
at the
University of Calgary in 2017, "Putting the Alberta Budget on a
New Trajectory," authors Janice MacKinnon, who just happens to be
the Chairperson of Kenney's "Blue Ribbon Panel" and Jack Mintz,
renowned or rather infamous for his slavish devotion to powerful
private interests, call for wage cuts followed by zero increases
for all Alberta public sector workers. The authors outline the
process for imposing collective agreements, which they insist
will withstand a 
The refusal of other
sectors and enterprises to pay for
the
public sector value they consume in a proper exchange of value
creates a constant crisis of underfunding for social programs and
public services. The lack of funds fraud is then used to cut
social programs and to attack the right of public sector workers
to negotiate wages and working conditions acceptable to
themselves.
Both Jason Kenney and Gray
are gravely mistaken if they
think
Albertans will accept lock, stock and barrel the line of the
financial oligarchy that "there is no money," as a pretext to
deprive workers of their rights and to step up the anti-social
offensive and continue to attack Alberta's public services,
social programs and the workers who deliver them. Of course,
there is no money when those in control of the economy and its
main enterprises refuse to pay in an equivalent exchange for the
social value their enterprises consume, and instead, take the new
value workers create out of the economy and province.
To protest continued
mistreatment and abuse, on May 27,
Indigenous peoples and their supporters held actions across the
country which specifically targeted several bills being imposed
on them. They have not been meaningfully consulted on these
bills, which fail to recognize the nation-to-nation relations
that must underpin Canada's relations with the Indigenous
peoples.[
She added, "These bills
are falsely claiming that
they
will give us more self-government, more self-determination, more
control of our services, more control of our territories. But in
reality, it is lessening and weakening everything that we are
trying to work toward."
"BC's proposed amendments
included a permitting regime
for
companies that transport hazardous substances, such as diluted
bitumen, through the province," the press release says.
"Today's ruling is
disappointing as it reveals the lack
of
understanding and/or unwillingness of the courts to properly
recognize Indigenous jurisdiction over our territories. The
failure to recognize our arguments in the ruling is a missed
opportunity for the courts to demonstrate an act of genuine
reconciliation," says Nang Kaadlljuus President of the Haida
Nation Gaagwiis Jason Alsop.
Dear Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau,
CALACS reaches out to and
establishes partnerships with
Latin
American and Caribbean communities, NGOs, research institutions,
and international academics. In addition, our Association works
to inform policy makers, and public and private sector
organizations through its events, publications, communications
media and virtual resources. In so doing, we contribute to
developing strong and long-lasting Canadian networks in Latin
America and in the Caribbean and we promote Canada's image and
influence in the region. In this sense, Canada's failure to
provide visas for Latin American and Caribbean scholars in timely
and respectful fashion can only be understood as a failure.
|
|
One of the practical projects taken up by the solidarity movement in Canada to overcome the blockade is participation in the Peace Caravan, an annual tour led by the U.S. organization Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO)/Pastors for Peace. Every year for the past 30 years, it has travelled through Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, to inform people about Cuba and collect important humanitarian goods to send to Cuba, in defiance of the blockade.
Events for the Canadian leg of this year's Peace Caravan received Reverend Luis Barrios of Pastors for Peace. The first event was held in Montreal on May 9 at the Centre Patro Le Prevost, hosted by the Quebec-Cuba Friendship Caravan.
The Peace Caravan then stopped in Ottawa on May 10 at St. Giles Presbyterian Church. The event was hosted by Ottawa Cuba Connections, ALBA Social Movements-Ottawa, Frente Bolivariano Hugo Chavez, Association d'amitie Outaouais-Cuba and the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of the Quakers. Notably, Ottawa Cuba Connections has the distinction of taking part in the caravans since they began 30 years ago, and is sending a participant to this year's edition as well.
These were followed by an event in Kingston on May 11 at Sydenham Street United Church and Toronto on May 12 at San Lorenzo Anglican Church.
At these events, Rev. Barrios reaffirmed the solidarity movement's commitment to the fight against the blockade despite the enormous hurdles imposed by the U.S. administration. He explained how the Trump administration's implementation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act is not just an attack on the Cuban people but also on the sovereignty of many other countries, including Canada, as well as an attack on the business interests of companies throughout the world, including in Canada. He went on to elaborate that this is part of a more profound U.S. agenda to recolonize Latin America and the Caribbean. For example, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton has explicitly talked about the U.S. taking control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves.
Cuban Ambassador Josefina
Vidal also spoke at the Ottawa
event. She thanked Pastors for Peace for their support to and
solidarity with the Cuban people throughout all these years, and
underscored that Cubans will never forget the images transmitted
worldwide of Pastors for Peace, led by Lucius Walker, confronting
the heavily armed authorities on the United States-Mexico border.
Likewise, on behalf of the Cuban people, the Cuban diplomat also
thanked the Canadian solidarity movement for always standing by
Cuba.
John Waller, Program Coordinator for Pastors for Peace, explained to TML Weekly that "the hostility of the U.S. government toward Cuba has always created a myriad of logistical challenges for our project. This was most extreme under the Bush administration when our caravanistas were being threatened with legal harassment and fines. Those particular actions stopped under Obama and so far haven't resumed under Trump, but we have to prepare in case they do this year."
Waller went on to explain, "The U.S. caravan is just about to happen. It begins on June 8 with public events in 40 U.S. cities. We are taking 37 people to Cuba without a U.S. government licence, many of them travelling to Cuba for the first time. Almost half are young people under 30. The caravanistas are principally U.S. citizens, especially from Seattle, New York, Minneapolis and Fresno but we also have international representation from Canada, Mexico and Germany.
"The Canadian events in early May received a very warm response from those who attended. We anticipate that in the U.S. people who come to our Caravan events will be outraged by what Trump is doing, after a period in the latter years of the Obama presidency where limited but significant steps had been taken in the direction of normalizing relations between the U.S. and Cuba."
The Peace Caravan will then go to Mexico, where the program includes an orientation for participants in Mexico City, June 22-23, before they travel to Cuba. The caravan concludes on July 5, with participants returning home via Mexico City.
(Photos: TML, OCC, Cuban Embassy)
Toronto Coming
Event: Cuba in the Time of Trump
Toronto
Friday, June 7 -- 7:00 pm
A Different Booklist, 779 Bathurst St.
Sponsored by: Canadian Network on Cuba and A Different Booklist
Cuban Consul Yoslaidy Clemente López and Dr. Isaac Saney (noted Cuba specialist and co-chair and spokesperson of the Canadian Network on Cuba) will discuss the current situations in Cuba and in Latin America and the Caribbean as a whole. This is the kickoff for the 9th CNC biennial convention, June 8-9.
Opposition to New Attempts to Impose U.S. Dictate
Caribbean
Community Must Unify to Resist
Imposition of
Secretary-General of
Organization of American States
Mass action in Venezuela, April 27, 2019, celebrates the country's exit
from the OAS.
Sir Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda's Ambassador to the U.S. and OAS. He is also a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London and Massey College, University of Toronto.
Readers of this commentary, particularly those in small countries, might wonder why they should be concerned about who is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of any multilateral or international organization. It could be claimed that the disposition of the person, holding such an office, is far removed from the existence of people who are focussed on the necessities of living and improving their lives.
They would be wrong to dismiss interest in the holders of these positions.
Caribbean small states are already marginalized in the world with little account being taken of the significant threats posed to their well-being. Among those threats are climate change, global warming, exclusion from access to concessional funds for development, very poor terms of trade, increasing erosion of their sovereign rights over matters such as the rate of taxes they charge and the incentives they offer to businesses so as to remain globally competitive in the industries that provide employment and the opportunity for ownership.
In this context, it is vitally important to people in small and vulnerable countries that the CEOs of inter-governmental organizations are persons with a commitment to reducing poverty, advancing economic development, improving access to education and training, and promoting international arrangements that allow developing countries to compete in the global community. It is also important that such CEOs be genuinely interested in safeguarding human rights, protecting citizens from abuse by governments, and upholding democracy and freedom of expression.
These are the qualities that heads of multilateral and international organizations should possess if they are to serve the interests of the global community, particularly the people of small and vulnerable nations.
Inevitably, however, governments of larger and more powerful countries dictate the persons who end up in these positions. These governments select candidates, who serve their interests, and using their greater financial resources and capacity to pressure others, they ensure their appointments.
In the cases of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the European Union and the U.S. have long since arrogated the posts of heads of these organizations to themselves through an understanding between them that the U.S. will hold the headship of the Bank and the Europeans the headship of the Fund. Invariably, the holders of these posts are then in thrall to their patrons and, over the decades of the existence of the two organizations, few of them have strayed far from the positions of their sponsors.
There are only a few organizations in which Caribbean countries have a genuine opportunity to influence who is elected as their chief executive. The Organization of American States (OAS) is one of them.
Repeatedly, I have called for the 14 member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), that are also members of the OAS, to nominate one suitably qualified Caribbean candidate for the post of Secretary-General or to agree on a non-Caribbean person who would be mindful of the importance of Caribbean interests.
|
|
It is alarming that, counter to all electoral arrangements that have ever been instituted for the election of the OAS Secretary-General, certain governments are busy promoting the idea that, at the OAS General Assembly in Colombia in June, 18 countries should force through the re-election of the incumbent, Luis Almagro, for a second term -- one year before such an election is due, and for which no proper arrangements have been made. This process is usually called "rigging."
Such an action would be as unprecedented as it would be wrong. Forced re-election of Mr. Almagro, one year before an election is due, would be highly improper. But, it could be done. The rules allow for the nomination of a candidate up to the morning of the day an election is held. And, if, as has been the recent experience, 18 countries vote to hold such an election at the General Assembly in June, it can be done.
In this way, any possibility of an unprepared CARICOM nominating a single Caribbean candidate or coalescing behind an approved non-Caribbean candidate would be scuttled. The decision of the 18 would prevail, and the interests of the Caribbean and the Caribbean people would be swept aside.
That is why Caribbean people should be interested in this matter, and in the position that their governments take.
The behaviour of Mr. Almagro as Secretary-General of the
OAS
has left much to be desired. He is a very bright and clever man,
and with a different attitude, he might have served well the OAS
and all its member-states. But, instead of ending divisions by
building bridges between states and working to garner consensus
within the organization, Mr. Almagro has become a divisive
figure.
Further, his disregard for the Permanent Council, which is comprised of the representatives of governments, and his readiness to pronounce his own strongly-held views in the name of the OAS, have compromised the organization, depriving it of a role in resolving conflicts within member states of the organization and between them. Additionally, the Caribbean has suffered under his stewardship through the absence of any advocacy on his part to maintain funding for Caribbean programmes.
Beyond the necessity for a challenge to him, given his record, his forced re-election by any foisted process would leave the OAS in tatters. It may even cause some member states to reassess the value of their continued membership of an organization which is ruled by the will of a simple majority and the officers they impose.
For previous elections of a Secretary-General, including Mr. Almagro's own election, the Permanent Council of the OAS put rules and procedures in place. Amongst those rules was that a date for elections would be set by the Permanent Council and member states would nominate candidates who would make public presentations to the Organization on their proposals and initiatives prior to the elections.
It has never been envisaged, as is being done now by some governments, that the preparation for elections of the Secretary-General would not follow established rules and that a fully democratic process would not be adopted.
CARICOM states will have to assert themselves immediately in the OAS in nothing short of full regional solidarity and unity to insist on a Permanent Council meeting that sets the rules for the elections on a democratic and consensus basis. Anything less than full CARICOM unity will hurt the region's interests.
(Caribbean News Now, May 17, 2019. Photos: Cancilleria Venezuela, AVN, periodico26.cu.)
Trump Administration's Deal of the Century
Resurrecting the PLO Is Palestine's Best Response
Protest in Gaza City, March 6, 2019, against Trump's "Deal of the
Century."
Palestinian groups, Fatah, Hamas and others should not confine themselves to merely rejecting the Trump Administration's so-called 'Deal of the Century.' Instead, they should use their resistance to the new American-Israeli plot as an opportunity to unify their ranks.
Leaked details of the 'Deal of the Century' confirm Palestinians' worst fears: the 'Deal' is but a complete American acquiescence to the right-wing mentality that has ruled Israel for over a decade.
According to the Israeli
daily newspaper, Israel
Hayom,
a demilitarized state, 'New Palestine' will be established on
territorial fragments of the West Bank, as all illegal Jewish
settlements would permanently become part of Israel. If
Palestinians refuse to accept Washington's diktats, according to
the report, they will be punished through economic and political
isolation.
This is certainly not an American peace overture, but an egregious act of bullying. However, it is hardly a deviation from previous rounds of 'peace-making,' where Washington always took Israel's side, blamed Palestinians and failed to hold Israel to account. Washington has never refrained from supporting Israeli wars against Palestinians or even conditioned its ever-generous aid packages on the dismantling of the illegal Jewish settlements.
The only difference between the U.S. 'peace process' of the past and today's 'Deal of the Century' is in the style and tactics as opposed to the substance and details.
Undoubtedly, the 'Deal,' championed by Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's adviser and son-in-law, will fail. Not only will it not deliver peace -- this is not the intention -- but it is most likely to be rejected by Israel. The formation of Israel's new government under Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership is centred round far-right and religious parties. It is no longer politically correct in the new Israeli lexicon to even discuss the possibility of a Palestinian state, let alone agree to one.
Netanyahu, however, is likely to wait for Palestinians to reject the deal, as they certainly should. Then, with the help of pro-Israel mainstream western media, a new discourse will evolve, blaming Palestinians for missing yet another opportunity for peace, while absolving Israel from any wrongdoing. This pattern is familiar, highlighted most starkly in Bill Clinton's Camp David II in 2000 and George W. Bush's Road Map for Peace in 2003.
In 2000, the late
Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat,
rejected
then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak's 'generous offer,' an
entirely manufactured political hoax that, to this day, defines
official and academic understanding of what had transpired in the
secret talks then.
All Palestinians must reject the 'Deal of the Century,' or any deal that is born out of a political discourse which is not centred on Palestinian rights as enshrined in international law, a political frame of reference that is agreed upon by every country in the world, save the U.S. and Israel. Decades of fraudulent American 'peacemaking' prove that Washington will never fulfill its self-designated title as an 'honest peacemaker.'
However, rejection per se, while going back to business as usual, is inadequate. While the Palestinian people are united behind the need to resist the Israeli Occupation, challenge Israeli apartheid and employ international pressure until Israel finally relents, Palestinian factions are driven by other selfish priorities. Each camp seems to rotate within the political sphere of foreign influence, whether Arab or international.
For example, Fatah, which is credited for 'igniting the spark of the Palestinian revolution' in 1965, has been primarily consumed with the trappings of false power while dominating the Palestinian Authority, which itself operates within the space allocated to it by the Israeli military occupation in the West Bank.
Hamas, which began as an organic movement in Palestine, is forced to play regional politics in its desperation for any political validation to escape the suffocating siege of Gaza.
Whenever both parties verge on forming a united leadership in the hope of resurrecting the mostly defunct Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), their benefactors manipulate the money and politics, thus resuming disunity and discord.
The 'Deal of the Century,' however, offers both groups an opportunity, as they are united in rejecting the deal and equally perceive any Palestinian engagement with it as an act of treason.
More importantly, the steps that were taken by Washington to isolate the PA through denying Palestinians urgently needed funds, revoking the PLO's diplomatic status in Washington and shunning the PA as a political ally provide the opportunity to open the political dialogue required that could finally accomplish a serious Fatah-Hamas reconciliation.
Israel, too, by withholding tax money collected on behalf of the PA, has lost its last pressure card against Mahmoud Abbas and his government in Ramallah.
At this point, there is little else that the U.S. and Israel could do to exert more pressure on the Palestinians.
But this political space available for Palestinians to create a new political reality will be brief. The moment the 'Deal of the Century' is discarded as another failed American scheme to force a Palestinian surrender, the political cards, regionally and internationally, will be mixed again, beyond the ability of Palestinian factions to control their outcome.
Therefore, it is critical that Palestinian groups at home and in the diaspora push for Palestinian dialogue, not merely for the sake of forming a unity government in Ramallah but to revitalize the PLO as a truly representative and democratic body that includes all Palestinian political currents and communities.
It is only through the resurrection of the PLO that Palestinians could finally return to their original mission of devising a national liberation strategy that is not manipulated by money and not subjected to regional politicking.
If history is any indication, the 'Deal of the Century' is another sinister American attempt to manage the situation in Palestine to assert political dominance in the region. This 'Deal' is essential for American reputation, especially among its disgruntled regional allies who feel abandoned by the progressive American military and political retreat from the region.
This latest charade does not have to be at the expense of Palestinians, and Palestinian groups should recognize and grasp this unique opportunity. The 'Deal of the Century' will fail, but efforts to achieve Palestinian unity could finally succeed.
Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is 'The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story' (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and was a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
(Palestine Chronicle, May 29, 2019. Photos: W. Hashlamoun, Middle East Monitor, M. Hassona)
35th Anniversary of Operation Blue Star
Heinous Crime of
the Indian Ruling Class Against
the Peoples
of Punjab and All of India
Original Akal Takht, Darshani Deori and surrounding area prior to Operation Blue Star.
From June 3-8, 1984, 35 years ago, the Indian government of Indira Gandhi carried out the devastating assault and massacre of innocent Sikhs at the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar, Punjab, known as Operation Blue Star.
The stated aim of Operation Blue Star was to "flush out" so-called "Religious Terrorists" led by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. Operation Blue Star was carried out in the context of the concerted action of the Indian and Canadian states to criminalize the political demands of Sikhs for statehood for Punjab -- the creation of Khalistan. They labelled the proponents of this demand "Sikh fundamentalists." By associating Sikhism with extremism they managed to criminalize Punjabis, including those who were not religious in any way and especially the youth. This served as the model for the subsequent targeting of all people of the Muslim faith and the demand that people prove their loyalty to the state by demonstrating that they are moderates. Meanwhile, as in the case of the Sikhs, all Muslims became targets of violence and the impunity of the state, along with all others on the basis of communal divisions and identity.
|
|
The Golden Temple is the holiest site of Sikhs. By modern standards the state is not permitted to interfere with a person's conscience and the practice of their beliefs or the sanctuary of their own church. The Indian army operation against the Golden Temple violated the sanctity of a place of worship and established the precedent that holy places would henceforth no longer be considered a safe haven from persecution or a refuge from the action of the state.
The military action, which included tanks, helicopters, armoured vehicles, artillery and chemical weapons, was timed to take place on the anniversary of the martyrdom of Guru Arjan Dev in 1606. Over 70,000 troops were ordered to capture less than 50 men. The military assault occurred under cover of a total media blackout. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed over five days.
The storming of the centre of Sikh spiritual and temporal authority by the Indian Army under the orders of Indira Gandhi led immediately to a mutiny in Sikh units of the Army and four months later, on October 31, to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. Ruthless anti-Sikh pogroms were unleashed by the Indian state to wreak revenge. Thousands of innocent Sikhs were beaten and burned alive during the anti-Sikh pogroms on November 1, 2 and 3. The state-organized anti-Sikh mobs massacred over 8,000 innocent Sikhs, 3,000 in Delhi alone.
The police stood by and watched and, in some cases, actively participated in the attacks. It is estimated that subsequent government operations Woodrose, Blackthunder, Night Dominance, Rakshak I and II, and Final Assault led to the deaths of 25,000 to 80,000 Sikhs.
The government officials who are known to have instigated, authorized and organized the violence subsequently enjoyed promotion, including to cabinet positions and decades of impunity despite repeated demands for justice.
Speaking a year later in London, England, Hardial Bains pointed out:
"What has been proven during this year in which the army has occupied the Punjab -- the year which began with the invasion of the Golden Temple, the headquarters of the Sikh religion, and the indiscriminate massacres which were committed there and all over Punjab, as well as, shortly after, in Delhi and other places in the wake of the assassination of Indira Gandhi -- is that the Indian ruling classes want to create a religious problem, a communal problem, in order to divert the attention of the people from their real struggle for national and social liberation.
"At the same time, through their use of communal violence and fascist terror, they want to convince the struggling masses that the ruling classes are 'strong' and will be as ruthless in smashing the struggle of the people as the situation warrants. Nonetheless, the Indian ruling classes and their bourgeois political parties have not been able to accomplish any of their aims. The pure love and unity which the people of Delhi and other places exhibited for one another, in which they defended and sheltered the Sikh people, condemned the bestial hatred and the rape, looting and murders engineered by the Rajiv Congress under the watchful eyes of the police forces -- the expression of the people's unity irrespective of their religion, caste or regional origin -- brought forth tears of joy amidst the people, while the bitter news of the communal violence and fascist terror brought forth anger. This joy, and anger, both so deep, with the anger seething like a volcano, this response of the people, has driven the Indian ruling classes into further frenzy and desperation. The people expressed their real psychology, their love and affection for one another and for their cause. This has been ingrained in them, the result of the centuries-long struggle for real national and social liberation. The Indian ruling classes miserably failed in their aim of making religion the issue and a point of division and bestial hatred amongst the people. Even though Rajiv Gandhi assumed the role of a swaggering Hindu who accuses others of being 'Sikh fanatics,' 'Naxalite extremists' and so on, the people in India and the people abroad, irrespective of their religion, caste or region of origin have condemned this as an insult to the Indian people and as abhorrent. They have understood all too well that this has been nothing but a cover, a ruse, to hide the real enemies, the Indian ruling classes. They have expressed their profound anger against this attempt to blame the people for the crimes the ruling classes themselves commit so as to sow communal strife. Rajiv Gandhi tried to divert the issue of the just struggle of the people for their livelihood, for their freedom, and for progress. This, he claims, overwhelms the government. He passed the anti-terrorism law and under this law, any struggle, be it of the workers for their livelihood, or of the peasants for their land, or of the people for true independence, prosperity and progress, is liable to overwhelm the government. Thus, all who stand for these just causes must be put to death, or carted away to the dungeons and jails. In passing this law, Rajiv Gandhi wants to kill the Indian revolution and put the Indian people to death or imprison them for it is only through the revolution that they can win their rights.
|
|
"Besides failing to make religion the issue over which the people are fighting, the Indian ruling classes also failed to create a climate of compromise and submission. Facing such an impossible situation, Rajiv Gandhi's draconian law also includes, besides the threats of death and long-term imprisonment, clauses which prohibit the Indian people from singing their songs of revolution, of valour and heroism and which espouse their determination to put an end to this barbaric rule which has brought them so much suffering. Under the pretext that this law is to curb terrorism, the government gives itself the right to commit any act of terror and, like Aurangzeb who also banned the playing of instruments and the singing of songs, Rajiv Gandhi has done the same. Aurangzeb was facing the revolt of the people of the south and of the northwest and northeast and the ground was slipping under his feet as well. He too, wearing the gown of a swaggering Muslim, thought he could kill the revolution and imprison and put to the sword all the revolutionary forces. In the same manner, today the Indian ruling classes and Rajiv Gandhi feel the ground slipping out from under them. This shows the utter fear that has gripped their hearts. Far from being able to create an atmosphere of fear, of compromise and submission, it is the Indian ruling classes which are afraid. It is they who must further split and divide, and this will further deepen the crisis and the contradictions will erupt like volcanoes. For their part, the Indian people know no compromise with their enemies, nor do they have the tradition of submitting to their native and foreign exploiters. The entire history of the struggle of the Indian people for national and social liberation is testimony to this.
"The Indian people will march on along their road of national and social liberation. They have the wisdom and the strength never to sacrifice their pure love and ancient traditions of unity and common struggle and to heroically fulfill their age-old desire to be independent and prosperous. They will never compromise their pure ideals, nor will they submit to the tanks and bullets of the enemy. It does not matter how much the Indian ruling classes try to find and promote those who will agree to engineer a compromise and create a climate of submission in Punjab, and it does not matter how much pressure they put on the people professing the Sikh religion or on the people in Assam, Kashmir and elsewhere, imposing communal tension and pressure on the peoples everywhere, or to what extent they carry out communal violence and fascist terror. The people who could put an end to Abdalis and Aurangzeb and who never accepted the massacres of Jalianwala Bagh and of Dum Dum, the heroic people of India who went to battle with their bare hands against the foreign occupiers and their native collaborators, this same people will also send the present ruling classes and their foreign backers packing. Such is the historical destiny of the doctrine of supreme sacrifice for the freedom, unity and love for the cause of the peoples. Such is also the destiny of the oppressors and traitors whose downfall and overthrow will be the first step towards the full expression of the real heroism and true ideals and values which the Indian people hold so precious and dear.
"The joy of struggle and the bitterness of tragedies and sufferings imposed on the people is their lot today. The victory of the people's revolution will end this bitterness. It will create the condition for the proliferation of the real personality of India, the land of heroes and heroic fighters, the land where the people value their ideals of freedom more than their lives, where the millions of hearts are throbbing to put an end to the curse of division and humiliation, of exploitation and oppression, the curse which British colonialism imposed on them and which is now carried out by their collaborators and world reaction. The victory of the people in this glorious struggle is guaranteed by their heroism and by their ideals."
(Meeting in London, England on the first anniversary of the massacre at the Golden Temple known as Operation Blue Star. Photos: Sikhmuseum.com)
75th Anniversary of D-Day
Deepest Respects to All Who Contributed to the Defeat of the Nazis in World War II
D-Day landing in Normandy, June 6, 1944.
This year marks the 75th anniversary of the World War II allied landing on the coast of Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944. On this anniversary, Canadians pay deepest respects to all the men and women who contributed to the defeat of the Nazis in Europe. Nearly 150,000 Allied troops landed or parachuted into the 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 fighter-bomber squadrons to the assault. Total Allied casualties that day reached more than 10,000, including 1,074 Canadians, of whom 359 were killed.
The invasion force that landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944 was comprised of Americans, British and Canadians. 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 fight 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 the war, 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.
Soldiers of the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade deploying in the Nan
White
Sector at Juno Beach.
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.
Historica Canada points out:
"For years, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had pressured the 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 supply and 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 Channel had 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, with 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 Red Army broke Hitler's back in Stalingrad and then chased his Nazi forces all the way 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.
(With files from HBRC archives, Historica Canada. Photos: Libraries and Archives Canada, Imperial War Museum)
Normandy Landing and the Re-Writing of History
In an article published on the 70th anniversary of D-Day, 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."[1]
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."[2]
During their meeting in Tehran at the end of November 1943, 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."[3]
However, Quétel writes, "This Soviet offensive, the largest since the beginning of the war, has often been obscured in the Western world because of the Cold War and rewriting of history."[4]
Quétel tells us: "The Russian victories in Stalingrad 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."
Historian Antony Beevor summarized what happened a few 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."[5] 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 delayed:
"Eisenhower's decision to launch the operations on June 6, 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!"[6]
The decisive role of the Soviet Union in the military defeat of fascist Germany was accepted by everyone at the time such as the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who, even before the landing at Normandy, on May 17, 1944, honoured the city of Stalingrad 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."[7]
Nonetheless, the Anglo-American imperialists like to claim that they, not the Soviets, with the invasion of Normandy were the decisive force in defeating Hitler. The D-Day Commemorations are used to make this claim and do warmongering propaganda against Russia today. This does a great disservice not only to the peoples of the former Soviet Union whose sacrifice in the war literally saved Europe, but also 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 which dishonours the anti-fascist contribution of the soldiers who fought in the Second Front even more.
Notes
1. La Presse, June 6, 2014. Translated from French by TML.
3. Le Monde-Hors série: 1944/Débarquements, résistances, libérations, May-July 2014, La bataille de Normandie en neufs points, pp.20-23. Quote translated from French by TML.
5. Antony Beevor, The Second World War, Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2012.
6. Antony Beevor, "Ce n'était pas gagné d'avance," Le Point, June 5, 2014, pp.58-62. Quote translated from French by TML.
7. J.V. Stalin, Correspondence with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, Vol. 2 (1941-1945), footnote no. 67.
(A version of this article was
translated
from the original French and abridged for publication by TML
Weekly on the 74th anniversary of D-Day. Photo: TML)
|
|
(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca