|
July 27, 2012 - No. 102
Harper Government's Anti-Social Agenda
Scientists Denounce Government Cuts to
Research Programs and Institutions
Ottawa, July 10, 2012
Harper
Government's Anti-Social Agenda
• Scientists Denounce Government Cuts to
Research Programs and Institutions
Independent
Civilian
Review
into
Matters
Related
to
the G20
• Toronto Police Services Board "Independent
Review" Justifies Police Acting with Impunity - Philip
Fernandez
• Proposed Changes to "Civilian Oversight" of
Toronto Police Require People's Movement to Be Vigilant -
Lorne Gershuny
59th Anniversary of
U.S Defeat in Korean War
• Demand the U.S. Stop All Military
Provocations Against the DPRK and Sign a Peace Treaty Now!
• Call for Peace on Korean Peninsula
• DPRK Foreign Ministry Condemns U.S. for
Organizing Terrorist Activity
Harper Government's Anti-Social Agenda
Scientists Denounce Government Cuts to
Research Programs and Institutions
As part of the opposition to the Harper government's
anti-social
offensive, including its omnibus budget bill, Canadian scientists
rallied in Ottawa and Winnipeg on July 10 to denounce the recent cuts
by the Conservative government to several science programs across
Canada.
Ottawa
In Ottawa, more than 1,000 scientists,
researchers and academics rallied at lunch hour on Parliament Hill.
The demonstrators pointed out that these cuts have brought an end to
several research programs and threaten the existence of some research
centres, such as the Experimental Lakes
Area, an outdoor laboratory in western Ontario founded in 1968 and
dedicated to the protection of freshwater. Without government funding
these may close in 2013.
 Cuts have been made to the
National Research Council,
the Polar
Atmospheric Environmental Research Lab, Environment Canada, Fisheries
and Oceans and Statistics Canada. The government has also eliminated
the Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy and the position of
the National Science Advisor.
The demonstrators denounced the government's "infocide,"
the gag
order it has imposed on government scientists which prevents them from
freely
expressing their views to the public.
The scientists, dressed in white lab coats accompanied
by mourners
dressed in black held a funeral march through the streets of downtown
Ottawa for the "Death of Evidence," chanting, "No Evidence, No Science,
No Truth, No Democracy." A protestor dressed as the Grim Reaper, the
embodiment of death, led
the procession, followed by a coffin representing the corpse of
"Evidence." In the course of the funeral, several people placed
scientific books in the coffin, including Darwin's The Origin of
Species.
The march went back to Parliament Hill for a
mock funeral, complete with floral tributes and eulogies.
 "Until just recently,
scientific evidence played an
important role
to guide our leaders in decision-making. But this voice was tragically
extinguished after a series of cutbacks to several scientific programs,
as well as the muzzling of scientists imposed by the Harper
government," said Katie Gibbs, an organizer of
the funeral march and a PhD student at the University of Ottawa.
"To deny evidence is to live in a child's fantasy world.
Recent
actions by the federal government suggest our state is frightened by
evidence, and is retreating into a fantasy world. For the good of
society, this must be reversed," said Dr. Arne Mooers professor of
biodiversity at Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia.
Fearing retaliation and dismissal, some scientists have
decided not
to speak out. University of Ottawa Professor of Biology Vance Trudeau
addressed the crowd on behalf of "all his friends who cannot speak."
For Scott Findlay, former director of the Institute of
the
Environment at the University of Ottawa, the "death of evidence" is
cause for national mourning. He said that the public hears and sees
only the information that supports the federal government's policies or
its ideology, and described this as a form of
propaganda.
Winnipeg
In Winnipeg, a dozen scientists and citizens
gathered outside the Freshwater Institute of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada at the campus of the University of Manitoba. As environmental
activist Carolyn Garlich pointed out, they were dressed in black as
a sign of mourning.
One of the speakers was John Shearer, a retired senior
biologist
with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who worked at the
Experimental Lakes Area for 35 years. "Today, we mourn the Experimental
Lakes, but moreover, we morn the blindfold of ignorance imposed upon
our once-great country," said Shearer, hearkening to a time when the
federal government was increasing investments in scientific research.
"The best scientists in the world flocked to these Canadian lakes to
ask questions that could not be asked elsewhere," he said.
Shearer also pointed out that scientific programs are no
longer
designed to protect the environment but to exploit resources. "You have
to wonder about what is funded and for what aim. Almost no programs are
funded to protect the environment," he said.
Closure of Experimental Lakes Area
 The closure of the Experimental
Lakes Area was a major focus of the July 10 actions. The closure will
save the
government only $2 million a year, the amount spent to install the fake
lake for the few days of the G20 summit in Toronto in 2010. The station
is considered the world's
largest outdoor laboratory. It has conducted groundbreaking work on the
effects of human and natural activity on freshwater ecosystems.
The website for the Experimental Lakes Area states, "The
Experimental Lakes
Area (ELA)
occupies a unique position, not only in Canada but in the world, as a
dedicated research facility for ecosystem-scale experimental
investigations and long-term monitoring of ecosystem processes. Located
in a sparsely inhabited region of southern
Canada, the ELA is relatively unaffected by external human influences
and industrial activities. As such, it serves as a natural laboratory
for the study of physical, chemical and biological processes and
interactions operating on an ecosystem spatial scale and a multi-year
time scale.
 "The ELA includes 58 small lakes (1 to 84 ha)
and their
drainage
basins, which have been set aside and are managed through a joint
agreement between the Canadian and Ontario governments. Only research
activities, or activities compatible with that research, are permitted
within or adjacent to these watersheds.
Data records from these watersheds began in 1967 and experimental
studies began in 1969.
"While the ELA is operated by the Central and Arctic
Region of
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) from its Freshwater Institute in
Winnipeg, Canada, research at this unique facility is jointly conducted
by researchers from DFO and from a variety of partner organizations."
Harper Government's Politicization of Private
Interests,
Depoliticization of Public Interests and Nation-Wrecking
 Government
spokespeople responded to the protest by claiming the Harper government
has made "historic investments in science and technology." Minister of
State for Science and Technology
Gary Goodyear claimed in an email that government investments "are
enabling Canadian scientists in universities, colleges, businesses and
other organizations to help secure Canada's prosperity today and into
the future."
What kind of funding has the government actually been
making and to whom?
Available statistics show that between 2004 and 2010 the
combined
spending on research and development by Canadian governments and the
private sector declined from two per cent to 1.8 per cent of the GDP.
In 2008 Canada ranked 21st out of 28 OECD countries for proportion of
total scientists employed
by government at six per cent. The government has not released
additional figures since 2008. Tom Caulfield, a Canadian Research Chair
in Health, Law and Policy has found that "commercialization and links
with industry have never been more intense" in the scientific
community. He points out that this raises
issues about which research is funded. In a recent
response to a question by Julia Belluz of the Maclean's
blog Science-ish, Caulfield said, "There are documented harms
[associated with industry-funded research], including the potential for
data withholding, reduced collaborations, premature
implementation of technologies and exaggerated claims of benefit." This
is yet another area in which Canadians are seeing the politicization
of private interests, the depoliticization of public interests and
destruction of public assets that is intensifying under the Harper
government's nation-wrecking.
Simon Fraser University biologist and biodiversity
expert Arne
Mooers, expressed a similar view to Caulfield when interviewed by NOW
Magazine.
He said the scientists' protest wasn't only about the amount of funding
but about how certain studies have been discouraged and halted by the
Harper
government -- "Its about what type of science gets funded and how the
outputs of science get fed into policy," he said.
 In that vein, Professor
John Smol, a freshwater lake
biologist at
Queen's University, quoted by the British newspaper the Guardian, noted
the move in Canada and other countries, to push through "resource-based
economies." University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver in
the same item stated that it
was not a government attempt to "save money" but to impose "an
ideological agenda to develop the Canadian economy based on the
extraction of oil out of the Alberta tar sands as quickly as possible
and sell it as fast as it can, come hell or high water, and eliminate
any barriers that stand in their way."
The Harper government's attacks on scientists and their
fields of
research and public institutions is part of a broader agenda to
disinform the polity and impose its anti-social agenda, by removing
those people and bodies whose work does not lend support to its aims.
There are many examples. A recent Letter
to the Editor of the Cornwall Free News by Niagara resident
Joe Hueglin to support the scientists notes that in the recent decision
to
close prison farms, evidence of the benefit of the farms was "ignored
[...] on
the no-evidence basis they were too costly." Similarly, Hueglin writes
that Canada's support for aggression
against Syria is not based on evidence, "but on following the
directions of our closest allies."
The scientists' fight to defend their research and
research
institutions as a valuable contribution to the worldwide body of
knowledge
is just and must be supported. The anti-social attacks in the form of
the omnibus budget bill, regulatory changes, increased ministerial
powers and submission to U.S. imperialist dictate
show that the Harper government is hell-bent on servicing interests
that are alien to the public interest and that the task at hand is how
to organize to oppose this and bring pro-social arrangements into being.
Independent Civilian Review into Matters
Related to the G20
Toronto Police Services Board "Independent Review"
Justifies Police Acting with Impunity
- Philip Fernandez -
On June 27, 2012, the final report commissioned by the
Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB), entitled Independent
Civilian Review into Matters Related to the G20 was tabled by
former Ontario Appeal Court Judge John Morden. This report was
commissioned by the TPSB as a response to the
outrage from Torontonians to the widespread police violence and abuse
of rights and unlawful arrests of some 1,150 people by the Toronto
police during the G20 Summit in Toronto in June 2010 that is
well-documented and graphically portrayed through scores of videos
widely available on the internet.
The 410-page report cost more than $1 million according
to media reports. Judge Morden and his staff studied previous reports
that have been tabled since the G8/G20 Summits, questioned members of
the TPSB
and senior Toronto Police Services personnel, including Chief Bill
Blair, who was interviewed over a period
of five days. They also conducted three days of public hearings in
Toronto to receive public submissions. At least two academics with
expertise on policing matters were consulted.
 As TML pointed
out at the time of the G20 Summit, the
events of police violence in Toronto were not an aberration but part of
a developing pattern of state activity meant to block the people and
workers from having their say in the society -- whether it be on the
right to health care, education and other
social programs, opposition to war or a direction for society that
serves a pro-social aim -- and turning the situation around in their
favour. The violence against the students and people of Quebec who are
standing up against the dictate of the Charest government and the
passing of the Special Law is further proof
of the increasing state repression against the people and their right
to conscience and their collective right to organize politically.
TML Weekly Information
Project pointed out in its June 2, 2012 edition, the Canadian
state undertook G8/G20 surveillance activities months before the
Summits "with clearly articulated official guidelines to target and
criminalize all those who held ideo-political positions against the
G8/G20 with
which the government disagrees." The police violence against the G20
protesters in Toronto was part of an organized para-military operation
by the Canadian state against the people who are increasingly voicing
their opposition to the anti-social offensive at home and the
imperialist neoliberal agenda of the G20
in which Canada under the Harper regime is mired.
 The TPSB review, like
previous reviews,[1]
diverts attention from the facts that the aim of the G20 policing was
to crush the people's resistance under the pretext of going after
"violent protesters" and that the police are part of the Canadian state
apparatus that is deployed to protect the interests of the rich. It
looks into the G20 policing in Toronto as a "matter" that arose as a
consequence of jurisdictional, operational and logistical issues that
were not politically motivated. The Review reinforces the
disinformation that the police are a non-political force, citing that
"section 31(4) of the [Ontario] Police Services Act
gives expression to a very important common law principle relating to
police independence from political, and other, interference with its
law enforcement responsibilities."
The main criticism of the
Review is levelled at the TPSB, the agency that commissioned the
report. According to Judge Morden, the TPSB did not do the job required
of it, as mandated by the Police Services Act --
"A board is responsible for the provision of adequate and effective
police
services in [the City of Toronto]..."
The Review posits that the Board's civilian oversight
responsibility as mandated by law was "virtually non-existent" and
that, without proper civilian monitoring of the police, "trust" cannot
be established between the police and the public which undermines the
policing function. For example, it points out that
the Board did not ask the right questions of Toronto Police Chief Bill
Blair so that it was on top of matters related to G20 policing. It
points out that Chief Blair presented information to the Board on an irregular basis. Within the
Board itself, those who wanted to pose questions concerning the
legitimacy
of using long-range acoustic devices (sound cannons) against
protesters, for example, were prevented from doing so. The Review
criticizes the Harper government’s decision to hold the G20 Summit in
Toronto as a fait accompli, giving little time for
preparation and keeping the TPSB in the dark about
all the arrangements being made. Judge Morden describes this "top down"
approach as unacceptable and recommends that in future the Board get
its own legal advice and ensure that agreements are in place between
all the entities to enable the Board to carry out its mandate properly.
 In this way, the TPSB, not
the conduct of the police, has been made the target of the inquiry. It
is well known to Torontonians, that the TPSB, an appointed body of six
people, has been singularly ineffective in dealing with the Toronto
Police Services since its inception in 1990, as was its previous
incarnation, the
Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission. Countless incidents of police
violence and wrong-doing against minority youth and the homeless and
the killing of civilians through deadly force, have in almost all
instances, gone unpunished. The Toronto police can and do act with
impunity. This much is a fact. It is also
clear that the relationship between Chief Blair and the Toronto Police
Services Board is one of the tail wagging the dog. One conclusion that
can be safely drawn from the Review is that Chief Blair was getting his
marching orders from elsewhere -- from the PMO's office and the RCMP --
and the TPSB was "encouraged"
to keep out.
 Judge Morden suggests that
the G20 policing "got out of
hand" because the Toronto police were understaffed and that too many
officers were deployed in policing the "interdiction zone" -- the
buffer between the G20 Summit meeting place at the Toronto Convention
Centre, the hotels where the "Internationally
Protected Persons" and their entourages were staying, and the
three-meter high fence surrounding the Summit zone. It is stated that
not enough officers were available to police the "outer zone" where
instances of violence broke out. Given that there were 20,000 police
armed to the teeth and 30,000 unarmed protesters,
it is hard to imagine how the police were under-resourced. As well, if
the police were under-resourced in the "outer zone," why did they
attack people who happened to be gathered at Queen's Park on the
afternoon of June 26, unless it was to terrorize the people?
It is also noteworthy that
the Review highlights that training provided to the G20 police
overwhelmingly presented the protesters as "violent," "anarchists,"
"Black Bloc," etc. who would engage in "tactics such as vandalism,
rioting, and violent resistance of police authority. Further, these
illustrations considered
alongside other crude representations of police interactions with the
public, may have suggested to officers that more aggressive crowd
control measures were the appropriate default police response to
security events." Judge Morden recommends that in future, the training
of police for such events be more
"balanced," ensuring that police respect the Charter rights of the protesters.
This is clearly a diversion. The training content was plainly aimed at
justifying violence against the protesters, treating all protesters as
"violent criminals" and beating and arresting as many of them as
possible -- in line with the order given
for the police "to own the streets."
The Review points out that it is a "very serious
offence" when police officers knowingly remove their badges, as more
than 100 officers did during the G20 Summit. It notes that the removal
of badges indicates intent to commit wrongdoing. However, it goes along
with the light "slap of the hand" -- the loss of
one or two days pay -- for officers who committed this "very serious
offence."
Judge Morden concludes that "the cases of ineffective
policing and excessive use of force during the G20 Summit were not
significantly the result of non-compliance with police service
procedures, but rather of a host of other factors, beginning with
inadequate preparation time." In this way, the state is let off
the hook, and any hope Torontonians held that justice would be served
as a result of this report are quashed.
 The majority of the 38
recommendations put forward
relate to providing a protocol that would enhance communication between
the TPSB and the Police Services, having written agreements between
governments and the TPSB in future large-scale events, and ensuring
that through planning the police have
adequate resources including time to carry out their duties. For
example, concerning the mass detentions and the abuses that took place
at the detention centre, where detainees were strip-searched for no
reason, denied food, water and toilet facilities, denied medication for
those who needed it, and held in overcrowded conditions,
the recommendation is the "Creation of a Board Policy on Mass
Detentions." Taken as a whole, these recommendations, if implemented,
will create a stronger command structure for policing in Toronto, and
provide a thin veneer of legality for future police impunity in large
scale events such as the G20 Summit.
What this Review shows is
that the rule of law is held in disrepute by the Canadian state. In the
face of the resistance to the anti-social offensive, the Canadian state
uses force and violence to criminalize the struggles of the people who
are demanding their rights and the rights of their collectives. Not
only must
the working class and people of Toronto and Canada reject the bogus
Review done for the TPSB, but continue to demand justice for
the victims of the G20, continue to raise high the banner "Let Us
Together Defend the Rights of All!," organize to renew the political
arrangements in Canada and bring
in a modern rule of law that protects the rights of the people from
impunity.
 
Unprovoked police attacks
outside the
detention centre at protest
against mass arrests at G20, June 27, 2010.Note
1. Previous reviews/reports on policing at the
G8-G20 Summits:
a) The report of Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin,
released December 2010, on the Public Works Protection Act
(1939) that was used illegally to keep protesters away from the
security fence. Click
here
to
view.
b) A public interest review was conducted by the
Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Union of Public
and General Employees Union (NUPGE) and included three days of public
hearings in November 2010. The final report, entitled "Breach of the
Peace," was released February 28, 2011 and
called for a public inquiry into the G20 Summit protest. Click
here
to
view.
c) The report from former Ontario Justice Roy
McMurtry, "Report of the Review of the Public Works Protection Act,"
submitted
to
Ontario's
Minister
of
Community
Safety and Correctional
Services in April 2011, recommended the Public Works Protection Act
be scrapped. Click
here
to
view.
d) The House of Common's Standing Committee G20
Report, tabled March 2011, made 12 recommendations and called on
the Harper government and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews to apologize
to Canadians (no apology has been made). Click
here
to
view.
e) The Toronto Police Services internal review
that denied any wrongdoing by the police, "Toronto Police Service
After-Action Review," was released June 2011. This followed Toronto
Police Chief William Blair's announcement on June 29, 2010 that a
report would be prepared on the actions of the Toronto Police
Service during the G20 Summit. Click
here
to
view.
f) The RCMP's "Public Interest Investigation into
RCMP Member Conduct Related to the 2010 G8 and G20 Summits" -- a report
from the RCMP's watchdog, the Commission for Public Complaints,
released May 2012 -- concluded that the RCMP is not responsible for any
wrongdoing at the G20. Click
here
to
view.
g) The Ontario Office of the Independent Police
Review Director's report, by Gerry McNeilly, tabled on May 16, 2012,
which made 42 recommendations and recommended that charges be laid
against 31 police officers (nothing has been done so far). Click here
to view.
Proposed Changes to "Civilian Oversight" of Toronto
Police Require People's Movement to Be Vigilant
- Lorne Gershuny -
Mass protest against G20,
Toronto, June 26, 2010.
The last of the major reports on the conduct of the
police at the G20 Summit in Toronto in June 2010 has now been released,
but anyone who expects it to contain a call for police officers and
their commanders to be held accountable for the violent intimidation of
protesters will be bitterly disappointed. The
report, written by former Ontario Court of Appeal Justice John Morden
and made public on June 29, is called an "Independent Civilian Review
into Matters Relating to the G20 Summit" and was commissioned by the
Toronto Police Services Board, but it does not address police
misconduct or the partisan political
nature of the assault on the people's movement at the G20 Summit.
 The Review's terms of
reference describe its mandate: "To conduct a Review of the role played
by the Toronto Police Service in developing and implementing the
strategies for policing the G20 to determine whether those strategies
were adequate and effective police services and to conduct a Review of
the role of the Board with respect to the planning for and policing of
the G20." The focus of the resulting report, however, is not to expose
police misconduct but rather to examine the respective fields of
responsibility of the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police
Services Board, to see how the Board exercised
its monitoring role during the G20 summit and to make recommendations
as to how the structure of civilian police oversight by the Board can
be streamlined.
The Review does mention a few things that the Toronto
police did wrong, but those things don't involve actual operations,
only strategic planning. As an example, the Review notes that the
Toronto police devoted too many officers to patrol the Interdiction
Zone (the supposed buffer zone outside the security
fence), thus creating a "policing vacuum" in the Outer Zone (the rest
of the city). The Review identifies this as a "mistake," because the
police were then "unable to adequately and effectively manage the
violence and property damage taking place in the city." The Review
asserts, "Had the Board and Chief engaged
in proper consultation on the Toronto Police Service's focus for the
G20 Summit, a more balanced approach to the Toronto Police Service's
objectives and priorities for G20 Summit policing may have been
established. Certainly, the Board would have emphasized the need to
make the Outer Zone the Toronto Police
Service's first priority. This could have minimized the extent of the
breakdown that occurred on June 26." In the end, the only
recommendation made to the Board on this point is, in future, to
"obtain information concerning the command and control structure for
multi-jurisdictional policing events." The criminal
violence used by the police throughout the downtown area against
opponents of the G20 austerity agenda is not viewed as a cause for
concern by the Review and is not considered a "mistake" or a
"breakdown" worthy of mention.
According to the Review, another wrong action was that
Chief Blair gave all his officers an overly broad interpretation of the
"five metre rule" (which allowed them to search and detain anyone
approaching the security fence). This exaggerated interpretation of the
law, extending the special police powers to a
wide area of the downtown core, was identified as being "incorrect" by
the Review. Apparently, a clarification was issued before the summit
but that didn't stop the police from carrying out hostile actions
against demonstrators far from the perimeter fence, including at the
designated "free speech" zone. However,
the threats and violence by the police are not viewed as a problem by
the Review. It only considers the "mistake" by the Chief as an example
of how the Board should be more involved in the planning of policing
for major events.
 The Review starts by
recalling that the police are bound to conduct themselves in accordance
with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then
goes on to describe how strip searches were done indiscriminately. It
acknowledges that some people's rights were violated this way but,
again,
this example is only used to show how the Board should have more active
oversight of police procedures, especially at major events.
The hidden danger of the Review is that, if its
recommendations are implemented, the Board and the police will be able
to work together in the realm of policy-making and planning in a more
co-ordinated way, while leaving the police free to carry out the same
kind of political attack against the people's movement
again, behind a veneer of legality. This is the real nature of the
"civilian oversight" that will remain intact and be further entrenched
with this Review. The situation points to the need for the people to be
vigilant against putting their faith in proposals that purport to
increase police accountability but actually leave
the police hierarchy free to stage politically-motivated assaults on
the people's movement with impunity.
59th Anniversary of U.S Defeat in Korean
War
Demand the U.S. Stop All Military Provocations Against
the DPRK and Sign a Peace Treaty Now!
On July 27, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK) and the
Korean people, together with all progressive humanity, mark the
59th anniversary of the defeat of U.S. imperialism in the Korean War
and the signing of the Armistice Agreement. Far from being a remote
historical event, the victory
of the Korean People's Army (KPA) over the U.S. aggressors and their
allies and the U.S.’ continuing refusal to sign a peace treaty to
officially bring an end to the war, has set the stage for the current
state of affairs on the Korean peninsula.
Troops of the U.S.
and its allies retreat south of the 38th parallel following their
defeat in the Korean war.
|
The Korean War began on June 25, 1950. Negotiations to
end the
Korean War started in the middle of 1951, but the U.S. refused to agree
to a ceasefire as a condition of talks. Right up until July 27, 1953,
it hoped to win a military victory in the Korean War, as it carried out
such war crimes as bombing dams
and irrigation canals in the north to flood the grainfields and starve
the people, the massive use of napalm and the carpet bombing of
civilian targets to terrorize the Korean people into submission. But
this was not to be. Led by Kim Il Sung and the KPA, and with the help
of the Chinese Volunteer Army, the Korean
people defeated the troops of the U.S. and 15 other aggressor nations
including Canada, which fought ignobly under U.S. command behind the
fig-leaf of the United Nations. In that unjust war of aggression four
million Korean people died and the infrastructure of the DPRK was
reduced to rubble.
After this brutal test of their mettle, the people of
the DPRK once
again rose to the occasion and rebuilt the country into a thriving
socialist nation.
For the last six decades, the U.S. imperialists have
maintained a
morbid perseveration with their defeat, while carrying out further
provocative acts of aggression against the DPRK, including war
preparations with its puppet south-Korean military and the Japanese
armed forces.
 On June 22, on the 62nd anniversary
of the launching of the Korean
War by the U.S. and its allies, the U.S. conducted massive live-fire
war drills with south Korea, just 15 miles south of its border with the
DPRK. Military sources say these military exercises were the
largest of their kind since the Korean
War and according
to the south Korean Defence Ministry were calculated to be a "clear
warning" to the DPRK. The exercises included more than
2,000 troops, A-10 Thunderbolt fighter jets (one of the deadliest U.S.
jets, with "tank-buster" guns, and used extensively in Iraq), Apache
attack helicopters, tanks and
missiles. Huge explosions occurred and aircraft and helicopters
repeatedly flew over the area, chosen purposely -- and dangerously --
close to the DPRK border. The flag of the DPRK was used as a bombing
target, a deliberate provocation. At the same time a naval drill
involving the Japanese navy was held around
Jeju Island, where the U.S. is building a massive new naval base in the
face of the opposition of the Jeju Islanders and the Korean people.
In the DPRK, massive events are being planned to
celebrate the 59th
anniversary of the victory of the DPRK in the Fatherland Liberation
War, as the Korean War is called. The DPRK will use the occasion to
celebrate the unity of the Korean people in defeating the "might makes
right" dictum of U.S. imperialism.
It will rightly celebrate this historic victory when Korea, a small
Asian nation, united as one and defending its sovereignty, dignity and
honour, defeated the "greatest" military power in the world and
contributed to peace in the region.
 
Korean People's Army
veterans arrive in Pyongyang, July 26, 2012 to take
part in celebrations to mark
the anniversary of the
end of the Korean War. At a time when the peoples of the world are facing the
dangers of
more wars and aggression, the sacrifices the Korean people made to
defeat the U.S. and ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula, in the region
and throughout the world must not be forgotten. War preparations around
Korea and throughout the world
and the use of force to settle differences between nations and peoples
must be vigorously opposed.
The threat of a world war breaking out on the Korean
peninsula,
another Korean War, this time a nuclear world war with
catastrophic consequences for the Korean people and all humanity, is
very real. The Canadian people must demand that the U.S. sign a peace
treaty with the DPRK to ensure
that this does not happen. The Canadian people
must demand that the Harper government does not embroil Canada in
another Korean War, by opposing all war-mongering against the DPRK and
the Korean people.
Forces
of the Korean
People's Army celebrate victory on the battlefield during the Korean
War.
Call for Peace on Korean Peninsula
 A spokesman for the DPRK
Foreign Ministry issued the following statement July 25:
Fifty-nine years have passed since the Korean Armistice
Agreement was signed but technically the war has not been terminated.
By nature, the Armistice Agreement was a transitional
step which
specified that negotiations should be held at a political level within
three months with an aim to have all foreign forces withdrawn from the
Korean Peninsula and ensure a durable peace there.
But the U.S. deliberately opted to prolong the truce. In
November
1953 it defined its ultimate goal as realizing the "pro-American
unification" of the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. also adopted "National
Security Council Resolution 170" to make south Korea its "military
ally" while keeping the armistice system
until this goal is attained.
Pursuant to this, the U.S. disrupted the Geneva meeting
for a
peaceful settlement of the Korean issue, shipped into south Korea a
massive amount of modern weapons including nuclear weapons in violation
of the Armistice Agreement and has consistently staged war manoeuvres
under various codenames.
It has persistently avoided the conclusion of a peace
agreement and
maintained the state of belligerence on the Korean Peninsula. This is
the most typical expression of its hostile policy toward the DPRK.
Premier Kim Il Sung
endorses the July 27, 1953
armistice agreement. |
It has systematically scrapped major provisions of the
Armistice
Agreement, steadily increased military and nuclear threats to the DPRK
and in the long run compelled it to have access to nuclear weapons.
The unstable truce between the DPRK and the United
States has
persisted on the Korean Peninsula for 59 years. This is a very abnormal
situation unprecedented in the world history of wars.
A second Korean war, in which the two sides would stand
in the most
acute military stand-off, has been headed off in the Korean Peninsula.
This would not have been possible without the DPRK's Songun
politics and effective war deterrent based on self-defensive nuclear
forces.[1] Those
countries
without a nuclear deterrent were brought down without exception in the
face
of military intervention of hostile forces aimed at toppling their
social systems. This is a stark reality in the present century.
The DPRK will never abandon nuclear deterrent first as
long as the
U.S., the biggest nuclear weapons state in the world, remains hostile
towards it.
Had the U.S. sincerely implemented any one of its
commitments to the
Armistice Agreement, the resolution of the 30th UN General Assembly
session on having U.S. forces withdraw from south Korea and the
DPRK-U.S. agreements in which it promised not to antagonize the DPRK, a
durable peace would have
settled on the Korean Peninsula and the situation would not have
reached today the brink of a nuclear war.
It is the consistent stand of the DPRK to settle
problems through
dialogue and negotiations but all the dialogue cannot but be "for the
sake of dialogue" unless the U.S. rolls back its hostile policy. This
recaps the nearly 60-year-long history of the armistice.
The U.S. should not just claim that it does not have any
hostile
intention to the DPRK in words but prove it in such practical actions
as making a bold decision to replace the Armistice Agreement with a
peace agreement without any excuse or precondition.
To abandon its hostile policy cannot be a "present" or
bargaining
chip. The U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK must first be rolled back
unconditionally because it is unreasonable and anachronistic. Only when
one party does not antagonize the other party and when they sit face to
face on an equal footing will
it be possible to have dialogue in the true sense of the word and
settle all problems of mutual concern.
One way of solving the problem is to sign a peace
agreement with the
U.S. and another one is to root out the cause of war from the Korean
Peninsula for a durable peace.
The ball is in the court of the U.S.
Panmunjom, Korea, July 27, 1953. An armistice is
signed by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William K. Harrison, Jr. (left), senior
delegate, on behalf of the UN Command Delegation and General Nam Il of
the DPRK, senior delegate, Delegation of the Korean
People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteers, which brought about
an end to open warfare in the Korean war. The armistice was reached
after 158 meetings spread over more than two years. The building shown
above has been preserved by the DPRK in the demilitarized zone to
inform future generations of the crimes committed by the U.S. and its
allies and the need to ensure Korea is peacefully reunified free from
outside interference.Note
1. Songun is the
DPRK's "military first" policy, in which
the Korean People's Army plays a central role in the DPRK's socialist
nation-building project as well as its national defence -- TML
Ed.
DPRK Foreign Ministry Condemns U.S. for Organizing
Terrorist Activity
 On June 20, the DPRK Foreign
Ministry issued a statement condemning
the U.S. for conspiring to carry out the bombing of monuments sacred to
the people of the DPRK. The Ministry reported that the DPRK had caught
a criminal who had infiltrated the country with the aim of bombing a
statue on July 27
-- the 59th anniversary of the day the Korean War ended.
Press reports inform that the testimony of the person
recruited by
the U.S. to carry out these terrorist acts indicates U.S. involvement
in a plot by the Lee Myung Bak regime using defectors from the DPRK to
south Korea.
The DPRK Foreign Ministry points out that such activity
is
consistent with the well-known methods of the U.S. imperialists to
foment social upheaval in countries where it wishes to provide itself
with pretexts for military interference and wars of aggression so as to
engineer "regime change" to serve its own
ends.
The Foreign Ministry statement points out: "It is an
open fact that
the U.S. has a special item in its state budget each year to fund
organizations to conspire against the DPRK in order to escalate
anti-DPRK psychological warfare and other disruptive activities."
It adds that the U.S. State Department's Special Envoy
for Human
Rights in North Korea, who visited south Korea in mid-June, announced
that the U.S. would fund those organizations plotting to disrupt the
DPRK to the tune of U.S.$10 million this year.
"It is not just coincidence that this terrorist was
arrested in the
DPRK soon after that announcement," states the DPRK Foreign Ministry,
adding that this is but one example of the sabotage being conducted by
the U.S. against the DPRK. "Even at this moment, hostile elements,
bribed by the U.S., are hatching
a second and third conspiracy, in accordance with the U.S. scenario,"
writes the Ministry.
The Foreign Ministry decries how far the U.S. has
backtracked from
the main points of the October 12, 2000 DPRK-U.S. joint
communiqué in
which the U.S. stated that it has no hostility toward the DPRK; and
those of the September 19, 2005 joint statement in which the U.S.
confirmed its stand not to attack
or invade the DPRK and promised to respect the DPRK's sovereignty and
co-exist with it in peace.
While U.S. authorities often say that the U.S. has no
intention of
undertaking hostile acts against the DPRK, the situation clearly shows
that its words are in contradiction with its deeds.
The Foreign Ministry highlights the seriousness of this
nefarious
activity: "[I]t is a war action as serious as an armed invasion."
Furthermore, the Ministry adds, "The consistent hostile policy
towards the DPRK pursued by the U.S. [... makes] the prospect of
denuclearizing the peninsula all the more gloomy,"
and says the DPRK is compelled to totally reexamine the nuclear issue.
"Without the U.S. fundamental repeal of its hostile
policy toward
the DPRK first, it will be completely impossible to settle the issue of
ensuring lasting peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula," the
Ministry's statement concludes.
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
