No. 42
July 22, 2024
Vigorous Opposition in Canada and U.S.
to
NATO's 75th Anniversary Summit
NATO Summit Proves Peoples of the World
Must Act to Establish International Rule of Law
That
Favours Them
Toronto, July 11, 2024
• People's Counter-Summit and Actions in the U.S.
Proceedings of NATO War Summit
• NATO Prepares Further Disasters for Ukraine and Its People
• NATO War Preparations in Asia Pacific
• Other Decisions Taken at NATO Summit
Vigorous Opposition in Canada and U.S. to NATO's 75th Anniversary Summit
NATO Summit Proves Peoples of the World
Must Act
to Establish
International Rule of Law
That Favours Them
NATO's 75th Anniversary Summit, held July 9-11 in Washington, DC, was met with militant opposition starting with a people's counter-summit the weekend prior to the Summit of heads of state of member countries. Besides the counter-summit, significant rallies were held on the occasion in Washington as well as information pickets in Canada, while in many countries the resistance forces continue to oppose the heinous crimes the U.S./Zionist forces are committing against the people of Gaza and Palestine. This TML Supplement provides readers with reports of the anti-NATO actions as well as the reckless decisions taken by NATO at its 2024 Summit.
NATO issued the final declaration of its 75th anniversary Washington Summit on July 11. The declaration serves to highlight how reckless the criminal warmongering U.S.-led aggressive military alliance has become and the urgency of recognizing that only the resistance of the peoples of the world based on their own thought material and modern definitions will establish an international rule of law which favours them. The declaration makes clear that NATO's concerns are not those of the peoples of the world who are striving for peace, freedom and democracy. Its posturing and braggart behaviour confirm that it has nothing to offer, no solutions for any problem, not even its own. Like any braggart, NATO boasts arrogantly and excessively about its supposed achievements and capabilities that are either exaggerated or non-existent. Bragging and engaging in hyperbole are character traits which are often associated with insecurity and a need for validation from others, both of which apply to NATO's current state.
The more NATO
resorts to stepping up attacks on Russia, expanding
into the Asia Pacific, militarizing and threatening the peoples of
Europe, expanding in the Arctic and threatening the peoples of the
entire world, the more the resistance of the peoples of the world will
increase. The fact that
the Anglo-American media have completely abandoned reporting on the
demand of the peoples of the world to end the slaughter of the
Palestinian people and their genocide, while they speak endlessly about
the factional fighting within the U.S. and within NATO, shows the
lengths
to which the U.S. imperialists and their allies will go to make sure
the initiative is not in the hands of the Resistance forces.
An aim of the NATO establishment forces is to make the heinous crimes Israel is committing in its genocidal war in Gaza and against the Palestinians normal but this is not okay. All those countries which are not holding Israel to account, such as by cutting off relations and trade with that pariah apartheid and genocidal state, will have to account for themselves. The inaction or attempts to impose the courts as the way to stop Israel which has never, since its founding, been guided by the rule of international law, are not okay. The U.S./NATO warmongering at its summit was to divert from its failures and irrelevance and the dangers it poses. All the NATO warmongers could declare at the end of their proceedings is that they will continue to expand the aggressive alliance, step up war production and threaten even more peoples and countries. NATO cannot even extricate itself from the predicament it has created in Ukraine, even as thousands die in their proxy war. All they could come up with is that they will continue waging the U.S./NATO proxy war which everyone know means to the last Ukrainian.
According to the NATO warmongers' declaration, unless they are part of NATO or one of its so-called partners, peoples and countries pose threats if they pursue their own path and aims that do not favour U.S. hegemonic interests. The clear intention is to broaden NATO's scope in the Middle East. It is singling out Iran, targeting the People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and egging on Germany and Japan to enter into aggressive military partnerships. NATO likes to point out how it has "global partners" to help it carry out this warmongering, as if the peoples of these so-called partners have any illusions about NATO or want anything to do with it.
Amidst NATO's failure and the people's opposition to aggression and war, the role of the Canadian government at the NATO summit was as sycophantic as ever. While Canadians and Quebeckers are worried about living and working conditions, the rampant privatization of public assets and Canada's integration into the U.S. war economy and the destruction of the natural environment, Prime Minister Trudeau dutifully announced to an empty room that Canada would increase military spending to NATO's standard of two per cent of GDP. So too Trudeau provided "an additional $500 million in military assistance to Ukraine as part of NATO's Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine, as well as further support to enhance F-16 training for Ukrainian pilots through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group Air Force Capability Coalition."
In its declaration, NATO claims that its members are "bound together by shared values: individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law." This rings more hollow than ever given the fact that this summit marks 75 years of crimes against the peoples of Europe and the world, that the U.S. along with its allies have formed a genocide coalition, and that the U.S. is racked by discord and strife, while even NATO's European members are turning on each other, unable to sort out any problem in a manner that does not spell out factional conflict, division and war.
What is seen in the world today, especially at the actions to oppose NATO's summit, is what it means for the peoples of the world to be united against U.S./NATO aggression, wars, occupations and genocide. They want an end to imperialist war and a world where they can exercise their sovereignty and establish friendly relations with other countries based on mutual respect and benefit.
The urgency of the peoples' longstanding demands that NATO be dismantled are underscored by the Washington Summit's belligerent declaration that threatens the peoples of the world with death and destruction. The peoples must continue to seize the initiative in their own hands by organizing for peace in their countries and regions so as to establish an international rule of law which favours them.
People's Counter-Summit and Actions in the U.S.
"No to NATO, Yes to
Peace" counter-summit in Washington, DC, July 6-7.
The broad opposition to NATO's 75th anniversary summit in Washington, DC started the weekend of July 6-7, ahead of the summit, with a people's counter-summit. The counter-summit played an important role in focusing how the Anglo-American imperialists use U.S.-led NATO to attack and threaten competitors on all continents with the aim of maximizing profits of the big corporations and banks. Everything shows that NATO was in fact one of the first oligopolies set up by the U.S. imperialists after World War II with its entanglement of governments, banks, corporations and the U.S. civil-military-industrial complex operating in tandem.
Large numbers of activists, many relatively new to the anti-war movement, gathered in the 35-degree Celsius heat of Washington, DC to oppose and set the tone for the NATO warmongers who would arrive for their summit July 9-11.
Informative panels on July 6 were filled to capacity. The panels and speakers brought out the role of the U.S. government and its aggressive NATO military alliance, and that far from being a defensive alliance, it is actively involved in stoking conflict around the world. Speakers from various organizations gave the perspective of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean and how NATO is involved in their regions and the problems it is causing, as well as the escalation of the danger of nuclear war that threatens all humanity.
Several speakers spoke about how NATO is provoking war against Russia using Ukraine as a proxy and possibly starting World War III there. A youth from Palestine told of how NATO is supporting the U.S. government-backed Israeli genocidal massacres of Palestinians. It was also pointed out that NATO countries are surrounding China with military bases. Other speakers reported eloquently on how the U.S., NATO, NATO members and its so-called global partners are threatening and attacking the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, countries in Africa, and the peoples of South America, the Caribbean, Canada, Europe and the U.S. NATO was also condemned for how it is exacerbating the existential threat of global warming and the climate crisis. Discussion also took place on measures required to further build a united movement for peace and justice.
On July 7, a mass rally near the White House made clear that the peoples' opposition to U.S./NATO wars are a defining character of this period and that the peoples are pursuing their own agenda to ensure that all the peoples of the world can live in security.
Excerpts from Keynote Speech to Counter-Summit
At the "No to NATO, Yes to Peace" counter-summit on July 6, the keynote speech was given by Sevim Dagdelen, a member of the German Bundestag for the party Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht. Posted below are excerpts from her speech.
[...] 75 years of
NATO is equivalent to 75 years of denial, albeit with a dramatic
expansion of scale and scope in recent years.
This is so in part because the three great myths of NATO are now fading.
First is the central myth of a NATO organized as a defence community committed to international law: a NATO that is a community of constitutional states upholding the law, allowing international law to rule its actions so that it exists for no other purpose but to defend the territory of its members.
Yet if we interrogate NATO's actual policies, what do we find?
In 1999, NATO itself conducted a war of aggression, in breach of international law, against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. NATO's war crimes included the bombing of a television station in Belgrade and an allegedly accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy which killed three Chinese journalists.
In 2011, NATO attacked Libya. It misused a UN Security Council resolution to fight a war for regime change, one result of which was that part of the country came under the rule of Islamists; Libya on the whole was plunged into a state of appalling misery, and even suffered the return of slavery.
In Afghanistan, NATO involved itself from 2003 in a war far from Alliance territory, only to hand power, 20 years later, to the Taliban -- whose overthrow had been the invasion's stated objective. That 20-year war in Afghanistan was marked by numerous war crimes -- such as the October 2015 U.S. airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz -- which, needless to say, went unpunished.
NATO has assumed the musketeers' motto: all for one and one for all. This means in practice that the deeds of individual NATO members must also be ascribed to the organization itself. Brown University puts the death toll of the U.S.'s wars in the Middle East over the last 20 years alone at 4.5 million people -- wars, like that in Iraq, based on lies and which were nothing but egregious violations of international law.
NATO's self-image as a community for defence in adherence to international law simply does not match reality. We must rather draw the opposite conclusion.
NATO is a community of illegality and of the violators of international law who, either separately or as an organization, conduct wars of aggression on a politically opportunistic basis.
A second myth, perhaps the one most insistently impressed upon the public, is that of NATO as a community of democracies grounded in the rule of law. But if we examine the past with any care, this flattering self-presentation is immediately deflated by an ugly and shameful record. Until 1974, NATO member Portugal was ruled by a fascist dictatorship which waged blood-soaked colonial wars in Angola and Mozambique. Those who resisted were driven into concentration camps like Tarrafal in Cape Verde, where many Angolans and Guinea-Bissauans were tortured to death. Like fascist Portugal, Greece and Türkiye both were members of NATO in the aftermath of their respective military coups.
NATO itself, as we now know, put into motion Operation Gladio, a clandestine organization to be activated whenever democratic majorities threatened to vote against NATO membership. In Italy, for example, terrorist attacks were carried out in the name of far-left groups so as to discredit the Italian Communist Party in its efforts to form a government.
One might object that here we're referencing a bygone era, and that NATO now stands ready to be called up in the global fight by democrats against autocrats. But on this point too, any serious observer must conclude that something is amiss in that aspect of the 21st century Alliance's self-image.
Take Türkiye under President Erdogan. It has repeatedly conducted illegal wars against Iraq and Syria, supported Islamist terrorist groups in Syria and, according to the German Government's own assessment in 2016, is a launchpad for Islamists; yet Türkiye has always been and remains to this day a valued NATO member.
Bilateral security agreements, such as those struck with Franco's Spain, are now in place with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, even in the full knowledge that these states are avowedly anti-democratic. Clearly, the only meaningful criterion for dealing with the Alliance is geopolitical advantage. NATO is neither a community of democracies, nor does it exist to defend democracy.
Third: NATO presently claims to be safeguarding human rights. Even if we were to overlook how NATO's actions trample on the rights to work, health and adequate housing a million times over -- amidst growing poverty and a historic upward redistribution of wealth domestically -- such a self-serving image does not withstand scrutiny in international matters.
As we debate here, prisoners taken in the U.S.'s so-called "Global War on Terror" still languish in Guantánamo Bay, where they have been kept without trial for nearly a quarter century. That is the reality of "human rights" in NATO's leading state. When it comes to freedom of opinion and the press, the U.S., supported by its NATO auxiliaries, attempted to make an example of Julian Assange by tormenting him for 14 years. His sole crime was having revealed U.S. war crimes to the public. A smear campaign was then launched against him; Hillary Clinton and Mike Pompeo openly contemplated his murder. This is a bit of the reality of NATO's relationship to human rights.
I am thrilled to be able to say finally that Julian Assange is now a free man. And Julian is undefeated.
The international campaign for Assange, all of the confidential talks and the like, were in the end successful. But we must also realize that the fight for Julian Assange's freedom was also part of the struggle for freedom as such. And this struggle continues to rage here at the very heart of the NATO system.
Given the density of the propaganda, how tireless it operates in celebration of the NATO mythology, day in and day out, it is almost a miracle that not only is support for NATO crumbling worldwide, but that it is precisely those most exposed to its propaganda who are increasingly skeptical of the military pact.
In the United States, public approval of NATO has been falling continuously over recent years, while majorities in Germany question the principle of defending all members; that is, they are no longer prepared to commit themselves to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Why is that? Why are people starting to have doubts about NATO -- despite the onslaught of propaganda?
The answer is simple enough: NATO is itself causing this crisis, and people sense that.
While its defenders speak of the alliance as if it were eternal, the organization's drive toward escalation in Ukraine and its expansion into Asia is exceeding the Alliance's own capacities. Just as with most empires, NATO is falling into a self-made trap of overextension. In this regard, NATO is a political fossil, unprepared to learn from the defeat of the German Empire in the First World War and appears to be repeating the gross miscalculations of the Kaiser's Germany, only on a global scale.
The German Empire believed it could wage a war on two fronts. Today, a similar conviction is gaining traction within NATO that it must not only confront Russia and China, but that it is also to involve itself in the Middle East. This is a claim to global hegemony now under formulation. What hubris!
NATO evidently sees itself waging a war on three fronts. But if it were to do this, its defeat would be certain right from the start.
Given this, it is only logical that three particular meetings are planned for this week's NATO summit. The first is a working session devoted to further ramping up the Alliance's own rearmament. The NATO-Ukraine Council is next on the agenda. It is to discuss how the lavish financial transfers and pledges from NATO to Ukraine can be augmented, with an increase in arms deliveries and eventual NATO membership for Ukraine. Third, there will be a session with the AP4, or Asia-Pacific partners -- Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea -- and a meeting with the leaders of the EU.
Seventy-five years after it was founded, NATO is to push for stepped-up belligerence in Ukraine and expansion into Asia. The intention is to advance the NATO-ization of Asia, and to put the strategy it believes it has already deployed successfully against Russia in place there.
For the moment, the primary focus in the Pacific is not on direct NATO accession for Asian countries, but rather on the expansion of NATO's sphere of influence via bilateral security agreements -- and not only with the AP4, but also with the Philippines, Taiwan and Singapore.
Just as Ukraine was erected as a frontline state against Russia, NATO is hoping to transform Asian countries like the Philippines into challenger states vis-à-vis China. The initial aim is to engage in a cold proxy war, but at the same time to prepare for a hot U.S. and NATO proxy war in Asia.
And just as NATO enlargement was pursued under the "boiling frog" principle with regard to Russia, with enlargement proceeding incrementally so as not to arouse Russia's suspicion too much, the policy of containing China now is comprised of lining up states one by one into a phalanx ready for war. The goal is, as ever, to avoid having to fight such a war oneself, but to be able to access Allies' resources so as to conduct these cold, and then hot, wars. These developments are flanked by economic warfare, which is now also being directed against China and the main burden of which is borne by the economies of U.S. client states.
[...]
As already mentioned, public support for a NATO committed to escalation and expansion is crumbling in the West. In Germany, 55 per cent of people reject Ukraine's accession to NATO. The majority opposes supplying arms to Ukraine and desires an immediate ceasefire. In the United States, financial aid to Ukraine, U.S.$200 billion so far, has become extremely unpopular. Growing numbers of people want a stop on the flow of money to a system in Kyiv which is not only corrupt but honours a far-right state cult around the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
NATO's myths are losing their lustre. The Alliance's strategies are succumbing to their own imperial overextension. What we need now is an immediate end to arms deliveries to Ukraine and, at long last, a ceasefire there. Those who seek peace and security for their own populations must halt the aggressive policy of expansion into Asia.
Ultimately, the fight against NATO is a fight for one's own sovereignty. As an alliance of client states, Europe is in danger of collapsing. Emancipation as seen in Latin America's has yet to materialize. A first step would be to stop letting ourselves be played for fools by a military alliance that funds its aggressive strategy with a social war waged by its constitutive governments against its own population.
(vrede.ve. Photos: vrede.be, L. Debrabander)
Actions in Canada
Information pickets were organized in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary, joining with other actions internationally, to oppose NATO's 75th Anniversary Summit July 9-11 in Washington, DC and NATO's war agenda.
The pickets carried on the proud tradition of Canadians and
Quebeckers of opposing NATO and NORAD and demanding that Canada be a
force for peace in the world amidst today's conditions. They expressed
the militant opposition of Canadians and Quebeckers to the aims of NATO
and its summit to expand military and financial support for the
U.S./NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, to divert billions of
dollars of public funds from social programs into war production, and
expand NATO's tentacles into the Indo-Pacific to threaten China and
Korea. The pickets highlighted the escalating threats that NATO, under
U.S. dictate, poses to the peoples of the world and demanded that
Canada get out of NATO and NORAD.
The militant public stand of the participants defied the incessant war propaganda of the Canadian state, including the cartel parties in the Parliament, who dutifully call for strengthening NATO and NORAD and attempt to outlaw discussion of their warmongering aims. Canadians also firmly oppose the actions of the NATO Association of Canada which promotes NATO's aggressive agenda among the youth and exerts pressure to ensure that not a single MP takes a principled stand against NATO.
July 9
Ottawa
In Ottawa on July 9, an information picket was held in front of the Prime Minister's office. It engaged passers-by with the demands to get Canada out of NATO and NORAD, for a peaceful settlement of the U.S./NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and that Canada end its support for Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people.
Toronto
An information picket was held in Toronto the same day at the U.S. Consulate. Following vigorous chanting of slogans -- such as Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO! Oppose the NATO Washington Summit! U.S./NATO out of the Middle East! Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War! -- the participants listened to several speakers. On behalf of the Ad-Hoc Committee Against the NATO Washington Summit, Philip Fernandez thanked everyone for their participation and briefly summed up why NATO is so reviled by the peoples of the world. Among the participants were activists from the Latin American and South Asian communities, the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Pax Christi, the Canada Philippines Solidarity Organization and the Toronto Forum on Cuba.
Greg Gillis of Pax Christi decried the silence of the Christian churches in the face of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. He pointed out that this silence is not neutral but succours the Zionists and their U.S./NATO funders and enablers. He condemned the Trudeau Liberals for their refusal to represent the aspirations of Canadians who are standing with the Palestinians. He denounced the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine against Russia and called on everyone, particularly church-goers to take a just stand in defence of peace and for an end to Canada's participation in NATO.
A representative of the Canada Philippines Solidarity Organization explained how the U.S. has corralled the Philippines, Korea and Japan to join in to threaten China in the South China Sea, endangering the peoples of the region. He spoke about the opposition of the Filipino people to the U.S. imperialists and their warmongering as well as the campaign by the Marcos Jr. government to target and criminalize the anti-war movement. He also highlighted Canada's aggressive role in the Philippines including its support for the Philippines' military through training, weapons sales, and participation in U.S.-led war exercises in the region. He also spoke of Canada's support for Canada-based mining companies which, together with the Philippines state, forcefully remove Indigenous Peoples from their lands in order to steal the mineral resources. He called for the U.S. and Canada to get out of the Philippines.
Morteza Gorgzadeh of the Toronto Forum on Cuba highlighted Cuba's role today in promoting peace and speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. He reminded everyone of Fidel Castro's leadership in the Second Summit of the Community of Latin America and Caribbean (CELAC) states held in Havana in January 2014 where the heads of state and governments declared Latin America and the Caribbean a Zone for Peace. He also denounced the assistance that the U.S./NATO is providing to Israel to carry out the brutal massacres of civilians in Palestine and denounced Canada's own role and cowardice.
Edmonton
In Edmonton, anti-war activists also held an information picket that day to denounce the NATO Summit, a continuation of anti-war actions in Alberta. These include recent opposition to Canada sponsoring Israeli weapons manufacturers at an armaments fair at Canada Forces Base Suffield in southern Alberta, May 27-June 21. Albertans denounced this fair as a provocation against Albertans and all Canadians who oppose the war and genocide against the Palestinians, and the support of the Canadian government for the perpetrators. The picket expressed the opposition of Albertans to imperialism and war, and the NATO agenda of support for the hegemonic aims of U.S. imperialism around the world.
July 10
Montreal
In Montreal a militant information picket was held on July 11 at the Mont-Royal metro station to denounce the NATO summit and demand that NATO be dismantled. During the action demonstrators chanted Canada, Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO! Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War! Make Quebec and Canada Zones for Peace! Fund Social Programs, Not War! and other slogans which drew broad support from passers-by. People stopped to express their grave concern about the escalating danger of world war and their opposition to Canada's use of funds for weapons and war that could be used for social programs, including housing for those who are homeless and support for people with mental health issues.
Toronto
In Toronto activists picketed the downtown headquarters of the NATO Association of Canada, an organization funded by the Canadian government and private interests which promotes NATO's warmongering agenda in Canada. Chants denouncing the NATO Washington Summit, demanding Canada get out of NATO, that NATO be dismantled and many others echoed for blocks, reaching the upper levels of the office towers in the area. Drivers and pedestrians expressed support for the action; many people took photos and videos.
July 11
Toronto
Two actions took place against the NATO Washington Summit on July 11, the last day of the summit.
In Toronto a picket was held at Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland's constituency office. Freeland is one of the most ardent champions of NATO and its proxy war in Ukraine, and was at one time considered a candidate for the position of NATO Secretary General to succeed Jens Stoltenberg. The picket was spirited, with youth from Parkdale for Palestine, and members of the Latin American, South Asian and Palestinian communities joining in the action along with others who had heard about the pickets on social media. Many people responded to the slogans and the statement of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) that was distributed and expressed their support for the action which ended with a pledge to step up efforts to get Canada out of NATO, to work to dismantle NATO and make Canada a zone for peace.
Calgary
In Calgary, anti-war activists held an information picket to oppose the summit and to call on Calgarians and Albertans to take a stand against NATO and to Make Canada a Zone for Peace!
Proceedings of NATO War Summit
NATO Prepares Further Disasters for Ukraine
and
Its People
Going into its Washington Summit, NATO made clear that its priority was to continue using Ukraine and its people to fight a proxy war with Russia. For all of the high-sounding words of U.S. President Joe Biden, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and others who claim to defend Ukraine and its people, the feigned concern for the well-being of the Ukrainian people is merely to put a humanitarian face on NATO's aim to confront and wage war on Russia at any cost. There is no Plan B or exit strategy and thus NATO will wage this war until the last Ukrainian falls.
The
summit declaration claims, "A strong, independent, and democratic
Ukraine is vital for the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic
area. Ukraine's fight for its independence, sovereignty, and
territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders
directly contributes to
Euro-Atlantic security." NATO was founded to wage war, it is not a
peacekeeping force and its aim is not to bring stability. It is not
based on negotiations but on subterfuge and aggression. One need look
no further than the U.S.-sponsored coup to bring in a reactionary
anti-Russia and pro-Nazi
government in 2014, which then set about attacking its Russian-speaking
citizens in eastern Ukraine with neo-Nazi forces. This situation led
the people in Crimea to hold a referendum in which they decided to join
Russia, while those in the Donbass later declared two independent
republics.
The summit's declaration says NATO has "[d]ecided to establish the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine (NSATU) to coordinate the provision of military equipment and training for Ukraine by Allies and partners. Its aim is to place security assistance to Ukraine on an enduring footing, ensuring enhanced, predictable, and coherent support." It is well-known that NATO countries which provided cruise missiles to Ukraine earlier this year -- with which it is now attacking Russian territory outside the conflict zone -- are also providing the electronic guidance and targeting information for those missiles. When the peoples of the world are holding responsible for genocide all those who supply materiel to the Israel Defense Forces to wage its genocidal war on Gaza, NATO's claim that "NSATU will not, under international law, make NATO a party to the conflict" does not hold water.
As NATO countries cannot provide the artillery shells and other ammunition that Ukraine requires, they are instead sending more and more missile systems into Ukraine, some of which are now being used to strike Russia directly. A July 8 report by a Dutch-based investigative journalism collective says that six months after a promise from the European Union (EU) that it would expand production to provide Ukraine with 1.3 million shells by year end that figure is a gross exaggeration and a "fantasy," and that the EU will only be able to produce less than half of that amount. In the absence of sufficient ammunition for Ukraine, NATO's recourse to missile-based firepower to provide more powerful and dangerous weapons to fight a losing battle is a dangerous escalation of the conflict. In related news, on July 10, new UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party indicated there will be no change of policy from that of the Conservative government of Rishi Sunak, in that Ukraine can continue to deploy British Stormshadow cruise missiles as it sees fit including striking at targets within Russian territory.
The summit's declaration asserts that "Ukraine's future is in NATO. Ukraine has become increasingly interoperable and politically integrated with the Alliance. We welcome the concrete progress Ukraine has made since the Vilnius Summit on its required democratic, economic, and security reforms. As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership. We reaffirm that we will be in a position to extend an invitation to Ukraine to join the Alliance when Allies agree and conditions are met. The Summit decisions by NATO and the NATO-Ukraine Council, combined with Allies' ongoing work, constitute a bridge to Ukraine's membership in NATO."
With NATO membership, Ukraine would then have recourse to Article 5 of the NATO charter to draw all NATO members into a direct and open conflict with Russia. However, the suggestion that Ukraine's institutions have become more democratic, less corrupt and more suitable to qualify for membership since the Vilnius Summit is poppycock which shows once again the house of cards on which NATO claims are based. Furthermore, NATO membership is opposed by the U.S. where, among other things, leading Republicans virulently oppose more funding for Ukraine in favour of using it in their anti-immigrant campaign and the U.S. assigned a mere three-star general to oversee Ukraine's progress. It is also opposed by Germany which is not a minor matter. Furthermore, there is a blatant contradiction between giving Ukraine NATO membership and claiming that all of NATO's direct assistance to Ukraine to wage war does not make NATO a party to the conflict.
Meanwhile, NATO members such as Türkiye and now Hungary have broken ranks and are actively promoting negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict on the basis of mutual respect for the security concerns of all states, Russia included.
NATO also announced a "Pledge of Long-Term Security Assistance for Ukraine for the provision of military equipment, assistance, and training" at a minimum of 40 billion euros or U.S.$43 billion within the next year. Contributions are said to be proportional, based on GDP. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg had originally sought an ongoing multi-year pledge. While the details of the pledge have not been revealed, Ukrainska Pravda, reporting on the matter on June 27, said NATO members "may be able to reach a deal if the 40 billion euros in aid to Ukraine is deducted from NATO's existing commitment to spend at least two per cent of GDP on defence, the sources said. However, this could lead to a reduction in the allies' own defence spending, especially if finance ministries do not agree to raise the overall level of spending."
Following the NATO summit, a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Council was held. A statement issued by the council, besides reiterating the usual anti-Russia disinformation and self-congratulatory remarks, elaborated on some of the decisions taken at the summit. It said:
"As we continue to intensify our cooperation and strengthen Ukraine's political integration with NATO, the Alliance is reinforcing the NATO Representation to Ukraine (NRU), and the Secretary General has decided to appoint a NATO Senior Representative to head the NRU and to act as a focal point for NATO's engagement with Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv."
It also elaborated on how Ukraine's security and defence sector is being "brought up to code" to purchase and use NATO weaponry and tactics. Presumably corruption in Ukraine remains a major concern for NATO, insofar as wanting to make sure funds it provides to Ukraine to buy arms go to the right people and that the arms are purchased from the right companies:
"We have made significant progress in our ongoing cooperation, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP) for Ukraine, to strengthen and rebuild the Ukrainian security and defence sector, support Ukraine's deterrence and defence in the long term, and transition Ukraine to full interoperability with NATO. To that end:
"- We have jointly developed initial NATO Interoperability Requirements, making full use of NATO-related defence planning processes and tools, to inform and support Ukraine's security and defence sector reforms and enable the long-term interoperability of our forces.
"- We are working together to bring Ukraine's defence procurement in line with Euro-Atlantic best practices through the Strategic Defence Procurement Review.
"- We will work together to identify and apply lessons from Russia's war against Ukraine, including on resilience, in the newly established Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Centre (JATEC) in Poland. As a joint NATO-Ukraine structure, JATEC will serve as an important pillar of practical cooperation and increase Ukraine's interoperability with NATO.
"- We are launching new joint activities to support Ukraine's self-defence through the first NATO-Ukraine Innovation Cooperation Roadmap.
"- NATO will continue to support Ukraine's self-defence with urgently needed non-lethal equipment and supplies through the CAP, and we welcome partner contributions."
Thus NATO will continue to hand over billions of dollars to war profiteers to ship weapons into Ukraine, trading still more Ukrainian lives to guarantee profits to the arms producers. Even though Ukraine has no hope of prevailing, the fate of Ukraine and its people are not on NATO's agenda except as an instrument of U.S./NATO hegemonic aims and aggression against Russia.
Meeting Between Trudeau and Zelensky
Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
at the summit. A press release from the Prime Minister's Office stated
that Trudeau "reaffirmed Canada's ongoing and unwavering support for
Ukraine. He noted Canada's commitment to provide an additional $500
million in
military assistance to Ukraine as part of NATO's Pledge of Long-Term
Security Assistance for Ukraine, as well as further support to enhance
F-16 training for Ukrainian pilots through the Ukraine Defense Contact
Group Air Force Capability Coalition."
These two sorry excuses for leaders are said to have "noted the need to continue building on the success of the recent Summit on Peace in Ukraine in Lucerne, Switzerland, on June 15 to 16, 2024, including Canada's commitment to host a Ministerial event on Working Group Four to discuss the return of prisoners of war, unlawfully detained civilians, and illegally deported children." This is all very disinforming and cynical on the part of Trudeau and Zelensky. The summit in Switzerland, organized at the behest of Ukraine, saw fit to not invite Russia, and did less than nothing to advance the cause of peace in Ukraine.[1] As concerns "prisoners of war, unlawfully detained civilians, and illegally deported children," it is blatantly obvious that such things only merit comment by the Prime Minister when it comes to justifying U.S./NATO aggression and war.[2] Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has no qualms about supporting and contributing to Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, because doing so also serves U.S. imperialist aims in that part of the world.
Working people in Canada and Quebec should reject Canada's involvement in NATO and the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine.
Notes
1. A "Global Summit on Peace in Ukraine" took place in Switzerland on June 15-16 purportedly to address the prospects for peace in the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine. Switzerland organized the summit, said to have done so at the request of Ukraine, and invited more than 160 countries to participate, with 91 countries ultimately attending. Canada took part, with its delegation led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Notable Absence of Russia and China
Pointedly, the list of invitees did not include Russia. Switzerland said that it "repeatedly signaled its openness to extending an invitation to Russia for the Summit on Peace in Ukraine. However, Russia has indicated many times that it has no interest in participating. Therefore, no formal invitation was issued to Russia." It also said that despite not inviting Russia it still considers itself to be "neutral" and that it "is convinced that Russia must be involved in this process. A peace process without Russia is unthinkable." However, after two years of the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine, it says at least an attempt must be made to start a peace process. "The alternative would be to do nothing which is not an option for Switzerland."
From this it can be concluded that the summit organizers consider Russia's many calls for peace negotiations to be "nothing."
On May 31, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, in response to a question at a routine press briefing, explained why China had decided not to participate. She stated:
"China always maintains that the international peace conference needs to meet the three important elements of recognition from both Russia and Ukraine, equal participation of all parties, and fair discussion of all peace plans. Otherwise, the peace conference can hardly play a substantive role for restoring peace. These elements proposed by China are fair, legitimate and do not target any party. They are written into the Common Understandings on Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis jointly issued by China and Brazil recently and reflect the universal concern of the international community, especially the vast developing countries.
"Based on what we have heard from various parties and the released arrangement for the meeting, it doesn't seem that the three elements proposed by China will be met. There is an apparent gap between the meeting's arrangement and what China stands for as well as the universal expectation in the international community. In this case, China is hardly able to take part in the meeting and has informed relevant parties of our consideration and concerns. We will continue to promote talks for peace in our own way, maintain communication with all parties and jointly accumulate conditions for the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis."
Of the 91 countries that took part, delegations from all 32
NATO member countries were present, so although NATO was not an
official participant it can be said to have been represented.
Conference Agenda and Outcome
The conference website said the proceedings would "build on the discussions that have taken place in recent months, notably the Ukrainian peace formula and other peace proposals based on the UN Charter and key principles of international law. The overarching objective of the summit is to inspire a future peace process. To achieve this, the summit said it would:
- Provide a platform for dialogue on ways towards a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine based on international law and the UN Charter;
- Promote a common understanding of a possible framework to reach this goal;
- Jointly define a road map on how to involve both parties in a future peace process.
"The participation of a wide range of states and their contributions to the discussion will be crucial to reach these goals. Switzerland has a long tradition of promoting dialogue. Thus, it considers the exchange of different views on the way to peace in Ukraine of vital importance."
The Ukrainian peace formula refers to a 10-point plan issued in November 2022. It is notably one-sided in that all obligations are on Russia. Meanwhile, it covers up the dirty role of NATO to stoke conflict with Russia, saying nothing about Russia's longstanding concerns about NATO expansion. Nor does Ukraine's "peace formula" say anything about the protection of Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens in eastern Ukraine, who following the 2014 CIA-backed Maidan coup faced increasingly deadly attacks from the Ukrainian military and the reactionary and neo-Nazi battalions organized by various oligarchs. This "peace formula" also calls for the "Restoration of the Russia-Ukraine border to that prior to the 2014 annexation of Crimea," even though the people of Crimea freely voted to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.
On what basis could Russia agree to participate in such discussions where even if it were to be present, it would be de facto excluded because its calls for negotiations are deemed to be "nothing" while the framework imposed on discussions is not based on reality?
Russia's position that without its participation the conference would be meaningless is borne out by the lack of any concrete outcome from the summit. The final communiqué claimed that there was "a fruitful, comprehensive and constructive exchange of various views on pathways towards a framework for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace, based on international law, including the United Nations Charter." It was only signed by 77 countries out of 91 countries present. Brazil, India and South Africa (which with Russian and China make up the BRICS bloc of countries) as well as Armenia, Bahrain, the Holy See, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates did not sign it. The signatures of Jordan, Iraq and Rwanda which were originally included were removed by the time the final document was published according to the Kyiv Independent.
Colombian president Gustavo Petro, who was slated to attend the summit, withdrew at the last minute, claiming the conference was not a free forum to discuss the path to peace between Russia and Ukraine and that its conclusions were already predetermined. "I am cancelling my trip to the meeting in Switzerland and ask Europe to talk [about] how to end the war, not prolong it," he wrote on his X account.
In the summit's closing address Viola Amherd, President of the Swiss Confederation, said:
"These are the concrete goals we have set ourselves and which we will all work towards:
- Firstly, any use of nuclear energy and nuclear installations must be safe, secured, safeguarded and environmentally sound.
- Secondly, food security must not be weaponized in any way. Attacks on merchant ships in ports and along the entire route, as well as against civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure, are unacceptable.
- Thirdly, all prisoners of war must be released by complete exchange. All deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, and all other Ukrainian civilians who were unlawfully detained, must be returned to Ukraine."
In a similarly "concrete" fashion, Amherd stated, "One key question remains: How and when can Russia be included in the process? We have heard it in many of your statements. A lasting solution must involve both parties."
The lack of an outcome of this summit underscores that it was a non-starter from the get-go and that negotiations that are not premised on addressing the serious threat posed by the eastward expansion of the aggressive alliance NATO nor the actions against the people of the Donbass by the reactionary forces brought to power by the U.S.-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014 will not result in arrangements that ensure peace for all the peoples of Europe.
2.
Recently, at the "Summit for Peace" which took place in
Obbürgen, Switzerland on June 15 and 16 which was a colossal flop,
Trudeau told reporters: "Regardless of what a
given person or a given country around the world might think of the
causes of the war, or the responsibility that Russia wields, everyone
can agree that taking kids away from their families, trying to erase
their language, their culture -- that's an element of genocide." He
added "That's pure colonialism. These are things that Russia needs to
be accountable for."
His claim that Russia abducted children and is committing genocide is a
Nazi lie concocted by the U.S./NATO disinformation machine of which
Canada's lies have been a major component -- a lie repeated by one of
the UN agencies, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. An
example of such blatant lies is found in a report first published in the
Ukrainian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda, which reported in April, 2024,
that Ukrainian law enforcement officers had located “161 Ukrainian
children in Germany who were being sought as forcibly displaced to
temporarily occupied territories or deported to Russia and Belarus...."
The story does not even make the claim that the children were ever in
Russia. Nonetheless the headline to the story reads “161 Ukrainian
children abducted by Russia found in Germany.” This story was reprinted
in the western press including Yahoo News Canada and MSN, with the same
headline about Russia abducting the children.
Trudeau’s lie serves to
underscore that he remains silent about the Israeli Zionists'
recognized genocide of the Palestine people, with more than 15,000 of the
known nearly 39,000 people slaughtered in Gaza, since October 2023 alone,
being children. Furthermore, in his capacity as Prime Minister of
Canada, Trudeau, who disburses public money for war and to pay the rich
like confetti at a wedding, has yet to make restitution for the known
genocide of Indigenous children within Canada itself. His claims
to defend Ukrainian children against Russian genocide will see him burn
in the hell of his own making.
-- Peggy Morton
(With files from NATO, news agencies.)
NATO War Preparations in Asia Pacific
U.S./NATO is stepping up its plans for confrontation and war in Asia Pacific, a matter of great concern to all peace-loving peoples. In particular, the U.S./NATO and its "global partners" are being assembled in various aggressive blocks to step up confrontation and war preparations with the People's Republic of China, as well as to prepare for war on and around the Korean Peninsula, in which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in particular has been targeted with massive and ongoing war exercises in the recent period.
U.S./NATO
war preparations are accompanied by a broad campaign of disinformation
and falsification of history based on upholding U.S. imperialist aims
as the starting point of humanity's concerns. It then presents this
warmongering as just and necessary, and lines up the peoples behind
these
crimes
against the peace and criminalizes opposition to NATO, imperialist
war and aggression. The accusations that the U.S., NATO, and Canada
make against China and others are all things that the U.S.
has actually carried out for the past century, such as the criminal use
of nuclear
weapons against Japan and starting the nuclear arms race. As for NATO,
it was founded expressly to divide the peoples' united front against
fascism, and to use force and the threat of force, not diplomacy and
negotiations, as the means to settle conflicts between peoples and
nations, according to
the imperialist dictate "Might Makes Right."
The Washington Summit Declaration is premised on this warmongering and disinforming outlook, in which those peoples and countries who do not espouse U.S./NATO imperialist aims are to be treated as hostile. It says of China:
"The People's Republic of China's (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies continue to challenge our interests, security and values. The deepening strategic partnership between Russia and the PRC and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut and reshape the rules-based international order, are a cause for profound concern. We are confronted by hybrid, cyber, space, and other threats and malicious activities from state and non-state actors."
Elsewhere it says, "The PRC continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security. [...] The PRC continues to rapidly expand and diversify its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems. We urge the PRC to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions and promote stability through transparency. We remain open to constructive engagement with the PRC, including to build reciprocal transparency with the view of safeguarding the Alliance's security interests. At the same time, we are boosting our shared awareness, enhancing our resilience and preparedness, and protecting against the PRC's coercive tactics and efforts to divide the Alliance."
A China Daily editorial published on July 11 pointed out that NATO's accusations against China, including that it threatens "Euro-Atlantic security" through its relations with Russia are baseless and provocative. "China has never sent lethal assistance to either side, and it has exercised strict restrictions on exports of dual-use goods, including civilian drones. The normal trade relationship that it has maintained with Russia should be free from reproach as it does not target any third party, and conforms to international trade norms," China Daily states. It puts the blame for the crisis squarely on NATO and its expansion since the end of the Cold War. China has "always worked to promote peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and a political settlement to the conflict," it adds. The editorial goes on to say, "Instead of China posing a security threat to Europe and the West, it is NATO that is seeking to expand to the Asia-Pacific to contain China's rise. Former NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in an interview last year, made no secret of the alliance's plan for Ukraine to join NATO to 'fix the Russia problem' and after that, 'we will free up resources to address the real long-term global challenge: China.'"
U.S./NATO Military Blocs in Asia Increasingly Threaten International Peace
Various military blocs have been established in the recent period in Asia Pacific by NATO or its "global partners." One of these is AUKUS, a "trilateral security partnership" between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced in 2021, that is centred around Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. Peace activists in Australia have decried the massive expense that will be borne by Australia in this "partnership" and reject its aim of confrontation with China.
Another bloc is what NATO calls its four "Indo-Pacific Partners" (IPPs), Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK). Since 2022 when the U.S./NATO proxy war in Ukraine began, NATO has invited its IPPs to its annual summit. The Washington Declaration states, "The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region directly affect Euro-Atlantic security." White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said on July 9 that NATO IPPs will launch four new joint projects, which will be on Ukraine, artificial intelligence, disinformation and cybersecurity. "Each initiative is different, but the main goal is the same: harness the unique strengths of highly capable democracies to address shared challenges," Sullivan said.
Since 2008, the U.S. has been trying to set up a "trilateral" bloc made up of itself, Japan and the ROK. Due to Japan's refusal to make amends for the brutal crimes committed during its 50-year occupation of Korea, as well as trade issues, trying to make this work, despite the subservience of various Japan and ROK governments to U.S. aims, has been like trying to mix oil and water – impossible without external cajoling. With the reactionary Yoon Suk Yeol government now in power in the ROK, and the government of Fumio Kishida which has taken up the warmongering mantle of the late Shinzo Abe in power in Japan, the U.S. was finally able to hold another trilateral summit this year from May 26-27, the first since 2019 of what was supposed to be an annual event. "The summit comes as south Korea and Japan have been working to improve ties strained by historical disputes while deepening a trilateral security partnership with the United States amid intensifying Sino-U.S. rivalry," Reuters reported.
This bloc has been denounced by anti-war activists as the establishment of an Asian NATO. Ongoing denials that this is the case by all three members of the bloc were decisively disproven when they held their first multi-domain war exercises from June 27 to 29, called Freedom Edge. A statement from the Japanese Joint Chiefs of Staff (JJCS) said the drills focused on "ballistic missile defence, air defence, anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, maritime interdiction, and defensive cyber trainings." "The Freedom Edge exercise expresses the will of Japan, ROK (south Korea) and U.S. to promote trilateral interoperability and protect freedom for peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific, including the Korean Peninsula," the JJCS said, adding that the three countries will continue to expand the Freedom Edge exercises. The warmongering reactionary government of President Yoon is broadly rejected by the Korean people, while in Japan, attempts by the ruling circles to remove the pacifist Article 9 from its constitution and once again send its military abroad is also broadly rejected.
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, comprised of Australia, India, Japan and the U.S., known as the Quad, was founded in 2007. Like its associated war games, the annual massive Exercise Malabar naval exercises, the Quad is expressly aimed at confrontation with and containment of China. India is hosting this year's exercises. The Times of India wrote on July 9, "India will host the top-tier Malabar naval exercise with the other 'Quad' countries, the U.S., Japan and Australia, in the Bay of Bengal this year, amid China's continuing muscle-flexing in the South China Sea and expanding strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR)."
The U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises are currently underway, running from June 27 to August 1. The world's largest naval war games, this year they involve a total of 29 countries, including Canada, more than 25,000 personnel, 40 warships, three submarines and more than 150 aircraft operating in and around Hawaii. One of the exercises is the sinking of the USS Tarawa. "Sinking the amphibious assault ship, the lead warship of its class, is meant to show China the U.S. Navy is capable of sinking their ships," writes the Taipei Times, citing an analyst.
In recent years, the U.S., UK and other NATO countries, including Canada, have been regularly sending warships through the 160-kilometre wide Strait of Taiwan, a major provocation against China that they claim they are doing to assert a free and open Indo-Pacific.
U.S./NATO Targeting of Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The U.S./NATO's aggression toward the DPRK is less evident in the Washington Declaration than its animosity toward China. However, the U.S. aim to dominate the Korean Peninsula has continued since it was forced to sign an armistice to end the fighting in the Korean War in 1953. Moreover U.S./NATO's aims to dominate Korea are inextricable from its hostility toward China.
This was well-established by two of the speakers at the "No to NATO, Yes to Peace" counter-summit organized in Washington, DC before the NATO summit.
Writer and
activist K.J. Noh, pointed out that certain forces within the U.S. are
planning for military confrontation
with China to start between 2025 to 2027. He noted that last year the
U.S. and south Korea conducted 200 continuous days of war
exercises around the Korean Peninsula. Ju-Hyun
Park, an organizer with the group Nodutdol, gave the view that for the
U.S./NATO, war with China is inevitable and desirable. On this basis
the U.S. is establishing an Asian NATO, a military bloc in the region
dominated by the U.S., Japan, and south Korea. Meanwhile, the
Philippines
and Australia are
being brought into alliances that link them to each other as well as
the U.S. These include AUKUS, the Quad, the Japan-ROK-U.S. trilateral,
and Five Eyes Plus (the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand,
plus
Japan and the ROK), whose aim is to prepare for and provoke
confrontation with China.
Korea is the place where the U.S. is making its boldest threats and
most likely to lead to a confrontation that will spread elsewhere. He
also pointed out that the ongoing U.S. rejection of diplomacy and
sabotage of negotiations for the past 30 years and more and now the
stepped up aggression have
led the DPRK to change its approach to relations with the U.S. Starting
at the beginning of this year, the DPRK concluded that it cannot
guarantee its security through diplomacy and seeking peaceful and
independent reunification of the Korean nation, and is now focusing its
efforts on
deterrence. For these reasons, he emphasized the anti-war movement
must be aware and active on the need for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
On July 13, the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a press statement concerning the Washington Summit's declaration. The statement says:
"The U.S. revealed its sinister intention to further strengthen the collusion and nexus between NATO and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region, terming the just and legitimate exercise of sovereignty of the independent states including the DPRK a "threat" at the NATO summit held in Washington." It goes on to say:
"The U.S. moves to expand military blocs are the vicious root cause of seriously threatening regional peace, extremely exacerbating the international security environment and sparking off a worldwide arms race.
"Before shifting on to other countries the responsibility for the deteriorated security in the Europe-Atlantic region, the U.S. will have to clarify who has constantly destroyed the security environment in Europe for the past decades through NATO's reckless policy for eastward advance and expansion.
"It should also explain who has persistently tried for the last ten-odd years to inveigle the pro-American satellite countries in Asia into NATO, before claiming that the security between the Northern Atlantic and the Asia-Pacific regions is linked with each other.
"We solemnly warn that NATO's strategy for 'globalization,' pursued by the U.S., may certainly bring the danger of a worldwide war.
"The U.S. should be held totally responsible for seriously infringing upon the sovereignty and security interests of other countries and constantly destroying the strategic stability of the world while wantonly violating the recognized principles of international law including respect for sovereignty, non-interference, equality and mutual benefit.
"The prevailing situation requires a new force and mode of counteraction to foil the U.S. attempt for expanded military bloc, an urgent challenge to international peace and stability.
"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea will never overlook or
avoid the looming grave threat but thoroughly deter the aggression and
war threat with stronger level of strategic counteraction and defend
peace and security in the region and the rest of the world."
While
NATO thinks it can do as it pleases with the countries and peoples of
the Indo Pacific, the peoples are stepping up their struggle to realize
their striving for peace, freedom and democracy.
Koreans in the South Launch Stepped up Campaign for Peace
Koreans in the south are militantly rejecting U.S. war aims and the use of the territory of the ROK to threaten their brethren in the DPRK, and the collusion of the Yoon government with the U.S. imperialists.
On June 25, the day that marked the 74th anniversary of the start of the Korean War by the U.S. and its allies including Canada, "Peace Action for the Korean Peninsula" (Peace Action) launched a renewed campaign for peace on the Korean Peninsula on the steps of the Sejong Cultural Center in Seoul. Peace Action is made up of 608 domestic religious and civil society organizations and more than 80 international partner organizations that have been campaigning for peace on the Korean Peninsula for the past three years. The launch of the stepped-up campaign comes amidst ongoing provocations by the U.S. imperialists in the region, including war exercises and the formation of a military alliance with the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan, all of which target the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). The actions by the U.S. and the reactionary ROK government of Yoon Suk Yeol have led to an unprecedented breakdown in inter-Korean relations leading to the present crisis.
At the launch ceremony, Peace Action declared that it will engage in actions at home and abroad to promote peace on the Korean Peninsula and prevent armed conflict. The group has called for: a stop all to military actions and hostilities that threaten war; restoration of dialogue channels to prevent armed conflict; an end to the Korean War and the signing of a peace agreement; and the Korea Peace Action Plan, which calls for a Korean Peninsula and the world free of nuclear weapons and nuclear threats.
The plan includes regular peace actions, a peace declaration and a policy proposal to the ROK 22nd National Assembly to resolve the Korean Peninsula crisis. It also includes international networking and advocacy and emergency actions in case of armed conflict. Upcoming actions include the "7.27 Korean Peninsula Peace Action Day" on July 27, the day of the signing of the armistice agreement that ended fighting in the Korean War. In August, during the U.S.-ROK joint military exercises, actions will be held to call for an end to the drills. Peace Action is calling for the formation of a Special Committee on Korean Peninsula Peace of the National Assembly to resolve the Korean Peninsula crisis, and proposing the amendment of the North Korea Leaflet Prohibition Act and the adoption of the Korean Peninsula Peace Resolution.
Kim Jong-saeng, director of the civic movement of the YWCA Federation of Korea and General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Korea (NCCK), said at the event, "What is needed now is not demonization and provocations against each other, but a round table for dialogue and to share practical and feasible talks for peace," and called for the restoration of inter-Korean dialogue channels. "Only courageous and dedicated acts of commitment to oppose war and call for peace across ideologies, religions, and nations can stop the madness of this horrific war. Let us all start taking courageous actions for peace together right now," he said.
Yoon Jeong-sook, co-president of the Citizens' Peace Forum, pointed out that "Even a single moment of accidental armed conflict is something that should never happen," adding, "We must continue to fight for a peaceful world that cannot be destroyed for any reason," calling on everyone to realize this.
Yang Dae-eun, Team Leader of the University International Division of the Korea YMCA National Federation, decried U.S. belligerence, noting that "Peace through strength, great power confrontation, digging deep into old wounds, constantly stimulating the idol of anti-communism [...] triggers arms races and conflicts, and reinforces the vicious cycle of division." He said, "The will for peace is more important and clear than ever, but it is rarely expressed because it is 'unrepresented.' We will work to mobilize the will of citizens for peace, cultivate the imagination of peace, and encourage parliaments and the international community to respond and create opportunities for change."
"President Yoon hasn't said a word in the past two years that war shouldn't happen on the Korean Peninsula," said Kim Jun-hyung, a lawmaker from the Homeland Innovation Party. He noted that President Yoon, instead of engaging with the DPRK, would rather strengthen trilateral cooperation between the U.S., ROK and Japan. Yoon's claim that "if you want peace, prepare for war," which he repeats like a golden rule, is a "ridiculous claim" based on a "wrong world view," he said.
Kwon Young-guk, leader of the Justice Party, said, "President Yoon is not trying to protect the life, safety and property of the people and communities, but rather to show off the little power he has. It is indeed unfortunate that the war-mongers are now in power and are wielding it [in this way]." He urged the ROK government to immediately initiate dialogue and allow civil society organizations to resume inter-Korean exchange and cooperation.
After the action on June 25, Peace Action submitted a petition signed online by 2,677 citizens to the Ministry of Unification and the National Police Agency, calling for a crackdown and restriction on the spreading of anti-DPRK leaflets that threaten the right to peaceful existence of residents in the border region between the two Koreas.
Peace Activists Denounce U.S.-Republic of Korea Negotiations to
Share Costs of Hosting U.S. Troops
News reports inform that Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK) is opposing the negotiations to conclude the 12th ROK-U.S. Special Defense Cost-Sharing Agreement, that began in April. The fifth round of negotiations concluded on July 12 with SPARK taking militant action to denounce the negotiations, as it had during the fourth round of negotiations. This current iteration of this neo-colonial arrangement, through which the U.S. receives payment from the ROK for the "privilege" of hosting its troops, bases and armaments, expires at the end of this year. Besides being a threat to world peace, these troops are also permitted to run amok in south Korea, committing crimes and causing problems for the communities around their bases with impunity. The longstanding demand of the Korean people is for U.S. troops to get out of Korea.
SPARK noted at the time of the fourth round of negotiations that holding so many rounds of negotiations in this short period of time is unprecedented. "Nevertheless, the Korean and U.S. authorities are keeping the details discussed during the negotiation process completely secret. In short, the Yoon Suk Yeol administration and the Biden administration are consistently engaged in unprecedented behind-the-scenes and hasty negotiations," SPARK informs. It explains:
"The United States is putting strong pressure on Korea to significantly increase its defence cost-sharing and to shoulder the costs of keeping China in check and carrying out its global hegemony strategy. The Yoon Suk Yeol administration is talking about a 'reasonable level of sharing' and is making a significant increase in defence cost-sharing a fait accompli, and furthermore, it is known that he spoke of the 'Trump risk' and requested the U.S. to conclude the 12th Agreement early before the U.S. presidential election in November. It can be said that the Yoon Suk Yeol regime is showing itself as a servile regime that is anxious to please the United States and is subservient to the United States." The "Trump risk" refers to the likelihood that should Donald Trump return to office as U.S. president he will demand that ROK's funding for U.S. troops on its territory go up from about U.S.$1 billion per year to U.S.$5 billion, as he did when he was first in office.
"Accordingly, the fourth round of negotiations will be a negotiation that deceives the Korean people and listens to the United States' illegal and unfair demands for the diversion of defence cost-sharing to overseas U.S. military operation costs under the pretext of a significant increase in defence cost-sharing and strengthening extended deterrence [the stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in the ROK]. As this was clearly expected, a press conference and peace action were held to strongly urge an end to the hasty closed-door negotiations and the abolition of the defence cost-sharing agreement."
A rally and press conference was held by anti-war activists outside the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis while the fourth round of negotiations were held. At the action, researcher Oh Mi-jeong pointed out, "If defence cost-sharing is automatically increased every year by linking the rate of increase in defence spending like in the 11th Agreement, considering that the defence spending increase rate in the mid-term national defense plan (2024-2028) is seven per cent and the period of the 12th Agreement can be set to five years, the cost that Korea must bear during that period is well over 8 trillion won [U.S.$5.75 billion]. ... It is an absolutely unacceptable tyranny for such a huge amount of national finance to be decided through closed-door negotiations while covering the eyes and ears of our people."
Oh criticized the Yoon administration's stance of "reasonable sharing of burden for the stable stationing of U.S. forces in Korea" and said, "This position of the Yoon Suk Yeol administration reflects the framework of 'abandonment by the alliance,' as if the U.S. forces stationed in Korea [are] stationed for the benefit of Korea, not the U.S. itself, and that defence cost-sharing is a natural compensation."
Another speaker, Cho Seung-hyeon, head of the Peace and Disarmament Team, raised the possibility that the United States would force Korea to bear the costs of providing extended deterrence in these negotiations, saying, "In the past, the Korean government used strategic assets that were not related to the stationing of U.S. troops in Korea." Cho said, "The United States will argue that the deployment of strategic assets is intended to threaten north Korea so that it cannot attack south Korea, so it is natural for the south Korean government to bear the cost." However, he pointed out that the purpose of strengthening extended deterrence and deploying U.S. strategic assets is not to defend South Korea, but to protect the United States from north Korea's nuclear missiles, and to carry out the U.S. strategy of global hegemony targeting China and Russia. He emphasized that paying for extended deterrence through defence cost-sharing is illegal and absolutely unacceptable.
Cho concluded by saying, "The more the Yoon Suk Yeol government clings to extended deterrence, the more the risk of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula will continue to increase, the path to independence and peaceful unification will inevitably become further distant, and [the ROK] will even have to bear the cost burden of a significant increase in defence cost-sharing." He said, "Even now, the Yoon Suk Yeol government must abolish extended deterrence, stop the current defence cost-sharing negotiations, which are being reduced to a [means] for strengthening extended deterrence, and immediately abolish the defence cost-sharing agreement."
Russia and Democratic People's Republic of Korea Sign
Strategic Partnership
Agreement
The U.S./NATO forces are also very abusive about the fact that Russia and the DPRK held a summit on June 18 to 19, in which Russian President Vladimir Putin and DPRK leader Kim Jong Un signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement whose preamble says that: "the development of relations of a comprehensive strategic partnership of the Parties meets the fundamental interests of their peoples and contributes to ensuring peace, regional and global security and stability; reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, as well as other generally recognized principles and norms of international law" and reaffirms "the desire to protect international justice from hegemonic aspirations and attempts to impose a unipolar world order, to establish a multipolar international system based on good faith cooperation of states, mutual respect for interests, collective resolution of international problems, cultural and civilizational diversity..."
Canada joined the U.S. imperialists to present the agreement in a light which claims it endangers peace and the "security environment" they are imposing in the Indo-Pacific.
The Pyongyang Times noted that President Putin's visit came at a time when the relations between the two countries were developing "as a strong strategic fortress and an engine for defending international justice, peace and security and accelerating the building of a new multipolar world" and that the visit of the Russian leader would open up a "new horizon of friendly and cooperative relations through whole-hearted mutual support and selfless encouragement for the joint cause despite geographical differences."
At the official talks between the two delegations, Kim Jong Un appreciated the important role that Russia is playing globally to foil U.S. threats and striving for hegemony and for helping to maintain stability in building a multipolar, peaceful world. He pledged that the DPRK will continue to stand firmly on the side of Russia in Ukraine and defend its sovereignty. He pledged to work closely with the Russian leadership to cope with the unfolding complicated geopolitical situation in the world and to work to consolidate and strengthen DPRK-Russia friendship and solidarity.
For his part President Putin said that he was confident that the deep friendship and neighbourliness based on the principles of equality and mutual respect between the two countries will be further strengthened. He thanked the DPRK for its support for Russia's special military campaign to de-Nazify and demilitarize Ukraine and defend its sovereignty. He pledged to build and strengthen the strategic cooperation and tactical collaboration between the two countries for mutual benefit and in defence of stability and peace. He expressed support for the DPRK's efforts to stay the hand of the U.S. and its allies and their military provocations on the Korean Peninsula and in the region.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement replaces previous bilateral documents and declarations signed in 1961, 2000 and 2001.
Aimed at strengthening all-round ties between the two countries in the coming period, according to the terms of the agreement, the two countries have pledged to:
- Develop their partnership based on the principles of mutual respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and other principles of international law relating to friendly relations and cooperation between states.
- Work for global strategic stability and peace and a new fair and equitable international order, and maintain close communication with each other and strengthen tactical and strategic cooperation.
- Activate all channels of communication immediately in the event of an immediate threat of an act of armed aggression against one of the Parties, to consult and coordinate their positions and agree on practical measures to assist to help eliminate the emerging threat.
- Provide military and all other assistance using all available means if either side is in a state of war, in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter, which upholds the right of countries individually and collectively to self-defence in case of armed attack.
- Not sign any agreements with a third party that infringes on the other side's core interests, or allow territories to be used by a third country seeking to violate the other's security and sovereignty.
- Pledge to support each other's peaceful policies to protect sovereignty, security and stability, and actively cooperate in building a fair multipolar new world order.
- Pledge to cooperate at the UN and other international organizations on issues of mutual interest and security, and support each other's accession to relevant international and regional organizations.
- Prepare measures to take joint actions to strengthen defence capabilities with the aim of preventing war and ensuring regional and international peace and security.
- Cooperate in tackling challenges and threats in areas of strategic significance including food and energy security, information and communication technology security, climate change, health care and supply chains.
- Expand cooperation in trade, economy, investment and science and technology, support both sides' special or free economic zones, and develop exchanges and joint research in science and technology, including space, biology, peaceful use of nuclear energy, artificial intelligence and information technology.
- Support regional and cross-border cooperation, and create favourable conditions for establishing direct economic and trade links between both sides' border regions, such as by forming business bodies and holding forums and exhibitions.
- Strengthen exchanges in agriculture, education, health, sports, culture and tourism, and seek cooperation in environmental protection, natural disaster prevention and elimination of their consequences.
- Protect the legal rights and interests of the other party's legal entities and citizens, and cooperate in providing legal assistance, extradition and transfer of persons, as well as returning assets obtained through criminal methods.
- Deepen exchanges of legislative and law enforcement institutions.
- Oppose the use of sanctions against each other's country and consider their introduction "illegal and contrary to the UN Charter and international law. The Parties will coordinate efforts and interact in order to support multilateral initiatives aimed at eliminating the practice of using such measures in international relations."
- Promote cooperation in the field of public affairs and publication, and encourage the dissemination of each other's literature and languages.
- Supply objective information about each other, and work together to combat disinformation and provocative propaganda against either party.
(With files from NATO, China Daily, Taipei Times, Times of India, DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tongil News, SPARK, news agencies.)
Other Decisions Taken at NATO Summit
The participants of the NATO summit endorsed a new Industrial Capacity Expansion Pledge. The pledge aims to accelerate defence industrial capacity and production across the NATO members.
It was also decided to establish a centre to wage cyber warfare. NATO says its "Integrated Cyber Defence Centre (NICC) will enhance the protection of NATO and Allied networks and the use of cyberspace as an operational domain. The Centre will inform NATO military commanders on possible threats and vulnerabilities in cyberspace, including privately-owned civilian critical infrastructures necessary to support military activities."
The summit was informed that "A new U.S. ballistic missile defence site in Redzikowo, Poland is now operational and available for the defence of the Alliance. Dubbed 'Aegis Ashore,' the site is part of a larger NATO missile shield and is designed to detect, track and intercept ballistic missiles in flight. [...] Key elements of NATO's missile shield include the two U.S. Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania along with U.S. navy destroyers out of Rota, Spain, and an early-warning radar in Kurecik, Türkiye. Aegis Ashore is purely defensive. About 200 military personnel are stationed at the two interceptor sites in Poland and Romania. The site in Deveselu, Romania, has been operational since 2016."
NATO and Jordan announced the decision to open a NATO Liaison Office in Amman. NATO said that the office will "bring NATO and Jordan closer, by enhancing political dialogue and practical cooperation in areas of common interest between the Alliance and Jordan."
A new NATO Policy on Women, Peace and Security was adopted, carrying on attempts by NATO to militarize life and present women's affirmation of their rights and dignity as synonymous with NATO warmongering. NATO says its policy "provides a political framework for NATO to further promote the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda across all of the Alliance's core tasks."
NATO released a revised artificial intelligence (AI) strategy, which aims to accelerate the use of AI technologies within NATO, claiming that it can do so "in a safe and responsible way" to divert from the profound threat that NATO poses to human life.
NATO also discussed the use of "space-based assets" to carry out its aggression and war preparations. It says its "Alliance Persistence Surveillance from Space program intends to establish a 'virtual constellation' comprising both government and commercial space assets. A group of NATO countries are set to begin implementing a new project aimed at improving the alliance's ability to quickly share intelligence gathered by space-based assets operated by both member nations and the commercial sector. [...] Seventeen NATO members (including the U.S. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Turkey) signed a memorandum of understanding for the Alliance Persistence Surveillance from Space (APSS) program." NATO said member countries will contribute more than $1 billion "to leverage commercial and national space assets, and to expand advanced exploitation capacities."
(With files from NATO.)
(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca