The Marxist-Leninist Weekly

International Court of Justice Rules British Occupation
of the Chagos Islands Illegal

2019 Federal Budget a Bag of Tricks

The Trudeau government tabled its budget entitled: "Investing in the Middle Class to Grow Canada's Economy" on March 19. The budget is a bag of tricks. It does not identify what problems in the economy it purports to solve and how those problems pose themselves. Instead, it begins with the assertion, "A strong economy starts with a strong middle class." This is a chicken and egg statement. Which comes first, the strong economy or strong middle class? Or does it really matter because the nonsense in the budget cannot be taken seriously? The budget rhetoric is meant to cover up the pay-the-rich essence of government policy. It aims to disinform and divert the people from discussing the economy as it presents itself so as to change its direction.

At 500 pages it is unlikely that many MPs will read the budget bag of tricks before it is voted on which is likely one if its aims. A trick slipped into the previous megabudget bill was a remediation agreement (also known as a deferred prosecution agreement), the mechanism at the base of the SNC-Lavalin scandal that would allow the company to escape criminal charges for its corruption and continue bidding on government projects. This budget is perceived to be a cynical exercise in pork barrel spending to favour the re-election of the Liberals in 2019.

The Trudeau government's obsession with the middle class is the same theme it used in the 2015 general election. The question arose at that time what does the Trudeau government mean by a middle class and why it is so obsessed with it? To designate a middle class means the government also has in mind those in the upper class and those in the lower class.

The neo-liberal concept of a middle class in the 21st century is used to obscure the actual social class composition and how the situation of the two main social classes presents itself as well as the plight of the middle class. A social class is defined by how it acquires its living. The working class sells its capacity to work to those who own and control the means of production, both private and public, collectively known as the financial oligarchy. Those two main social classes see the economy and its problems differently because of how they acquire their living, their social class position. The two social classes defend their claims on the economy, generating class struggle.

There is indeed a "middle class" in capitalist society, although not defined the way the Trudeau government does when it claims this class is comprised of people whose taxable income is within a certain range. The livelihood of the middle class depends on the perpetuation of the capitalist system but its survival is threatened by the overwhelming domination of the economy and the political power by the tiny rich minority. There is inevitably discontent in its ranks as it gets pushed further and further into the working class as government intervention in the economy further strengthens the grip of the financial oligarchy. Any measures in the budget that might favour this "middle class" are aimed at buying its allegiance to the status quo so that the financial oligarchy can get away with asserting its dictate over the economy and society. Responses to the budget of those who claim to represent this section of the population show allegiance to the system while grumbling that the crumbs are not enough.

The working class wants a government which supports them in its defence of what belongs to them by right as the actual producers of all value, and which launches the economy in a new direction that creates stability and security for all.

Those who buy the capacity to work of the working class, the financial oligarchy, want a government which supports them in their defence of their privileged claim on what the working class produces and to perpetuate the current direction of the economy, which favours their class interests.

The Trudeau government's concept of a middle class obfuscates this social class struggle of claims and direction. The budget says, "Investing in the middle class means investing in people -- with more help for those who need it, and less for those who don't." From this we assume more help for those "in the middle class" who need it and "less for those who don't." It appears that what the Trudeau government considers the lower class does not need or does not deserve help at all. A growing number of Canadians have fallen out of the working class into extreme poverty for one reason or another from which any recovery is difficult indeed without massive support from society and social programs. Despite the claims made about it, the budget does not alleviate the problem of Canadians living in poverty or give any momentum towards humanizing the social and natural environment. In fact, the tax credits which it says benefit the "middle class" are not designed to alleviate the problems the people face and, besides their propaganda value, this is not their intention either.

The budget's proposed measures eventually funnel money to the rich, those who buy the capacity to work of the working class and the value workers bring to the work they do. The proposals in the budget can be dissected to show that in one way or another they assist those who own and control the economy.

The budget purports to deal with four areas, namely, "Good Jobs," "Housing," "Seniors" and "Pharmacare." What the government calls "Good Jobs" refers to its new "Canada Training Benefit," saying that "the evolving nature of work means that people may change jobs many times over the course of their working lives, or may require new skills to keep their jobs in a changing economy. For working Canadians, this presents a new challenge: how to get the training they need to keep their existing jobs, or prepare for a new one." The effect of this measure will be to increase the value of the capacity to work of the working class without the eventual buyers of that capacity paying for or realizing the value that has gone into it.

Under the heading of "Housing," the government presents its policies as increasing the purchasing power of the working class such as the "First-Time Home Buyer Incentive" but the essence is that every measure perpetuates and strengthens the control and class privilege of the ruling financial oligarchy and funnels the collective value from the economy towards the rich.

The economy today is working people collectively using means of production to produce useful goods and services so that the people can live a modern lifestyle and society can progress. An economy has objective conditions found in the level of the productive forces and the relations people enter into to participate in the economy called the relations of production.

Canada's productive forces have advanced tremendously since the nineteenth century but the relations of production have not changed. This contradiction can be seen in the unresolved problems in the economy and its recurring economic crises, and most strikingly in the dysfunction in the relations of production. Life itself confirms the necessity for renewal of the relations of production to bring them into conformity with the socialized productive forces.

The budget has both the purpose of covering up the real intent of the measures to pay the rich and to divert working people from looking at the economy with their own social consciousness and economic science so as to open a path forward.

Working Albertans Do Not Harbour a
Morbid Preoccupation with Defeat

The Alberta provincial election, announced by Premier Rachel Notley on March 19, is to be held April 16 after a 28-day election campaign.

Four years ago, Albertans delivered a stunning repudiation of the neo-liberal anti-social agenda being waged at the time by the Progressive Conservative Party, bringing down a 44-year dynasty in Alberta.

That feeling of optimism has vanished. Despite its efforts to bring about some reforms for which the working class and people fought, four years of NDP government have deepened the crisis of credibility in which the system called a representative democracy is mired. Bringing political parties over which people exercise no control to form governments does not give rise to people's empowerment. Any perception that might have lingered that the cartel party system has anything to do with permitting the people to set government policies has vanished as a result of four years in which Big Oil continues to dictate what can and cannot be done in Alberta.

The United Conservative Party (UCP) led by Jason Kenney, which is hoping to replace the NDP led by Rachel Notley, is the product of a hostile takeover of the Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties and is united in name only. Even as the election gets underway, Kenney himself is mired in corruption scandals.

All of this is used by the energy and other oligopolies, such as the big banks, to overwhelm people with the idea that the choice is between pipelines and the environment, "compassionate" versus severe austerity. There is no alternative to a growing public debt and deficit, the continued wrecking of health care, education and seniors' programs, pipelines in all directions, economic crisis, pay-the-rich schemes and setting people at each other's throats.

Meanwhile, the working people have their own concerns and agenda and feel stronger when they stick to devising the strategy and tactics which bring about change in their own sectors of the economy, communities, places of work and defence organizations to make sure their interests are advanced. The forces which defeated the anti-worker, anti-people agenda in 2015 did so by fighting for a pro-social agenda and defending rights. Workers in many sectors of the economy are bringing forward their claims on society and for a new direction for the economy to bring it about.

Given the significance of the Alberta oil industry to the people of all of Canada, the results of the Alberta election are a matter of concern for all Canadians. Trudeau gave away $4.5 billion to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline in the name of Canadians. Let everyone speak in their own name in this election about the solutions they want to see implemented in Alberta.

Say No to Paying the Rich! Increase Funding for Social Programs! Put the claims of the working people in first place, not those of the rich.

What Is the Problem in Alberta?

Think about it. Alberta has had this resource dependent problem for decades with no viable alternative coming from the ruling elite. Why is that?

You have the likes of Justin Trudeau and others who declare Yes to charging people carbon taxes, No to oil tankers off the north coast but Yes to pipelines, Yes to more oil tankers off the south coast, and Yes to oil sands projects, while others declare Yes to all the above but No to carbon taxes, or simply No to all the above.

Generally speaking, the human capacity to solve problems is presented as very restricted. There is a notion that humans have brawn but no brain or that they are good at one thing but incapable of doing other things. For example, humans have developed nuclear fuel as a source of energy but do not know what to do with the nuclear waste. The motive of production though to develop nuclear fuel is found in the war economy. This motive evaporates when it comes to dealing with the radioactive waste. Development of the oil industry was also closely linked with the war economy, with Alberta's economy going hand in glove with the U.S. war machine. It likewise has no answer for the problems it causes in environmental degradation from abandoned oil rigs and wells and the large issue of climate change. Solving those problems does not form part of its motive.

The problem lies with the social class in control and its motive of production not human capacity. The motive to become rich and wage imperialist war is too narrow and destructive to deal with the complexities of the modern economy. Take carbon fuels as an example. The motive has to be there to make the transition from carbon energy in such a way that it becomes a serious alternative not only towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions but away from the war economy, car culture and the control of the global oligarchs over the people's lives, economy and politics.

Yes and No Agenda

In the elections the people are presented with a Yes / No agenda: Yes and No to pipelines, Yes and No to oil to tidewater, Yes and No to oil tankers, Yes and No to carbon fuel, Yes and No to carbon taxes, Yes and No to shipping oil by rail; Alberta loves oil, others hate oil; consultation with Indigenous nations but no veto and no full participation in planning and developing their territories using the resources that are there or infrastructure that passes through.

In all this back and forth of Yes and No, collective discussion of an alternative direction and agenda for an all-sided pro-social economy independent of the demands of the U.S. imperialists, their war machine and the global oil barons is quashed. The claims of the people on society are disappeared and, save for their efforts to speak out, never see the light of day because those in a position of authority and in the mass media use all their power, including the police power, to block the development of an alternative and the collective discussion necessary to get us there.

In the present situation, elections are used to make sure everything connected with the economy is turned into pragmatism to favour those in control. This means the ruling elite constrain the discussion, agenda or possible direction within the bounds of themselves and their empires becoming richer and they extend their dominance through war. This means the only direction possible or debatable is one that holds out the possibility of making the oligarchs oodles of money and extending their control over life. Within this constraint, pragmatism rules. The narrowest self-serving end justifies the means. Principles, if they are to exist at all, have to serve the motive of becoming rich and tightening the control of the oligarchs, which is hardly what one could call a principle.

The only things possible or expedient are constrained within whatever favours the financial oligarchy. This precludes any discussion of the principles of a modern economy that stands in opposition to the imperialist system of states and the necessity for people to exercise control over their lives, an economy that has as its guiding principle to guarantee the security and well-being of the people and the humanization of the social and natural environment.

Oil sands development and a pipeline to Vancouver are possible and desirable because the U.S. imperialists want oil for their war economy and active military, and Alberta has heavy oil. The oil is there, it exists, therefore it must be developed to make oligarchs rich and extend their control, empires and war aims. No discussion on the aim society must pursue and the means to realize that aim is permitted. Discussion on a motive that may allow the development of the oil sands in a planned humanized way is considered fringe.

Those in control make a big show of ending dependence on the U.S. market and the price the oligarchs dictate. But their actions shout -- who cares about being beholden to the U.S. war economy, being beholden to the global markets, and the economic crises that recur with regularity? Those in control shout we are all for more pay-the-rich schemes in the name of carbon reduction so long as it puts money in our pockets, but when it comes to doubling oil sands production, just go for it because in the moment certain oligarchs will become even richer, their line of march to dominate the world through war and plunder be damned; Alberta's prosperity depends on them.

Objectively speaking, in this election Albertans are perplexed by the "choices" -- a non-alternative to a non-alternative -- and they are corralled into voting for purposes of saying this or that party has their consent to govern.

But all of this diverts from the recognition that the alternative to the current state of affairs has already come into being in the form of those who speak out in their own name and elaborate their claims on society, as we see taking place in myriad ways every day. This affirmation of the human factor/social consciousness dispels all feelings of hopelessness, helplessness and humiliation inherent in the ruling class's morbid preoccupation with defeat and death based on the nonsense that if the rich do not get paid, Alberta will collapse; if carbon taxes prevail, Albertans will be doomed and other such self-serving propaganda designed to disinform the development of the movement for people's empowerment.

A nation-building project worthy of the name inscribes on its banner the people's demand for a pro-social economy which stops paying the rich and increases investments in social programs. Securing the well-being of the people by humanizing the social and natural environment is the way forward if the problems plaguing Alberta are to be resolved.

Confronting the Boom and Bust Alberta Economy
and Disinformation of the Ruling Elite

A truck convoy set out from Red Deer, Alberta on February 14, calling for "support for the oil industry." Media reports suggest about 60 or 70 trucks from big rigs to campers arrived in Ottawa on February 19. Organizers of the "United We Roll" convoy said their message was to axe the federal carbon tax, build more pipelines, and withdraw Bills C-69 and C-48.[1]

The convoy was originally announced in January but many of those promoting the trek and raising funds withdrew citing "complications" and not wishing to be associated with certain voices playing politics who gained some prominence in the media. The “Canada Action” group whose organizers are prominent members of the Conservative Party cancelled its convoy, leaving the “United We Roll Group” to proceed with the convoy.

Media reporting on the convoy has centred on the presence of opponents of the UN Global Migration Pact, the unacceptable behaviour of certain individuals towards the Indigenous land protectors, and the fact that a platform was given to an avowed racist. The media attention on what may or may not have been agents provocateurs meant that no discussion took place about the serious concerns workers have consistently raised during the many actions across Alberta preceding the February cross-Canada convoy.

Proper reporting and inquiry would necessarily take up the question of who sets the agenda for the Alberta economy that led to the present crisis and how those powerful global energy oligarchs benefit from the agenda they set. Needless to say, the oligarchs do not want any investigation or discussion that would hold them to account for the present difficulties.

The energy oligarchs operating in Canada are calling for Canada to further embroil itself in the vicious competition, war economy and striving for world domination of "Fortress North America," a course which is very harmful to the people and Mother Earth. The drive for global hegemony takes the form of nation-wrecking, wars of aggression, and all-out destruction of what they cannot control. Collateral damage in this striving for domination includes the Alberta economy.

The problem facing the ruling circles is that the Alberta working class is a militant grounded contingent of the Canadian working class. It has always stood its ground. This is why the oligarchs and their representatives and media go all out to disinform the working peoples' instinctive opposition to the damage caused by "Big Oil," privatized health care, seniors' care, education and the pay-the-rich schemes of subsequent governments no matter their political stripe. The working people respond by taking further measures which collectively articulate a coherent way forward which favours them. A new direction for the economy which humanizes the social and natural environment is a matter for the working class to sort out. The motive of the rich to wantonly plunder the resources and exploit labour and expropriate the fruits of labour has long since shown how destructive it is. It has long since been rejected. It must not be permitted to dominate the electoral agenda.

Rallies in Alberta

Truck convoy travels through Estevan, Saskatchewan, December 22, 2018.

Rallies and truck convoys took place in at least 13 cities and towns across Alberta as well as in several cities and towns in Saskatchewan and Manitoba in December and January, with thousands of people participating. Workers and small business people and others in their communities attended the rallies and expressed great concern about their future. They spoke about the difficulties they have faced since oil prices crashed in 2014 and how boom once again turned to bust. Most of the communities where the protests occurred are heavily dependent on the conventional oil and gas industry not the giant oil sands' projects. People spoke about the loss of their homes, vehicles and small businesses.

The unfolding events of the protests that ended in Ottawa reveal how the ruling circles stifle and suppress thought, inquiry and discussion. The cartel parties, monopoly media and direct disinformation from the energy cartels defined the problem, solution and agenda that all should follow or oppose. This blocked any coherent public opinion from developing through conscious participation in acts of finding out and collective discussion.

The Oligarchs Speak

- Alberta has to sell its oil at heavy discounts to one market, the United States; and

- the regulatory regimes, compounded by Trudeau's Bill C-69, are "killing investment" and must be cratered.

To build pipelines is therefore the solution, they declare. This supposedly will open up markets in Asia even though the twinning of the Trans Mountain bitumen pipeline to Vancouver, despite overwhelming evidence that it is mainly meant to supply refineries in Washington and California.

The ruling circles who set the agenda do so in a manner to generate maximum animosity and discord as to whether people are for or against an agenda they did not participate in setting. This stifles investigation and discussion into the objective problems and the need for a new direction for the economy.

The disinformation campaign obscures the situation including the fact that the energy oligarchs have no intention at this time of revisiting the conventional oil and gas industry on which many small towns and cities rely. The global market is awash in U.S. fracked light crude. It does not and has no intention to explain how a lack of pipeline capacity caused the crash of the global market price of oil in 2014.

The concerns being raised in towns and cities across Alberta and in other parts of western Canada through these rallies and convoys are serious. They should not be dismissed with obfuscation and denunciations of those participating as racist, anti-environment and so on. People want real solutions to real problems, and are showing their concern through their actions.

The rich oligarchs and the cartel parties doing their bidding are a source of division amongst the people. They are desperate to block people from conscious participation in acts of finding out and drawing warranted conclusions. The people's lack of control and political empowerment leaves them without their democratic right to decide or even know what is the root cause of the problems they face.

Issues are reduced to what is most expedient for the rich within the situation and can cause the most divisions amongst the people. The rights and consent of the Indigenous peoples are reduced to perfunctory consultation; and the rights of workers to wages and working conditions acceptable to them is dismissed as a cost to production and deterrent to investment. Likewise, the protection of the environment and the necessity for action to address the problem of climate change are positioned in opposition to development for which indirect incentives such as a carbon tax and direct pay-the-rich schemes to promote green entrepreneurs are said to be the answer rather than dealing with the problem as it presents itself.

Nation-building itself, which in the modern era must be founded on an independent diverse all-sided economy of social programs, public services, manufacturing and resource extraction is sacrificed on the altar of imperialist globalization to serve the narrow private interests of the oligarchs.

The energy industry in Alberta is under the control of the global cartels. This fact alone must be addressed as a priority, as decisions are made that serve the global interests of the rich and not Albertans. This leaves working people and their communities vulnerable to the intense competition amongst the oligarchs and their striving for hegemony. A new direction is needed for the economy where the control moves to Alberta working people, and the motive of production becomes the determination to meet the needs of the people, to humanize the social and natural environment and to trade for mutual benefit and development with all those around the world who are willing to do so.

The challenge facing the polity is to break through the disinformation with a collective voice that refuses to be cowed and is determined to take up the politics of social responsibility and speak in its own name with its own agenda.

Note

1. Bill C-69 amends the process for approval of pipelines and other energy projects and infrastructure. Bill C-48 enshrines in legislation the existing restrictions on tankers on the BC West Coast from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to Alaska.

The Carbon Tax

An additional tax placed on carbon commodities does nothing to sort out the issue of how to stop damaging the environment stemming from modern production methods, our current way of life and most importantly what is revealed by the ensemble of social relations between human and humans and humans and nature which is that without people's empowerment, the road to progress is blocked. The carbon tax does not address the actual production process, who controls production, the aim of those in control, and the relations of production, especially those between the working class and those to whom workers sell their capacity to work and control the means of production and distribution.

roduction under imperialism today, at a time a neo-liberal agenda prevails, is characterized by anarchy and violence. Opportunism is the name of the game and not only can nothing be consciously planned but, worse still, nothing can be brought under control on the basis of the imperialists' striving for hegemony on every front. In contrast, the central feature of a modern pro-social economy would be to meet the needs of people and protect the environment as a matter of course, something which can be achieved on the basis of scientific planning and a modern pro-social outlook that upholds social responsibility as a matter of course. Nobody can argue that this is what we have now.

Without economic planning imbued with a modern outlook of social responsibility, the environment cannot be saved nor the well-being of the people met. The cartel parties even boast that the economy is best left to the market where an invisible hand manages supply and demand and other issues. What they are saying in practice is that the people should leave the economy up to the most powerful private interests and their striving for control so as to make obscene windfall profits. What best serves their private interests for maximum profit further fuels the raging competition and wars with each other and the people to build their empires.

How can people humanize the social and natural environment when those in control are completely devoid of social responsibility because it conflicts with their private interests to squeeze maximum profit from the natural resources and their workers?

The environment in itself is not any kind of consideration to the oligarchs in control; life has proved that point decisively, especially in the development of the war economy and the constant waging of wars. The environment only becomes a consideration if the oligarchs can make oodles of money from it and become green billionaires like former U.S. vice-president Al Gore. Their outlook and aim are not to protect the environment and humanity from destruction but to become rich and build their empires in competition with other oligarchs.

Being forced to choose between a carbon tax or not is another one of those false choices the people are given, such as rival candidates of the cartel parties in elections where the people have to give up their own thinking, interests, agenda and voice. The Marxist-Leninist Party calls on the working people to reject that and instead initiate discussion which provides society with a different aim and renews the political process so that the people's claims on society are heeded. The material conditions have long since been brought into being by the working people to enable the economy to provide for their needs. The material conditions for the alternative in the form of an educated working class and modern processes of production and modern science and technology exist. The alternative is already in existence. Make the demand for social responsibility towards the people's well-being and to humanize the social and natural environment as the guide to action in Alberta ring out loud and clear. Do not take no for an answer. Do not permit those who do not uphold social responsibility to usurp power through electoral fraud!

Distribution of Seats and Registered Political
Parties at Dissolution of Legislature

At the time the election was called, the governing New Democrats held 52 of Alberta's 87 ridings and the official opposition, the United Conservative Party (UCP) held 25. The Alberta Party held four seats, the Alberta Liberals one seat, the Freedom Conservative Party one seat, and there were three Independents. One seat was vacant.

At the time of dissolution of the legislature, only 54 of the 86 MLAs represented the political party for which they ran in the 2015 election. The Progressive Conservative Party and Wildrose Party were destroyed and replaced by the UCP in 2017, led by Jason Kenney. Those who ended up sitting as Independents either left or were removed from the parties they ran for. Three PCs did not join the UCP, with two joining the Alberta Party and one the NDP. One MLA was kicked out of the UCP and formed his own party.

Alberta has a population of 4,334,025, an increase of more than 200,000 since the 2015 election. There are roughly 2,615,000 people in Alberta who are registered to vote in a provincial election, according to Elections Alberta.

Registered Political Parties

There are 13 registered political parties in Alberta. However, the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta (PC) and the Wildrose Party, technically still on the books, in reality no longer exist.

Alberta Advantage Party (AAP)
Alberta Independence Party (AIP)
Alberta Liberal Party (LIB)
Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP)
Alberta Party (AP)
Communist Party-Alberta (CP-A)
Freedom Conservative Party of Alberta (FCPA)
Green Party of Alberta (GPA)
Pro-Life Alberta Political Association (PAPA)
Reform Party of Alberta (RPA)
United Conservative Party (UCP)

The Advent of New Forms of Mass Communications
of the Social Productive Forces

The U.S. is making the penetration of Huawei's 5G network in the North American market an issue of the "danger of Chinese espionage which is a security threat for the whole world." It is part of the fierce competition in the telecommunications field amongst the largest telecommunications companies in which the U.S. seeks to maintain its dominance through its links with the oligopolies that are already directly linked to the U.S. military and security apparatus.

One would think that any advances in communications technology and the prospects of a high capacity 5G network capable of providing network speed to support computer-driven cars, remote surgery or other artificial intelligence applications would be a welcome development. But the U.S. response shows that for the U.S. National Security State this has become an existential issue.

An article in the scientific journal Nature dated June 15, 2017, titled "China's Quantum Satellite Clears Major Hurdle on Way to Ultrasecure Communications," announced the exciting news that China's first quantum enabled satellite had achieved one of its most ambitious goals. The researchers' report, also published in Science, explains that by beaming photons between the satellite and two distant ground stations, they have shown that particles can remain in a linked quantum state at a record-breaking distance of more than 1,200 kilometres. That phenomenon known as quantum entanglement could be used as the basis of a future secure quantum-communications network.[1]

This is earth-shaking news for the functioning of a 5G network because it meets one of the network's most important needs which is a completely secure data encryption system.

Another article in MIT Technology Review on January 30, 2018, titled "Chinese Satellite Uses Quantum Cryptography for Secure Videoconference Between Continents," announced that the record for quantum cryptography over long distances has been broken by the Chinese experiment.

The article explains that, "Quantum cryptography allows communication that is guaranteed to be secure thanks to the laws of physics." The main problem has been that quantum cryptography has not been possible for longer distances because the best optical fibres can carry photons only so far -- around 200 km.

This has all changed with the Chinese satellite called Micius which was launched in 2016. One of the latest achievements of the satellite has been to set up the first intercontinental quantum cryptography service. The article explains: "Researchers have tested the system by setting up a secure video conference between Europe and China. For the first time, the security of this video conference was guaranteed by the laws of physics."

The goal of the experiment was to set up a video conference between the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

The first step was to create a "key" which is a set of random numbers which can be used by both parties to encode or decode a message and to distribute this "key" securely to both locations. In order to achieve a secure transfer of the "key," the satellite sent the random numbers encoded in a single photon to ground stations in Xingdong in China's northern Hebei province and then sent the same key to a ground station in Graz, Austria. The teams used ground-based quantum communication over optical fibres to Beijing and Vienna to set up a secure video link.

This experiment took place in September 2017 and resulted in a pioneering videoconference that lasted for 75 minutes with a total data transmission of roughly two gigabytes.

The two teams jointly announced the great achievement: "We have demonstrated intercontinental quantum communication among multiple locations on Earth with a maximal separation of 7,600 kilometres."[2]

Of great significance in this technology pioneered by Chinese scientists is that quantum cryptography guarantees the security of 5G networks or any other network under its protection. Quantum information is inherently safer than classical information because it is protected by the fundamental laws of physics. Reading out classical information (that is random numbers generated by present computer technology) does nothing to change it but, according to quantum physics, the mere fact of observing a quantum system changes its quantum state. Through this effect, eavesdropping or hacking into quantum information can be detected. Hence quantum information can be made invulnerable to spying in ways that would be classically impossible.

In addition to China's leading research in quantum encryption, Huawei itself is making headway in commercializing quantum encryption for use in existing telecommunications networks today. On June 14, 2018, Spanish telecom monopoly Telefónica announced that in conjunction with Huawei and the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), "a groundbreaking field trial" had been carried out, which it said was "the first one worldwide, demonstrating the application of quantum cryptography on commercial optical networks, and their operational integration by means of Software Defined Networking (SDN) technologies."

It is not surprising then that many countries are interested in establishing their 5G networks based on Huawei's advanced high speed technology. Combined with the security of quantum encryption these networks would be protected from any hacking or foreign espionage. It has been reported that Huawei currently has contracts to roll out its 5G technology in nearly 30 countries.

Germany, France and even Britain have recently declared that they do not consider Huawei to be a security risk and they have refused to ban any single manufacturer in their countries. The U.S. has responded by warning its allies that it could reconsider its military relationships with anyone who uses Huawei's 5G infrastructure.

The U.S. bases itself on a standing accusation against Huawei and other Chinese enterprises. It claims that they are merely extensions of the Chinese state or the Chinese Communist Party, and therefore cannot be trusted. The claim is made that Huawei puts backdoors into its hardware, allowing the Chinese government to access foreign data. Huawei vehemently denies this.

The sabre-rattling regarding Huawei and its 5G technology is a vivid example of U.S. imperialism's striving for world domination. It seeks to control artificial intelligence and other technological developments and, failing that, it seeks to destroy the human productive forces which give rise to them. Cyber warfare and attempts to impose laws on what can and cannot be done with modern technology become attempts to criminalize those who do not succumb to U.S. imperialist aims. Threats of war have become commonplace to deal with what the U.S. imperialists claim are security threats.

In actual fact, the new developments in 5G networks and the scientific advancements made by Chinese scientists in quantum encryption, are new forms of mass communications being brought forward by the social productive forces. Such developments are not the property of anyone.

This is the greatest significance of these new developments in the experiments in ultra-secure communications which are so important for the functioning of any high speed network. This technology does not belong to anyone. No single entity, whether a nation or corporation can control or monopolize it because it is based on the law of physics which can be applied universally.

No matter how much the U.S. imperialists want to portray the issue of 5G networks and Huawei as one of "espionage and the Chinese threat," it is undeniable that these advances are further developments of the modern human productive forces as they bring into being entirely new hitherto unknown means of production. The industrial and technical revolution cannot be stopped with anyone's claims of ownership and the aim to make private profit. The New which has emerged needs to be addressed politically so that new arrangements serve the modern human productive forces, not those who are creating havoc in their attempt to control them for themselves.

Even though the developments related to Google, Facebook, Huawei and 5G technology and the like are commonly talked about as a problem of the surveillance state, Big Brother, etc., in fact, these are the forms of mass communication being brought forward by the social productive powers today which belong to humankind. They are the face of the New, bringing forward that broad horizon Marx referred to which is yet to be organized. Today these huge developments of the human productive powers are being used to destroy the productive forces, with war as a main means to achieve this. But this can be turned around and it must be.

Notes

2. "Chinese Satellite Uses Quantum Cryptography for Secure Videoconference Between Continents," MIT Technology Review, January 30, 2018.

CARICOM Rejects Canada's Proposal to
Undermine Petrocaribe

Meeting of Caricom, February 26-27 in St. Kitts-Navis reiterated their rejection of outside interference in Venezuela.

Canada is trying to position Juan Guaidó in the Caribbean to the detriment of the constitutional government of Nicolás Maduro. The U.S. needs to break Venezuela's strategic alliance with Caribbean nations and shift the voting balance in the Organization of American States. Canada, which has meddled in the British West Indies with "aid" and warships for decades, is sent as its errand boy to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Yet the Liberal duplicity is to feign that it is merely acting in a disinterested manner at the request of the same Guaidó. According to this fairy tale, Guaidó himself is not able to make such an overture! A document from Global Affairs admits "there has been no consensus among the countries of the America."

***

The online Misión Verdad periodical has access to a confidential document ("Non-Paper") drafted by the government of Canada, led by Justin Trudeau, with which they tried to build a bridge of contact between the president of Venezuela's National Assembly (in contempt) and some countries of the Eastern Caribbean by proposing an instrument to displace Petrocaribe.

On March 14 the Canadian government sent a low-level official to a meeting of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), held on the island of Guadeloupe, with the aim of facilitating a direct link between Guaidó's team and the prime ministers whose governments make up Caricom.

In Guadeloupe, Trudeau's special envoy asked for a meeting with the OECS leaders, which was rejected because he did not possess the appropriate diplomatic level necessary for such a meeting to take place. However, Caribbean representatives accepted a courtesy lunch where the Canadian delivered the following document:

The government of Canada in principle would have offered a meeting between Juan Guaidó himself and the representatives of these countries, which turned out to be false something that annoyed the Caribbean leaders because it represented a sign of little diplomatic seriousness.

In spite of this, they received the document with the proposal of the Trudeau Administration, which at all times acted as representative of the Venezuelan opposition, which proposed creating an organization parallel to Petrocaribe called "Cooperation and Energy Stability Agreement."

The proposal to undermine Petrocaribe produced yet another sign of annoyance from the representatives of the Caribbean countries, who reminded the Canadian envoy of their full support for dialogue between the parties in Venezuela. They also urged the opposition to sit at the same table with the government of Nicolás Maduro.

They also reminded Canada of the fact that Petrocaribe is being sabotaged by both U.S. sanctions and regional pressure against Venezuela, supported both by the Trudeau government and by the Venezuelan opposition represented in the National Assembly (in contempt).

- Buying off the good will of some Eastern Caribbean countries with negotiations that the Caribbean representatives themselves described as petty; and

- Offering high-level diplomatic meetings that did not materialize, and sending low-level advisors, thus showing disrespect to the Caribbean governments.

Finally, the Caribbean representatives made it clear that they do not recognize Juan Guaidó. They insisted on their common position that proposes peaceful means of dialogue and respect for international law, outside the strategy of coup d'état and "humanitarian intervention" planned by Washington.

It should be remembered that the OECS is a regional body that promotes technical cooperation and the sustainable development of six independent countries and three territories of the United Kingdom and one of France in the Caribbean Sea.

Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Montserrat (UK Dependency)

Anguilla (UK Dependency), Martinique (French Overseas Department), British Virgin Islands (UK Dependency).

International Court of Justice Rules British Occupation
of the Chagos Islands Illegal

Refusal to Uphold International Rule of Law
Is a Serious Matter of Concern

Protest outside British Parliament after a court ruling barring Chagos Islanders from returning to their homeland, October 22, 2008.

TML Weekly welcomes the February 25 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Chagos Islands. In a majority decision of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK, the ICJ ruled that the continued British occupation of the Chagos Islands is illegal and ordered the UK to return the islands to Mauritius "as rapidly as possible." The islands were seized by the British in 1965 and the people forcibly removed in 1971 to permit the U.S. to build a military base on the island of Diego Garcia. This base plays a criminal role in the U.S. striving for world hegemony.

The British Parliament immediately rejected the ruling. A Foreign Office spokesperson gave the following self-serving response on February 25, "This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment. Of course, we will look at the detail of it carefully. The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats, organized crime and piracy."

Former British diplomat Craig Murray scoffed at this announcement, "This represents a serious escalation in the UK's rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the U.S. model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented." (See article below.)

The ICJ is the UN's highest court, and the longstanding injustice against the Chagos Islanders was referred to it by the General Assembly in June 2017, vis-a-vis the UN process of decolonization, by a vote of 94 to 15 in favour of a resolution from Mauritius. In its 2018 submission to the ICJ, Mauritius' lawyers argued it was coerced into giving up the Chagos Islands, in breach of 1960 UN Resolution 1514, which specifically bans the breakup of colonies before independence.

The ICJ ruling has no binding status but for the British to dispute it is not acceptable. As Craig Murray points out, Britain is outrightly flouting the International Rule of Law and this is a matter of serious concern because nothing justifies British and U.S. crimes against humanity committed in the name of high ideals.

When the British seized the islands, Diego Garcia was the largest and only inhabited island in the British Indian Ocean Territory, usually abbreviated as "BIOT." The British brutally expelled the total population of the atoll -- Chagossians or Chagos Islanders -- to facilitate the establishment of the U.S. military base. Today Diego Garcia is one of the five control bases for the Global Positioning System operated by the United States military.[1] The island provided a "fixed aircraft carrier" for the U.S. during the Iranian revolution (1978-1979), the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (1990), Operation Enduring Freedom (the U.S. global "war on terror," 2001-2014) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2011). The atoll shelters the ships of the U.S. Marine Pre-Positioning Squadron Two. These ships carry equipment and supplies to support a major armed force with tanks, armoured personnel carriers, munitions, fuel, spare parts and even a mobile field hospital. Additionally, Diego Garcia was used as a storage section for U.S. cluster bombs as a detour from UK parliamentary oversight. The British government also colluded with the CIA to use the U.S. base for its extralegal renditions and torture.

Australian journalist and film-maker John Pilger has been one of the champions of the Chagos islanders. His 2004 film, Stealing a Nation, alerted much of the world to their plight. To view the film, click here.

Note

Victory for the Chagos Islanders

There are times when one tragedy tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic façade and helps us understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments often justify their actions with lies.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the British Government of Harold Wilson expelled the entire population of the Chagos Islands, a British crown colony in the Indian Ocean, to make way for an American military base on Diego Garcia, the largest island. In high secrecy, the Americans offered a discounted Polaris nuclear submarine as payment for use of the islands.

The truth of this conspiracy did not emerge for another 20 years when secret official files were unearthed at the Public Record Office, in London, by lawyers acting for the former inhabitants of the coral archipelago. Historian Mark Curtis described the enforced depopulation in Web of Deceit, his 2003 book about Britain's post-war foreign policy. The British media all but ignored it; the Washington Post called it a "mass kidnapping."

I first heard of the plight of the Chagossians in 1982, during the Falklands War. Britain had sent a fleet to the aid of 2,000 Falkland Islanders at the other end of the world while another 2,000 British citizens from islands in the Indian Ocean had been expelled by British governments and hardly anyone knew.

The difference was that the Falkland Islanders were white and the Chagossians were black and, crucially, the United States wanted the islands -- especially Diego Garcia -- as a major military base from which to command the Indian Ocean.

The Chagos Islands were a natural paradise. The 1,500 islanders were self-sufficient with an abundance of natural produce, and extreme weather was rare. There were thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a railway and an undisturbed way of life -- until a secret 1961 Anglo-American survey of Diego Garcia led to the deportation of the entire population.

The expulsions began in 1965. People were herded into the hold of a rusting ship, the women and children forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertiliser. They were dumped in the Seychelles, where they were held in prison cells, then shipped on to Mauritius, where they were taken to a derelict housing estate with no water or electricity.

Twenty-six families died here in brutal poverty, there were nine suicides; and girls were forced into prostitution to survive.

I interviewed many of them. One woman recalled how she and her husband took their baby to Mauritius for medical treatment and were told they could not return. The shock was so great that her husband suffered a stroke and died. Others described how the British and Americans gassed their dogs -- beloved pets to the islanders -- as an intimidation to pack up and leave. Lizette Talate told me how her children had "died of sadness." She herself has since died.

The depopulation of the archipelago was completed within 10 years and Diego Garcia became home to one of the United States' biggest bases, with more than 2,000 troops, two bomber runways, 30 warships, facilities for nuclear-armed submarines and a satellite spy station. Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed from the former paradise. Following 9/11, America's perceived enemies were "rendered" here and there is evidence they were tortured.

All the while, the Chagos remained a British possession and its people a British responsibility. After demonstrating on the streets of Mauritius in 1982, the exiled islanders were given the derisory compensation of less than £3,000 each by the British government.

When declassified British Foreign Office files were discovered, the full sordid story was laid bare. One file was headed, 'Maintaining the Fiction' and instructed British officials to lie that the islanders were itinerant workers, not a stable indigenous population. Secretly, British officials recognized they were open to "charges of dishonesty" because they were planning to "cook the books" -- lie.

In 2000, the High Court in London ruled the expulsions illegal. In response, the Labour government of Tony Blair invoked the Royal Prerogative, an archaic power invested in the Queen's "Privy Council" that allows the government to bypass Parliament and the courts. In this way, the government hoped, the islanders could be prevented from ever returning home.

The High Court again ruled that the Chagossians were entitled to return and in 2008, the Foreign Office appealed to the Supreme Court. Although based on no new evidence, the appeal was successful.

I was in Parliament -- where the highest court then sat in the House of Lords -- on the day of the judgement. I have never seen such shame-faced judges in what was clearly a political decision.

In 2010, the British government sought to reinforce this by establishing a marine nature reserve around the Chagos Islands. The ruse was exposed by WikiLeaks, which published a U.S. Embassy diplomatic cable from 2009 that read, "Establishing a marine reserve might indeed, as the FCO's [Colin] Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or descendants from resettling."

Now the International Court of Justice has decided that the British government of the day had no right in law to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius when it granted Mauritius independence. The Court, whose powers are advisory, has said Britain must end its authority over the islands. By extension, that almost certainly makes the U.S. base illegal.

Of course, the indefatigable campaign of the Chagossians and their supporters will not stop there: not until the first islander goes home.

UK Rejects International Court of Justice
Opinion on the Chagos Islands

In [the British] Parliament, [MP] Alan Duncan for the government has just rejected yesterday's [February 25] stunning result at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where British occupation of the Chagos Islands was found unlawful by a majority of 13 to 1, with all the judges from EU countries amongst those finding against the UK.

This represents a serious escalation in the UK's rejection of multilateralism and international law and a move towards joining the U.S. model of exceptionalism, standing outside the rule of international law. As such, it is arguably the most significant foreign policy development for generations. In the Iraq war, while Britain launched war without UN Security Council authority, it did so on a tenuous argument that it had Security Council authority from earlier resolutions. The UK was therefore not outright rejecting the international system. On Chagos it is now simply denying the authority of the International Court of Justice; this is utterly unprecedented.

Duncan put forward two arguments. Firstly that the ICJ opinion was "only" advisory to the General Assembly. Secondly, he argued that the ICJ had no jurisdiction as the case was a bilateral dispute with Mauritius (and thus could only go before the ICJ with UK consent, which is not given).

But here Duncan is -- against all British precedent and past policy -- defying a ruling of the ICJ. The British government argued strenuously in the present case against ICJ jurisdiction, on just the grounds Duncan cited. The ICJ considered the UK's arguments, together with arguments from 32 other states and from the African Union. The ICJ ruled that it did have jurisdiction, because this was not a bilateral dispute but part of the UN ordained process of decolonization.

The International Court of Justice's ruling on this point is given at length in paras 83 to 91 of its Opinion. This is perhaps the key section:

88. The Court therefore concludes that the opinion has been requested on the matter of decolonization which is of particular concern to the United Nations. The issues raised by the request are located in the broader frame of reference of decolonization, including the General Assembly's role therein, from which those issues are inseparable (Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 26, para. 38; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 159, para. 50).

89. Moreover, the Court observes that there may be differences of views on legal questions in advisory proceedings (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 24, para. 34). However, the fact that the Court may have to pronounce on legal issues on which divergent views have been expressed by Mauritius and the United Kingdom does not mean that, by replying to the request, the Court is dealing with a bilateral dispute.

90. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider that to give the opinion requested would have the effect of circumventing the principle of consent by a State to the judicial settlement of its dispute with another State. The Court therefore cannot, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to give the opinion on that ground.

91. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there are no compelling reasons for it to decline to give the opinion requested by the General Assembly.

As stated at para 183, that the court did have jurisdiction was agreed unanimously, with even the U.S. judge (the sole dissenter on the main question) in accord. For the British government to reject the ICJ's unanimous ruling on jurisdiction, and quote that in parliament as the reason for not following the ICJ Opinion, is an astonishing abrogation of international law by the UK. It really is unprecedented. The repudiation of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention over Julian Assange pointed the direction the UK is drifting, but that body does not have the prestige of the International Court of Justice.

The International Court of Justice represents the absolute pinnacle of, and embodies the principle of, international law. In 176 decisions, such as Nigeria vs Cameroon or Malaysia vs Indonesia, potentially disastrous conflicts have been averted by the states' agreement to abide by the rule of law. The UK's current attack on the ICJ is a truly disastrous new development.

I have taken it for granted that you know that the reason the UK refuses to decolonize the Chagos Islands is to provide an airbase for the U.S. military on Diego Garcia. If Brexit goes ahead, the Chagos Islands will also lead to a major foreign policy disagreement between the UK and U.S. on one side, and the EU on the other. The EU will be truly shocked by British repudiation of the ICJ.

I have studied the entire and lengthy ICJ Opinion on the Chagos Islands, together with its associated papers, and I will write further on this shortly.

To Defend Minority Rights Is to
Defend the Rights of All

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) pays first rate attention to making sure the rights of minorities are given pride of place in society. In its rendering of rights it takes up the main content of the problem of rights and its relationship to the main content of modern democracy.

The question of minority rights arises both historically as the struggle which began against medievalism and as it expresses itself at the present time when representative democracy is no longer up to the task of dealing with it. Whether it is the national minorities as they exist all over the world as a result of the massive dislocation caused by world imperialism and modern capitalism, which have transformed the entire world into their market, or due to other reasons, or whether it concerns linguistic, religious, political minorities as well as LGBTQ rights, their rights are not guaranteed on the basis of what is known as elite accommodation or "positive discrimination" (affirmative action) or any such measures which criminalize problems and people. Experience shows that no measures of this kind have eliminated the discrimination against minorities which is practised in the representative democracies where such measures have been applied.

The source of discrimination or denial of the rights of minorities in Canada is found in the absence of recognizing the rights of citizenship as a matter of equal membership in a body politic where equal rights and duties are recognized for all on an equal basis. What exists in Canada is a hierarchy of rights and ruling elites are treated on a privileged preferential basis as the SNC-Lavalin scandal amply shows once again. It is quite obvious that a hierarchy of rights leads to discrimination which is supposed to be eliminated through elite accommodation and positive discrimination. These measures only create further hierarchies amongst those who are discriminated against, but they do not eliminate discrimination or its basis.

Citizenship which recognizes equal rights and duties for all is the starting point of the defence of minority rights and not the end. Nonetheless, if minorities did not fight for these rights, there would naturally be no starting point and no end to this problem. After having won the same rights and duties for all, national minorities can then fight for all other equalities. However, the demand for these equalities has to be put on this basis right at the start.

National minorities must be able to educate their children in their languages if they so wish and be able to develop their cultures. They have to be provided with these facilities by ensuring that no citizen has more rights and duties than another. Discrimination against any religious minority or against atheists can be eliminated by completely detaching religion from the state and ensuring that practising the right to conscience remains a private and an individual affair. Funding some religions and not others is a matter of despicable pork barrel politics and should be banned, while the access for all members of the polity to social programs, including education and recreation without the danger of police violence must be guaranteed. In the same manner, all violations, all racism and racial discrimination have to be severely dealt with as crimes under the penal code. In fact, they should be meted the harshest punishment.

As a starting point, CPC(M-L) pays first rate attention to the main content and requirement that all citizens must enjoy equal rights and duties. At the same time, it demands that the languages and cultures of all national minorities be defended and, thirdly, that all racism and acts of racial discrimination or racial violence must be severely dealt with.

All those who are interested in defending the rights of minorities as the basis of defending the rights of all come together in the course of the battles waged. The defence of the rights of minorities is one of the most important steps to take in settling scores with medievalism and its practices based on privilege and mysteries of state in the manner decisions are taken and policies set. The denial of the rights of minorities is the very essence of the representative democracy which exists in Canada at this time. There can be no illusion that minorities can enjoy rights within the present representative democracy. The defence of the rights of all minorities and opposition to all forms of discrimination, including racial, and all forms of violence, including racial, is a social responsibility.

Global Student Climate Strike -- Photo Review

Parliament Hill in Ottawa

On March 15, an estimated 1.5 million youth, in some 2,200 events in 130 countries worldwide took part in a global Student Strike for Climate. This recent action is the culmination of a movement of youth that began in 2015 under various names -- Fridays for Future, Youth for Climate and Youth Strike 4 Climate -- to demand action to put an end to global warming. They are making clear their responsibility to look after the social and natural environment and are demanding that governments today also take up their responsibilities to ensure the well-being of their generation and those yet to come. A global student strike on November 30, 2015, the first day of the COP 21 UN Climate Conference, involved 50,000 people in more than 100 countries.

In Canada, there was participation from coast to coast to coast, with outstanding organization and participation from the Quebec youth in particular. In Quebec alone, 150,000 students took part, with 50,000 students marching through the streets of Montreal. Organizers in Canada are planning another mass action for the fall, to ensure their concerns are on the agenda of the 2019 federal election. Meanwhile, weekly Fridays for Future actions continue around the world.

Gatineau-Ottawa

Quebec

Montreal

Magdalen Islands and Gaspésie

Chicoutimi

Sherbrooke

La Pocatière

Sept-Îles

Baie-Comeau

Quebec City

Canada

St. John's

Fredericton

Halifax

Kingston

Toronto

Hamilton

Kitchener

Winnipeg

Regina

Saskatoon

Edmonton

Calgary

Vancouver

Victoria

Whitehorse

Yellowknife

Inuvik

Asia and Oceania

Tokyo, Japan

Seoul, Korea

Hong Kong, China

Quezon City, Philippines

Bangalore, India

Delhi, India

Melbourne, Australia

Sydney, Australia

Auckland, New Zealand

Nelson, New Zealand

Wellington, New Zealand

Vanuata

Africa

Dakar, Senegal

Capetown, South Africa

Latin America

Mexico City, Mexico

Santiago, Chile

United States

Washington, DC

New York City, New York

Minneapolis-St. Pauls, Minnesota

San Francisco, California

Europe

Reykjavik, Iceland

Helsinki, Finland

Stockholm, Sweden

Berlin, Germany

Dresden, Germany

Zurich, Switzerland

Amsterdam, Netherlands

Brussels, Belguim

Edinburgh, Scotland

London, England

Dublin, Ireland

Paris, France

Lisbon, Portugal

Barcelona, Spain

Milan, Italy

Turin, Italy

Athens, Greece

Prague, Czech Republic

Zagreb, Croatia

Kiev, Ukraine

(Planete Invite Ecole, Student Climate Strike, Peoples Climate Movement, Spectre Media, Le Placoteux, Le Nord Cotier, Le Manic, E. Chouinard, Shev 11, Stephen L., I. Froude, Conservation Council of New Brunswick, G. Fitzgerald, K. Boerder, S. Seck, Kingston Climate Hub, M. Ilnyckyj, N. Voinot, E. Mackey, Dying circles cub, Davoren Lab, M. Oberman, S. Schroeter, L. Shasko, Saskatoon Climate Strike, D. Forbes, M. Kalmanovitch, Climate Justice Edmonton, Calgary Social Change, H.M. Kobluk, youth rising 2030, S. Furstenau, Sierra Club, M. Lien, W. Gagnon, Abedrennan, A. Hofford, A Bhardwaj, Haiyya, School Strike 4 Climate, L. Owen, S. E. Smith, A. Greenberg, N. Arnold, A. Diouf, 350 South Africa, Nuevo Democracia, E. Holthaus, A. Dsabet Brynjars, odeingrid, Petri Pusa, E. Nikunin, Green Rojava, Redfishtream, R. Rohde, France 4 Bernie, M. Molinari, European Greens, March for Science.)