June 15, 2019 - No. 22

On-Again Off-Again Canada U.S. Mexico Trade Agreement

Aggressive Trade Agenda of the U.S.
Shakes Existing Arrangements

Opposition to Anti-Social Offensive in Ontario

Province-Wide Actions Mark One Year of Resistance
to the Ford Government

Support the Korean People's Just Struggle
for Peace and Reunification

Oppose Canada's Role in U.S.-Led Aggression Against the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
- Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) -

DPRK Calls on U.S. to Mark First Anniversary of Historic Joint Statement by Implementing It with a New Spirit

19th Anniversary of Historic June 15, 2000
North-South Joint Declaration

Standing Up for Immigrant and Refugee Rights in the U.S.

Resistance to Border Patrol Profiling and Searches

New Mexico Sues Trump Administration Over Immigration Policies

Lawsuit Against Denial of Parole to Asylum Seekers

- American Civil Liberties Union -

U.S. Federal Court Injunction Partially Blocks Border Wall

Trump Officials Plan to Use Military Bases to Imprison
5,000 Undocumented Children

2019 European Parliament Election

Results Give Rise to Fragmented New European Parliament

The Divisions in the Polity in Britain

On-Again Off-Again Canada U.S. Mexico Trade Agreement

Aggressive Trade Agenda of the U.S. Shakes
Existing Arrangements

The conflicts surrounding the Canada U.S. Mexico Trade Agreement (CUSMA) reflect the inter-imperialist collusion and contention of competing sections of the global financial oligarchy. This collusion and contention posits the very grave danger of an inter-imperialist world war involving the militaries of the big powers. Canadians face the social responsibility to denounce and isolate the pro-war fanatics of the cartel parties in power in the federal Parliament and make Canada a zone for peace.

Fortress North America under the dictate of U.S. imperialism appears to be having trouble getting its act together. The contradictions within the ruling elite arising from competing private interests keep bubbling to the surface, causing a civil war. Meanwhile the working people are increasingly coming forward to lay the claims on society which they must and speak in their own name.

Soon after his election, President Trump announced the three countries of North America would have to negotiate a new NAFTA or the U.S. would unilaterally withdraw from it. Those negotiations became a daily melodrama filled with competing political personalities promoting themselves and their careers, which only recently produced a tentative agreement.

Before the CUSMA could be presented to the respective legislatures for ratification, the U.S. executive authority derailed it by imposing tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum citing reasons of "national security." The U.S. removed those duties on May 17, without explaining how the threat to U.S. national security had been resolved but with a proviso that they could return at a moment's notice.

But once again, before the process of ratification of CUSMA even began, President Trump disrupted the process by threatening tariffs on all Mexican exports to the U.S. unless the Mexican authorities stopped migrants from approaching and crossing into the United States.

Then, on June 7, President Trump announced via Twitter that an agreement had been reached with Mexico to reduce the flow of migrants to the southwestern U.S. border and therefore the tariffs scheduled to be imposed on June 10 had been indefinitely suspended.

U.S. Imperialist Agreements Not Worth the Paper They Are Printed On

It would seem that broad trade agreements are quickly becoming passé, as big players of the financial oligarchy, especially the U.S. imperialists, want flexibility to act outside any general arrangement. How else to explain the sudden use of national security as an excuse for the U.S. to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on its supposed partners within North America to derail CUSMA, much less an issue involving immigration.

All international arrangements -- including the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, European Union and International Court -- are under attack from their own powerful members, as being too restrictive of what are called national interests. Those national interests represent in fact the private interests of competing financial oligarchs who have global reach and power.

For example, the requirement of NATO members to purchase mainly U.S. weaponry is being challenged by NATO member Turkey with its purchase of a Russian missile defence system, the S-400. More importantly the restrictions within NATO are being challenged by members within old Europe. They have formed their own European military alliance called the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) outside NATO and without Britain. The new European military structure has published what U.S. officials call "restrictive measures," which amount to rules declaring that most weapons for PESCO members must be produced and purchased within Europe. This is a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in global weapons sales and has predictably infuriated the U.S. imperialist ruling elite.[1]

CUSMA Is but One Drama of Imperialist Collusion and
Contention Amongst Many Worldwide

The infighting and histrionics regarding CUSMA reflect the competition amongst members of the financial oligarchy and their specific global companies seeking to dominate their sectors not only within North America but in Europe and beyond. For the Trudeau government and its Foreign Minister and media to repeat over and over that its one success story is to have defended Canada's interests is disinformation. It is all about the striving for hegemony by powerful narrow private interests. The global contention in the technology sector is a case in point. It has become particularly intense in the technology sector as U.S.-based dominance is being challenged. Disputes are also underway in agriculture, vehicle production, oil and natural gas, steel, aluminum, commercial airplanes and armaments.

These conflicts between specific U.S.-led companies with competitors centred in China, Russia and Europe are significant, involving a wide range of competing private interests throughout the world. These inter-monopoly conflicts also involve the striving of the imperialist powers to control not only specific economic sectors but entire regions. The U.S. imperialists, with their hundreds of military bases and naval armadas throughout the world, are determined to preserve their dominance throughout the Americas and Caribbean, Europe, Asia and Africa and push back against the growing influence of developing global powers such as China, Russia and others.

The U.S. imperialists have set aflame West Asia and North Africa in regime change, war, and destruction of those powers it cannot control. Elsewhere the U.S. imperialists have put the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba and Venezuela under a genocidal blockade. They have declared that Latin America remains their exclusive region of influence following the tradition of the nineteenth century imperialist Monroe Doctrine, with sovereign nations being treated as having no right to chart their own course of development.

U.S. Oligarchs Launch Attack on Technology Competitor Huawei

The U.S., with the apparent conciliation of Canadian authorities, has banned the Chinese-led technology company Huawei and its products from the U.S. and from any cooperation with U.S. companies and threatens all those who continue to do business with Huawei with severe penalties. This has met resistance throughout the world as Huawei products and advanced technology are already widely used in Europe and elsewhere, including in Britain and Canada. In the context of the global campaign against the rising competitor Huawei, the U.S. ordered Canada to arrest Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou while she was transiting the Vancouver airport heading for Mexico. She remains detained under the threat of extradition to the U.S. for allegedly violating the U.S. trade embargo against Iran.

How quickly these attacks and events can spill over into other sectors is shown by trade statistics between the U.S. and China. The decline of Chinese imports of U.S. agricultural products has been precipitous, falling from an annual amount of $25.7 billion in 2014 to $21.8 billion in 2017, and, since U.S. imperialism unleashed its most sustained attacks on competitor Huawei and other Chinese-centred interests, down to a forecast of just $6.5 billion for 2019. As a consequence of Canada being an active accomplice of the U.S. imperialists in this attack on a global competitor, Canadian companies have also seen a decline in exports to China of mainly agricultural products, and problems in other joint ventures.

U.S. Imperialism Breaks the 2015 Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action with Iran

In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally broke the 2015 international nuclear arrangement with Iran. The U.S. demands all others follow suit and not have any economic or other relations with Iran. Economic entities violating the U.S. boycott of Iran are forbidden from entering the U.S. market or having any dealings with companies connected with the United States on penalty of punishment under U.S. law, similar to the persecution of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. The re-imposition of a U.S. boycott of Iran after the dispute had been resolved has unleashed significant conflicts globally.

U.S. Attacks Competing Russian Natural Gas

The U.S. boycott of Iranian oil and gas has been extended to a campaign against Russian gas exported to Europe. The U.S. wants to derail the new Russia/Europe joint venture, the Nord Stream 2 twin pipeline, to supply Russian natural gas directly to the EU market through the Baltic Sea, thus evading the territory of Ukraine.

U.S. oil oligarchs connected with fracking in the U.S. are now exporting fracked gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG) worldwide and want exclusive rights in Europe without competition from cheaper non-LNG piped Russian gas. They call U.S. LNG "freedom gas" and insist all must buy it instead of "repressive gas" from Russia and Iran.

CUSMA Within the Global Contention and Collusion of the
U.S.-Dominated Imperialist System of States

The fashioning of a new NAFTA and ratification of its replacement, called CUSMA, is unfolding within the intensifying contention and collusion of competing sections of the global financial oligarchy. The U.S. oligarchs in their striving for world hegemony have come up against the uneven development of the productive forces under imperialism. New forces in the global economy, such as China, India and Indonesia, and old players that have regained their strength, such as Russia and others in Europe are demanding a  position and are increasingly refusing to buckle under to the once unchallenged U.S. financial oligarchy and its mercenary and state military power.

Whether CUSMA is ratified or not holds less importance for the U.S. imperialists in this period when international agreements are routinely ignored according to the demands of particular private interests. The threat of ever larger wars is increasing as contention and its companion collusion intensify amongst powerful sectors of the international financial oligarchy as they, and the respective states and militaries they control, battle for positions that favour them.

The modern world of socialized productive forces and global trade demands cooperation amongst all humanity and their sovereign countries. New arrangements must be created based on mutual benefit, development and cooperation amongst all sovereign nations without interfering in the right of any nation to build its future according to its own thought material and social consciousness.

The social responsibility of Canadians is to extricate the country from the dominance and control of U.S. imperialism and its interference and aggression against the world's peoples as it strives to eliminate all competing forces in its campaign to retain control of the world. Central within this social responsibility in a world fraught with the increasing danger of a world war is to make Canada a zone for peace, isolate the pro-war fanatics of the cartel parties in Parliament, and build new social, economic and political institutions in conformity with the modern conditions that guarantee the well-being, security and rights of all.


1. The possibility for Member States of Europe to engage in PESCO -- on a voluntary basis -- was introduced by article 42(6) of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union in December 2017, which provides that those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria, and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area, shall establish a permanent structured cooperation within the EU framework. (From PESCO Website: https://pesco.europa.eu/)

(Photos: TML, Code Pink)

Haut de


Opposition to Anti-Social Offensive in Ontario

Province-Wide Actions Mark One Year of Resistance
to the Ford Government

St. Thomas, Ontario, June 7, 2019.

June 7, marked the first anniversary of the election of the Ford government, a year which has seen vigorous actions to resist this government's all-sided neo-liberal anti-social offensive. Working people across Ontario held actions, mainly on June 7 and 8, to make sure that they marked this anniversary boldly, affirming their defence of the rights of all and that their demands must set the agenda for the society, not the Ford government's anti-people mantra of "making Ontario open for business." People from all walks of life made clear that Ontarians did not vote for the pay-the-rich agenda the Ford government is implementing. Whether provincially or federally, working people reject governments that claim that because they prevailed in an electoral contest, this gives them a mandate to do as they wish, regardless of the people's demands.

More than 50 actions took place across the province, including many pickets at constituency offices of Progressive Conservative Party MPPs. In a number of places workers organized lunch hour educational programs to inform themselves of what the Conservative government is up to. Teachers, education workers, students, parents, health care and public sector workers and their supporters, as well as those protesting cuts to autism therapy funding were in the front ranks of the actions as too were those organizing for the rights of the poorest and most precariously employed workers. Rollbacks on payments to people with disabilities, reversals on pay equity, cuts to legal aid funding and lack of action on climate change were also among the concerns of those taking to the streets.

These acts of organized resistance are more important than ever, as the Ford government has shown that there is no limit to how low it will stoop to wage its anti-social offensive -- it will cut or restructure whatever it can get away with, no matter the consequences for the most vulnerable sections of society. For example, the Ford government claims it must find $6 billion in "efficiencies" to balance the budget. Working people, women, youth and other collectives have shown that they refuse to be dehumanized and reduced to targets of cuts and the restructuring of the social programs and public services they have thus far managed to preserve. They do not consent to this anti-social agenda being carried out in the name of the people of Ontario.

In a June 5 call for the days of action, Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) President Chris Buckley pointed out, "The Premier's campaign promise that 'not one job' would be lost to cuts was just electioneering. This government isn't even speaking to its constituents. MPPs continue to cancel meetings, and have even called the police on seniors who were peacefully sending the message that they don't want government cuts." The OFL notes that the Ford government continues to cut public services and that funding cuts have led to layoffs in important services like health care and education.

As these actions to defend rights continue, it is necessary that working people address the key question of their political empowerment so as to be able to bring in new political and economic arrangements which serve their interests, not private business interests. This is also important in the context of the upcoming federal election where working people can use their voice to express their demands and take the stands required to defend the rights of all.

Eastern Ontario

In Ottawa two rallies took place, one at Preston Square and the other at the Elgin St. Courthouse next to City Hall, with the latter bringing out some 600 people for a dinnertime action.




Central Ontario

On June 6 in Toronto, "Walk-In" actions in over 200 schools were held with the participation of parents, educators and students. These were rallies held outside schools 30 minutes before the start of classes.

In various neighbourhoods in Toronto as well as in the Niagara region, outreach and leafletting blitzes took place.

In Scarborough, postal workers rallied at the Canada Post sorting facility, and another action was held at the Scarborough Civic Centre.

At the other end of the Greater Toronto Area, an energetic march in Mississauga saw hundreds come out to demonstrate their commitment to resisting government cuts to public services, education, health care and decent work.

In Hamilton, more than 200 workers and social activists converged on Hamilton City Hall for a Festival of Resistance. The workers, including USW Local 1005 with its flags flying, declared their continued resistance to the attacks of the Ford government on their rights, whether on the issue of wages, pensions and benefits or health and safety. The Ontario Network of Injured Workers' Groups raised their banner "Workers' Comp Is a Right."

Port Hope




York Region




Southwestern Ontario

Activists held a four-kilometre walk from Waterloo to Kitchener to tell the Ford government, "We did not vote for this!"

The Guelph District Labour Council co-sponsored with a number of environmental organizations a rally and march to the Nestlé bottling plant in Aberfoyle, where the company is taking water from the Six Nations aquifer. The action was to highlight the Ford government's opening of the environment to plunder by multi-national corporations.

In St. Thomas, workers from the London area held a spirited rally.

A rally in Chatham at Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls' riding office was attended by working people representing many sectors of the local economy

Participants at a June 7 public forum in Windsor gave a resounding No! to the attacks of the Ford government on social programs. The forum was organized by the Windsor Essex Coalition for Public Education. Keynote speaker was Sam Hammond, President of the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario.



St. Thomas



Northern Ontario

In Sudbury, a vigorous rally was held at City Hall.

A funeral march in North Bay, Finance Minister Fedeli's riding, underlined the devastating impacts of the cuts on services and programs.

North Bay



Sault Ste. Marie; Thunder Bay

(Photos: TML, OFL, L. Elliott, A. Farrow, M. Wiper, J. Harden, CIPP, A. Farrow-Giroux, N. Drolet, Muskoka Power of Many, J. West, M. Vis, L. Jamieson, C. Matthew, Northumberland Labour Council, T. Balducci, S. McMurray, Unite Here 75, CUPE 905, A. Benhaw, F. Hahn, Autism Coalition, S. Wilson, S. Freund, J. Folk-Dawson, London and District Labour Council, J. Kotsis, M. Dunlop, S. Harris)

Haut de


Support the Korean People's Just Struggle for Peace and Reunification

Oppose Canada's Role in U.S.-Led Aggression Against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

The role of Canada's military in enforcing unjust and deadly sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is of great concern. These activities come at a time the peoples of the world are opposing foreign intervention in all its forms and are calling for peaceful, diplomatic means to resolve issues within and between countries. The high-handed U.S.-led sanctions against the DPRK undermine the achievement of conditions conducive to inter-Korean relations and peace negotiations between the U.S. and DPRK, and are blocking them from going further.

On June 3, the Department of National Defence (DND) announced that the Canadian military will be deploying HMCS Regina, Naval Replenishment Unit Asterix and a CP-140 Aurora aircraft under the name Operation NEON, "to ensure sanctions are imposed against north Korea." The DND announcement quotes Lieutenant-General Mike Rouleau, Commander, Canadian Joint Operations Command, stating that Operation NEON is "Canada’s contribution to this multinational initiative in support of peace and security on the Korean Peninsula." Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is also quoted: "Canadians can be proud of the work the Canadian Armed Forces are doing alongside our allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region. This includes contributions to Operation NEON as part of the United Nations Security Council sanctions. These sanctions play a key role in supporting global security and prosperity in the region."

This is sophistry; it is designed to deceive. The peoples of the world have seen with their own eyes how the joint efforts of north and south Korea created the conditions for the U.S. to begin the process to normalize relations with the DPRK in the past 18 months. This includes the clear statements by the DPRK about why it had to develop its nuclear deterrent, and that if it is able to ensure security for the DPRK and the Korean Peninsula as a whole through negotiations, this deterrent will no longer be necessary. Sanctions played no part in reaching this point whatsoever.

Objectively, the sanctions against the DPRK not only greatly harm the people of the DPRK but serve to increase tensions. They have never contributed to security in the region. Furthermore, they violate the principles on which international law is understood to be based. The DPRK on principle has never compromised its sovereignty or bowed to sanctions. Nor have sanctions stopped the DPRK from being able to find the means to defend itself from outside aggression, including the development of its nuclear deterrent. The ingenuity, perseverance and productive capability of the people of the DPRK have permitted them to overcome these unjust sanctions time and time again and provide for themselves the security they require, and in so doing, uphold peace in the region and the world.

Nor have the sanctions contributed to prosperity. While the U.S., Canada and others claim these sanctions defend human rights, they in fact do the opposite. They are an assault on the human rights of the people of the DPRK, causing them great hardship by depriving them of normal trade relations and the necessities of life. The sanctions are blocking the joint economic development project in Kaesong, as one example. This important enterprise that boosts the mutual prosperity for north and south has been directly sabotaged by the sanctions.

The Canadian government claims to uphold the rule of law and that Canada is a peacekeeping country. What then should people make of it acting as a thug that enforces the illegal sanctions regime of the U.S. imperialists? It is utterly dishonourable and counter to the will of Canadians, who do not consider themselves to be the henchmen of U.S. imperialism.

If Canada was serious about promoting peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, it would be calling for the U.S. to uphold the DPRK-U.S. Summit Agreement and take concrete steps towards a new relationship with the DPRK, instead of doing the opposite. Moreover, Canada must make amends for its past crimes against the DPRK as an aggressor in the Korean War that divided Korea and during which terrible crimes were carried out by the U.S. and its allies. More than 4 million Koreans, including civilians, were killed during the war, Pyongyang was razed to the ground and the DPRK and its people suffered great damage through carpet bombing, napalm, fire bombing of its cities, dams and power plants and biological warfare.

Canada must be a force for peace on the Korean Peninsula by ending the participation of the Canadian military in multinational coalitions prowling the seas as self-appointed sanctions police, aimed at realizing the U.S. imperialist striving for hegemony even if it means destroying the DPRK or any other nation. Canada must foster all-sided relations with the DPRK based on the principles of non-interference in each other's affairs and mutual benefit. It should support all initiatives of the Korean people, such as the inter-Korean Panmunjom Declaration of April 2018, that advance the cause of peace and reunification of Korea. That is what the Canadian people want and what the Korean people desire. This will contribute to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and around the world.

The Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) calls on the people of Canada to resolutely oppose Operation NEON as an act of aggression against the DPRK. It is important for Canadians to stay informed about developments on the Korean Peninsula and not fall prey to fearmongering and warmongering that do not serve the cause of peace nor Canadians' aspirations for Canada to be a Zone for Peace.

Hands Off the DPRK!
End All Sanctions Against the DPRK!
No to Canada's Participation in Aggression Against the DPRK!

Haut de


DPRK Calls on U.S. to Mark First Anniversary
of Historic Joint Statement by Implementing
It with a New Spirit

DPRK-U.S. Summit, one year ago, June 12, 2018.

On June 3, the eve of the first anniversary of the historic first Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)-U.S. Summit between Chairman Kim Jong Un and President Donald Trump, the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued a statement summing up the year since that meeting, June 12, 2018 in Singapore.

The statement begins by noting that the DPRK-U.S. Summit was a momentous event that inspired the hope of the Korean people and the whole of humanity that a new day had dawned in relations between the DPRK and the U.S., which had been adversaries for close to 70 years. The DPRK Foreign Ministry emphasizes that the DPRK-U.S. Summit showed the world that "even the countries with the most hostile relations could lay out an avenue for establishing new relations once they make politically decisive steps to defend peace and stability, giving these issues top priority."

The statement then points out that the government of the DPRK over the last year has worked tirelessly to establish "new DPRK-U.S. relations, build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula and achieve denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as has been stipulated in the June 12, 2018 DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement..." that was signed by the two leaders at the first-ever DPRK-U.S. talks.

However, it adds, the U.S. has not reciprocated in the same spirit and continues to plan to "annihilate us by force," has disregarded its obligations to act in accordance with the letter and spirit of the DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement and has continued to insist unilaterally that the DPRK denuclearize first.

The Foreign Ministry statement notes that the stand and approach of the U.S. was made abundantly clear at the second DPRK-U.S. Summit talks in Hanoi in February this year. There, the statement notes, the "United States made the biggest mistake of missing a lifetime opportunity" by insisting that the DPRK dismantle its nuclear arsenal as a precondition to negotiations, and that unilateral demand was unacceptable.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry statement points out that had the U.S. approached bilateral relations with a "serious position and sincere attitude for implementing it" and "done anything of a little help" then the issue of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would have made some headway.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry also references the major policy statement made by Chairman Kim to the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK on April 13 this year where he emphasized that given the "deep-rooted hostility between the DPRK and the U.S." it would require both sides to give up unilateral demands in order to implement the June 12, 2018 Summit Agreement and since the DPRK had already made moves in this direction, that the U.S. must do the same.

The DPRK Foreign Ministry reminds the U.S. that the June 12, 2018 Joint Statement "is the commitment which the two countries have pledged to the world and to humankind, and it is the task both sides should be jointly accountable for."

The Foreign Ministry statement affirms that the DPRK remains firmly committed to implementing the June 12, 2018 DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement in good faith. But it warns that if the U.S. fails to carry out its obligation and keeps resorting to its anti-DPRK hostile policy, the fate of the Joint Statement will be bleak.

The Foreign Ministry's statement underlines that the fate of the June 12, 2018 DPRK-U.S. Joint Statement is in the hands of the U.S. and calls on the U.S. government to reflect on the past year, stop testing the patience of the DPRK, and recommit to engaging with the DPRK in a sincere and serious effort to realize the lofty aims of the Joint Statement.

(Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.)

Haut de


19th Anniversary of Historic June 15, 2000
North-South Joint Declaration


Saturday, June 15 -- 2:00-6:00 pm
TNG Community Centre, 349 Ontario Street
For information call 416-768-1107 or email: corfedca@yahoo.ca

June 15, 2019 marks the 19th anniversary of the historic North-South Joint Declaration signed by the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), Kim Jong Il, and President Kim Dae Jung of the Republic of Korea (ROK). This historic declaration inspired the entire Korean nation and all peace-loving humanity. The Joint Declaration created the conditions for the Korean people, north and south, to strengthen ties and become comfortable working together to solve problems, move forward their nation-building project of national reunification, put an end to the unjust and ongoing division of their country and move forward together as one united and independent country towards a bright, prosperous future.

Subsequently, during the leadership of the progressive presidents Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo-hyun, from 2000 to 2008, headway was made in strengthening inter-Korean relations, including the establishment of the Kaesong Industrial Complex just north of the Demilitarized Zone in 2002. This highly successful project undertaken by the DPRK and ROK for mutual benefit saw 123 south Korean companies, employing 53,000 DPRK workers and 800 from the ROK, produce a wide variety of textiles, ceramics and other products for the domestic and export markets.

The June 15, 2000 Joint Declaration was followed by the October 4, 2007 Agreement between the ROK and DPRK, which further developed and strengthened the progress made as a result of the June 15, 2000 Joint Declaration. The U.S., fearful of a united independent Korea, which would be an economic powerhouse and a factor for peace in the world, then worked to roll back these positive developments by endorsing two anti-communists, one after the other, as ROK president. Lee Myung Bak, a former mayor of Seoul, and Park Gyeun-hye, between them, from 2008 till 2016, began to sabotage the work done by the previous administrations to foster and normalize ties that had been built, including the latter's unilateral decision to end the joint project at Kaesong in 2016.

After Park Gyeun-hye was impeached for corrupt dealings, voters in the May 2017 ROK presidential election voted into office Moon Jae-in, who had pledged during the election campaign to re-vitalize north-south relations. In his first term, President Moon made it a matter of priority to re-establish north-south ties and was receptive to the proposals made by Kim Jong Un and the DPRK which ultimately led to the historic Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula, signed between the two leaders on April 27, 2018. This historic agreement re-affirmed all previous agreements and went further, by declaring, among other important measures, that the two sides would refrain from engaging in military provocations. This declaration was justly celebrated by the Korean people and peace-loving humanity as a big step forward for inter-Korean relations and for peace on the Korean Peninsula and around the world.

What has continued to be a block to the aspirations of the Korean people and their nation-building project are the machinations and perfidy of the U.S. imperialists, who were responsible for the division of Korea in the first place in 1945 and who continue to keep Korea divided today. The military, economic and political domination and militarization of the ROK by the U.S. imperialists and their attempts to strangle the DPRK into submission through a slew of unjust and brutal UN Security Council sanctions are all aimed at realizing the geo-political interests of U.S. imperialism in East Asia and the Indo-Pacific region as part of its drive for world domination. In the process, the U.S. has weaponized the ROK in order to maintain a foothold for its armed forces on the mainland of north-east Asia and to serve as a forward staging ground to threaten China and Russia.

The Canadian government too is playing a dirty role in the region by participating in provocations and aggression against the DPRK, as it is doing in Venezuela. Last week, the Trudeau government announced through the Department of National Defence that the Canadian military will continue to be engaged for two more years in monitoring shipping to and from the DPRK to enforce the unjust UN sanctions -- an operation begun a little over a year ago.

The military domination of the U.S. in south Korea is such that the ROK is forced to pay some U.S.$1 billion annually towards the cost of maintaining 28,000 U.S. troops in its territory and to maintain the U.S. military bases and installations. The ROK is also one of the biggest purchasers of U.S. weapons. Despite Point 2 of the terms of the Panmunjom Declaration that the ROK and DPRK will "make joint efforts to alleviate the acute military tension and practically eliminate the danger of war on the Korean Peninsula," this has been difficult to do because of the presence of the U.S. military in the ROK and the 1953 ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty that the U.S. imposed on the ROK in 1953 following the Korean War. The ROK is forced by the terms of the Treaty to take part in the Key Resolve and Foal Eagle military exercises which are thinly veiled attempts to threaten the DPRK and its supporters China and Russia. In addition, the U.S. has so far refused to implement the commitments it made as a result of the DPRK-U.S. Summit Agreement signed on June 12 of last year in Singapore, the second of four points of which notes: "The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula."

In the meantime, the Korean people are continuing to organize and take stands in defence of peace and sovereignty. Actions take place every day to oppose the U.S. military presence and to demand that the Moon government continue to build peaceful relations with the DPRK. Activists hold actions at the U.S. embassy in Seoul each week calling for the removal of U.S. troops and their weapons from Korean soil. Peace activists are also holding actions in Busan, on Jeju Island and other places. And this is the decisive thing. It is the Korean people, showing through their deeds, that they are the ones who will decide Korea's future. It is their defiance of U.S. threats and dictate that give expression to the three principles guiding the Korean reunification movement: reunification will be achieved independently without outside interference, through the political unity of the Korean people despite their ideological differences, and peacefully.

On this occasion, let us pledge as fraternal peace-loving Canadian people to step up our support for the courageous and determined struggle of the Korean people to achieve peace, reunification and progress for Korea.

Haut de


Standing Up for Immigrant and Refugee Rights in the U.S.

Resistance to Border Patrol Profiling and Searches

People being unjustly profiled by U.S. Border Patrol agents who board buses and demand citizenship papers are resisting and taking stands to defend their rights and the rights of all those being profiled, harassed and, in some instances, detained. People are not required to carry proof of citizenship when travelling, unless they are crossing the border. But Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as well as Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) are arbitrarily boarding buses and demanding proof of citizenship. They are doing so based on racist profiling, targetting any they decide appear to be immigrants.

The actions often take place on buses and trains leaving New York City and travelling to Syracuse and Rochester, as well as on buses travelling from Philadelphia through Pennsylvania. New England states are also being impacted, as is Washington state.

As one person profiled put it: "I was super angry because [they were] obviously profiling." She is Puerto Rican and a U.S. citizen. "They literally skipped over every single white person." She watched agents walk down the aisles, stopping only when they saw a person of colour, to ask: "Are you from here? Do you have papers?"

Bus and train travellers across the northern U.S. report being stopped, questioned and detained with increasing frequency. Advocates emphasize that the searches are illegal. Passengers cannot be detained and questioned by CBP agents without reasonable suspicion that they are reportable, and that suspicion cannot be based on someone's skin colour or ability to speak English or failure to have documentation with them, given they are not crossing the border.

These illegal searches are now happening as often as three times a day at some northern bus stations, even those with no direct routes to the border. They have caused bus delays and missed connections and have resulted in the long-term detention of immigrants who have committed no crime and were racially profiled and detained.

Under immigration law, agents have the authority to search vehicles without a warrant "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States." CBP claims this is anywhere within 100 miles of any land or water border. That massive zone encompasses areas that hold more than half of the U.S. population, all of the east and west coast and areas that include all of New England, Florida and most of New York state. The buses are often hundreds of miles from the northern or southern border, yet CBP agents are involved.

It is along the northern border that the bulk of the board and search actions have occurred. Given the broad rejection of these illegal activities by passengers -- citizens and non-citizens alike -- even Greyhound, the country's largest bus company, has complained to the government.

According to incidents reported to advocates or described in court documents, in Vermont, Florida, California, Detroit, Rochester, Spokane and elsewhere, agents have boarded buses and asked passengers where they were born or to see their papers. Passengers have filmed or photographed some of these interactions as part of their resistance, sparking outrage and opposition online. Their efforts show CBP grilling citizens, green card holders and DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] recipients -- in some cases detaining citizens and documented immigrants, claiming their documentation was fake.

The continued opposition and broad stand of the people against racist government profiling and unjust searches and detention are an important part of ongoing efforts to defend the rights of all.

(Voice of Revolution)

Haut de


New Mexico Sues Trump Administration over Immigration Policies

Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham announced, on behalf of the state of New Mexico, that she is suing the U.S. government in an effort to halt the Trump administration's indiscriminate practice of releasing migrants in communities in the state's borderland area in violation of the federal government's "safe release" policy, leaving vulnerable individuals and families without assistance and burdening local governments as well as nonprofit organizations. The complaint is also seeking reimbursement for the costs incurred by the state as a result of the federal government's derogation of duty to administer this country's immigration system and claims of asylum.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, the governor's complaint, with the city of Albuquerque as co-plaintiff, takes issue with the federal government's abandonment of its longstanding safe release program, through which asylum-seeking individuals were provided assistance in reaching their final destinations while waiting for their claims to be processed. The sudden and unlawful abandonment of this policy was done without notice or opportunity for input by affected jurisdictions, the state and city of Albuquerque included. The policy decisions of the federal government have had profound and myriad impacts upon the state of New Mexico and on asylum seekers, who have been left to fend for themselves in border-adjacent New Mexico communities. While the state and border communities have endeavoured to avert an escalation of the humanitarian crisis this policy has exacerbated, New Mexico's efforts have come at great cost, and there exists no timeline for a cessation or easing of the situation.

The state and city are asking the court to vacate the federal government's termination of its safe release policy, as it is without legal force or effect; issue preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring the named defendants to provide asylum-seeking individuals and families the equivalent assistance to that provided under the safe release policy; and require a reimbursement of the expenses the state and city have incurred in response to the unlawful abandonment of the safe release policy.

The complaint names Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Acting Director Mark Morgan of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Deputy Director Matthew Albence of [ICE], Executive Associate Director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Nathalie Asher, and Carla Provost, the chief of U.S. Border Patrol.

"The Trump administration has consistently and flagrantly failed in its response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis at our southern border as well as in addressing legitimate border-security concerns," Governor Lujan Grisham said. "The president has shown time and again he is interested only in demonizing the vulnerable people who arrive at our border, stoking unfounded fears about national security while taking no action to substantively and proactively protect immigrants and our southern border communities from human- and drug-trafficking. There has been no leadership. In the vacuum, New Mexico communities have stepped up. But long-term remedies are needed. This legal action is intended to protect, in equal measure, New Mexicans and local governments in the southern part of our state as well as the asylum-seeking individuals from Central America and elsewhere who have been treated with neglect by decision-makers in Washington."

"Local faith-based organizations and volunteers have been left to clean up the federal administration's immigration mess," Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said. "By abandoning the 'safe release' policy, the federal government has abandoned the border states. Albuquerque's compassionate community members stepped up to help these struggling families as they legally pass through our city on their difficult journey, and our city has stepped up to support our friends and neighbours with this effort. It's time for the federal administration to step up and fulfill its legal responsibilities to these families, to our state and to our city."

In April, San Diego County filed a similar lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Southern California."

(June 10, 2019)

Haut de


Lawsuit Against Illegal Denial of Parole
to Asylum Seekers

The American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] of Louisiana filed suit today against the Trump administration for categorically denying release to hundreds of people who are languishing in immigration prisons after lawfully seeking asylum in the United States.

The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of 12 named plaintiffs who, like hundreds of other migrants, sought asylum at official U.S. points of entry in compliance with federal law and then were confined and sent to remote prisons in Louisiana and Alabama.

Because the law denies them the right to seek release from an immigration judge, they turned to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is bound by rules that favour their release on parole. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the DHS agency in charge of detaining or releasing the migrants, however, has denied parole across the board, even when people have solid asylum cases and satisfy the legal requirements.

ICE policy requires that asylum seekers be released provided they establish their identity and show they are not a danger or flight risk, according to the lawsuit.

"Like hundreds of people being held in multiple ICE detention centres in the Deep South, our asylum-seeking plaintiffs are being punished for following the law," said SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] Senior Supervising Attorney Luz Virginia Lopez. "They followed the legal checklist by first presenting themselves at a point of entry, and this is how America is paying them back -- with cruelty and disrespect for the law."

Parole approvals have dropped sharply under President Trump. Fewer than 10 years ago, roughly 90 percent of such asylum seekers were released. Today, at the New Orleans ICE Field Office, which is responsible for confined asylum seekers across several Southeastern states, parole was granted in just two of 130 cases in 2018.

"Here in Louisiana, thousands of immigrants and asylum seekers are now being exposed to brutal and inhumane conditions in our jails and prisons -- with virtually no hope of release," said Bruce Hamilton, staff attorney for the ACLU of Louisiana and co-counsel in the case. "We're suing to stop these abuses and hold the Trump administration accountable for following the law."

The lawsuit also calls attention to the impact of the dehumanizing treatment -- especially the excessive use of solitary confinement and inadequate health care -- received daily in immigration prisons, many of which are operated for profit.

"Across this nation, there is a consensus building that incarceration does much more harm than good to our communities," said Attorney Laura Rivera. "Yet, as criminal justice reforms lead to lower rates of incarceration, this administration is filling jails and prisons with record numbers of migrants -- more than 53,000 at last count. It's causing untold human suffering, and it's violating the law. I spent a week at the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center in Louisiana and saw bus after bus line up outside the Center to unload their human cargo. Many immigrants will spend months inside, and taxpayers are picking up the tab."

(May 30, 2019)

Haut de


U.S. Federal Court Injunction Partially
Blocks Border Wall

A federal judge on Friday, May 24, partially blocked the Trump administration from building parts of a wall along the southern border and blocked the transfer of nearly $1 billion in funds from the Defense Department to pay for it.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California granted a temporary injunction in the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] on behalf of The Sierra Club and The Southern Border Communities Coalition.

Following the end of a congressional budget fight in February that left President Donald Trump without the money he asked for his border wall, he declared a national emergency in order to shore up funds from the Defense Department for its construction.

Finding that construction in parts of Texas and Arizona may cause "irreparable harm" to the environment and that plaintiffs were "likely to show" the Trump administration "exceeded their statutory authority," Judge Gilliam said the temporary injunction was warranted.

Gilliam referred to the separation of powers between the three branches of government, particularly the Legislature's power of allocating funding. "Congress's 'absolute' control over federal expenditures -- even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important -- is not a bug in our constitutional system," Gilliam wrote in the 56-page ruling. "It is a feature of that system, and an essential one."

Judge Gilliam cited James Madison's Federalist Papers on the importance of limiting the executive branch from taking powers belonging to other government branches. "In short, the position that when Congress declines the Executive's request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds 'without Congress' does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Gilliam wrote.

The ACLU argued that the emergency declaration was used unlawfully to gather funding for the wall after Congress denied President Trump the more than $5 billion he asked for. ACLU staff attorney Dror Ladin said the court blocked all the wall projects currently slated for immediate construction.

Gloria Smith, managing attorney for The Sierra Club, said the ruling was a win for the environment as well. "Walls divide neighbourhoods, worsen dangerous flooding, destroy lands and wildlife, and waste resources that should instead be used on the infrastructure these communities truly need," Smith said.

(Court House News, May 24, 2019.)

Haut de


Trump Officials Plan to Use Military Bases to
Imprison 5,000 Undocumented Children

Trump administration officials from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently visited the Fort Benning military base in Georgia as part of plans to imprison up to 5,000 undocumented immigrant children. HHS is responsible for placing children once they have left Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention, who are only supposed to hold them for a maximum of 72 hours. Commonly, they are placed in churches or with similar charitable organizations or families. Now the administration is holding the children in prison-like conditions for longer periods.

Fort Benning, is one of three military bases HHS is considering using, the others being Fort Still in Oklahoma and Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Officials are deciding what buildings already in place can be used to hold the children and what areas of land could be used to construct more "tent cities."

HHS is working together with the Pentagon, an indication that HHS as an agency is being integrated into the enforcement side, rather than acting as a non-policing social service agency. "At the request of [HHS] and with the support of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), HHS will be conducting a site assessment of unused DoD property for potential future use as temporary emergency influx shelter for unaccompanied alien children," HHS said in a statement.

Advocates bring out that housing children in prison-like conditions is harmful to the children, who have committed no crime and have the right to asylum and their right as human beings to be treated with dignity and to have all their rights, including rights to education and health care, provided for. A number of children have died while in ICE custody, mainly from lack of health care. Use of military bases also makes it far more difficult for lawyers and advocates to assist the youth as entry to the bases is restricted.

What is needed is for the children to be immediately placed with their families -- which most already have living in the U.S. -- or in housing facilities that exist in communities across the country for youth in need.

Eliminating Educational Instruction for Detained Youth

More than 63 per cent of migrants apprehended at the border in May were children and families, mainly from Central America. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) arrested more than 144,000 people, many of them children, some unaccompanied minors. These youth will be detained, sometimes for months or longer, and with thousands more, added to those already unjustly and inhumanely detained in "tent cities," dog kennels, and other prison-like facilities. Even so, the government announced it is cancelling English classes, legal aid, and recreational opportunities for the children in detention.

The Department of Homeland Security is also preparing to imprison more babies. They bought 2.2 million diapers for a new tent detention centre in Texas, along with 20,000 baby bottles and 3,000 baby wipes.

Court documents show "prison-like" conditions that can inflict psychological harm in many of the detention prisons, including those in Florida and Texas that hold thousands of youth.

Haut de


2019 European Parliament Election

Results Give Rise to Fragmented
New European Parliament

Just as the Europe of the monopolies is fragmented, so too the elections for the new European Parliament have given rise to fragmented results. Both are wracked by rival narrow private interests vying for control over peoples whose nation-states no longer represent their sovereign right to decide matters for themselves. An article in German Foreign Policy reports, for example, on the impact on the European member states of the introduction of the euro, January 1, 1999.

German Foreign Policy reports: "According to a recent study by the Bertelsmann Foundation, German industry, represented by the Federation of German Industries (BDI) is the EU's biggest winner, raking in €86 billion per year, thanks to the common market. Already last February, the Centre for European Policy (cep) pointed out that Germany is the euro's biggest beneficiary: since its launch, the single currency has generated almost €1.9 trillion for the central power, while costing Italy €4.3 trillion. Whereas the BDI speaks of the EU in glowing terms, almost one quarter of the population living in the EU is threatened by poverty and social marginalization."

The annual per capita income growth, for example in Spain (€589), Greece (€401), Poland (€382), or Bulgaria (€193) is much lower than in Germany (€1,024).[1]

"Germany is not only the main beneficiary of the common market, but also the main beneficiary of the introduction of the euro. This has been confirmed by a study published in February by the cep located in Freiburg. The study points out that in 2017, Germany's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would have been €280 billion less, were it not for the EU single currency. Altogether, from the introduction of the euro, until 2017, Germany has gained almost €1.9 trillion -- or approximately €23,116 per capita.[2] However, cep had also discovered that, of the eight euro countries studied, only the Netherlands also shows a positive result -- a plus of €346 billion up to and including 2017, or €21,003 per capita. France and Italy, on the other hand, were dramatic losers. The French GDP would be €374 billion more, Italy's, even €530 billion more, if the common currency had not been introduced, reports cep. From 1999 -- 2017 France lost a total of approximately €3.6 trillion (€55,996 per capita). During the same period, Italy lost more than €4.3 trillion (€73,605 per capita)."

In 2017, according to Eurostat, the EU's statistics authority, 22.5 per cent of the Union's population were threatened with poverty and social marginalization[3] -- a mere 1.2 per cent fewer than nearly ten years earlier (2008: 23.7 per cent). In 2017, the proportion of those in the EU, who were still classified as poverty-threatened, after having received their social welfare payments, was at 16.9 per cent -- higher than in 2008 (16.6 per cent). Only seven EU countries had successfully lowered their 2008 proportions, while in 19 EU countries these had risen further. According to Eurostat, in 2017, 6.9 per cent of the population in the EU suffers from "considerable material deprivation." The figures refer to the nationally determined risk-of-poverty thresholds, whose low-levels are themselves but further indications of the gap in prosperity that exists within the Union. Whereas in Germany, in 2017, poverty-threatened signified having less than €13,152 annually, in Greece -- with similar living expenses in various aspects -- only those with less than €4,560 annually were considered poverty-threatened. In Lithuania the 2017 threshold was at €3,681, and in Bulgaria, €2,150. As mentioned above, the German economy's umbrella organizations refer to the EU as a "realm of prosperity [...] with a high level of social responsibility."[4]

"Many of the east and southeast European countries have become low-cost production sites for German companies, which has fueled the German industry's enormous export success, if not made it even possible. German trade with the entire region is booming. The commodity exchange between Germany and the Visegrád group (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary) in 2017 was at around €256 billion -- significantly more than trade with China (approx. €170 billion). A significant portion of Germany's Visegrád trade is comprised of delivery exchanges between German plants in Germany with their subsidiaries in Visegrád countries. Thanks to its geographical location in the heart of the continent, and its historically developed relations, Germany has profited more than all other EU countries from the eastward expansion. Great Britain on the EU's western outskirts offers an example of the contrary. As experts from the German Economic Institute (IW, Cologne) reported in October, Great Britain 'benefited little' from the EU's eastward expansion. Therefore, it plays 'a significantly smaller role' than Germany in the Union's production chains.[5]"

The EU remains the German economy's most important sales market. In 2017, Germany exported around €750 billion to other member countries of the Union -- 58.6 per cent of its total exports, accumulating thereby an export surplus of nearly €160 billion.[6] These enormous advantages explain the overwhelming majority of German entrepreneurs' satisfaction with the Union -- in spite of the growing dissatisfaction spreading through sectors of Germany's medium-sized economy.[7]

Election Results

The European Union elections were held in Europe's 28 member states, compared to 12 members in 1994. Voter turnout was said to be 50.5 per cent, the highest in 20 years. The European People's Party (EPP) won 180 seats (down 35 from 2014), and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) won 146 (down 40 from 2014). Their combined 326 seats fall short of a majority in the 751 member parliament.

Media reports are describing a "Green Wave" with the Greens increasing their seats from 50 to 67, thanks to a strong showing in Germany and France.

In Germany, the Green party nearly doubled its 2014 vote share to take second place with 20.5 per cent of the vote.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron's La République en Marche (LREM) party and Marine Le Pen's National Rally enter the new European Parliament with 23 seats each. National Rally is said to have captured a record number of votes (5.3 million, up from 4.7 million in 2014), more than LREM's 23.3 per cent of votes cast. Yannick Jadot's Europe Ecologie les Verts took third place with 13.5 per cent of the vote, "a significant increase over their 9.9 per cent vote share in 2014 and over pre-election polling.

In Italy, "Matteo Salvini's far-right League party cemented its hold on the electoral landscape with 34.3 per cent, to the detriment of its coalition partner in national government, the Five-Star Movement, which claimed half as many votes (17.1 per cent) to come in third, France 24 reports. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia claimed less than nine per cent of votes.

In Austria, the big winner of the European elections is said to be Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. "In the midst of a government crisis over a corruption scandal of his coalition partner, his party, the ÖVP, increased its share of the vote by seven per cent [and] will thus have up to seven seats in the new European Parliament. Meanwhile, in the Czech Republic, the ANO party of populist Prime Minister Andrej Babis won the most votes despite the fact that Babis is facing fraud charges involving the use of EU funds. The same goes for Bulgaria's PM Boyko Borissov whose GERB reasserted itself despite recent scandals," EURACTIV.com writes.[8]

In Greece, "Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, following massive defeats to the conservative opposition New Democracy party (EPP) in EU and local elections, announced snap elections, most probably due on June 30."

The "whole European Left saw a drop in their representation, going from 52 to 39 seats."

"The Polish opposition movement European Coalition, comprised of the Civic Platform (PO), formerly led by European Council President Donald Tusk, and a group of leftist and rural parties reached a hefty 38.3 per cent, but was still behind the ruling PiS. The fact that the united opposition still did not manage to trump the governing party is a defeat in itself. The narrow result directly puts the two camps on a collision course for the national polls in autumn, which for now does not bode well for the opposition camp."

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party "was virtually the only party on the continent to win an outright majority, with 52.3 per cent of the vote. The only other party to do so was the Labour party of Malta."

In Britain, Nigel Farage's new Brexit Party, topped the poll with 31.7 per cent of the vote and won 29 of Britain's 73 seats. The Conservative Party garnered only 8.7 per cent of votes, while Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party took 14.1 per cent. The Liberal Democrat and Green parties are also said to have posted "historically strong results."

France 24 put it this way: "Sunday's election results are set to reshape the EU's governing coalition, as far-right parties and pro-European greens and liberals each make big gains at the expense of the establishment left and right."[9]


1. Giordano Mion, Dominic Ponattu: Ökonomische Effekte des EU-Binnenmarktes in Europas Ländern und Regionen. Herausgegeben von der Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh, 2019.

2. Alessandro Gasparotti, Matthias Kullas: 20 Jahre Euro: Verlierer und Gewinner. Eine empirische Untersuchung. cepStudie. Freiburg, February 2019.

3. Abwärtstrend beim Anteil der von Armut oder sozialer Ausgrenzung bedrohten Personen in der EU. Eurostat Pressemitteilung 159/2018. Brüssel, October 16, 2018.

4. Gemeinsamer Appell der deutschen Wirtschaft: Wirtschaft für Europa. bdi.eu, September 5, 2019.

5. Michael Hüther, Matthias Diermeier, Markos Jung, Andrew Bassilakis: If Nothing is Achieved: Who Pays for the Brexit? Intereconomics, May 2018, 274-280.

6. EU weiterhin mit Abstand wichtigster Handelspartner Deutschlands. handelsblatt.com May 7, 2018.

7. See also "Europas Achsen," german-foreign-policy.com, July 3, 2018.

8. "Farage tops poll and Remain parties surge as EU polls spell out UK's divide," Benjamin Fox, EURACTIV.com, May 27, 2019.

9. "Populist push, green wave, establishment in turmoil: a round-up of the EU elections," France 24, May 28, 2019.

(German Foreign Policy)

Haut de


The Divisions in the Polity in Britain

The elections for Members to the European Parliament (MEPs) took place in Britain on May 23. They were billed as the elections no one wanted, since it is envisaged that elected MEPs will not take their seats before the revised deadline for Brexit, October 31. The main Westminster parties hardly have a coherent position as parties, and the Brexit Party itself was initially registered as a limited company, not a party with members.

At the same time, contradictions within the EU are sharpening, notably between France and Germany, who dominate the European project. They are increasingly at loggerheads, and internally increasingly in turmoil.

Thus the question cannot really be posed in terms of whether it is beneficial to Remain in or Leave the European Union, taking account of the nature of this "European project." The argument that Leave is the only option because of the neo-liberal nature of the EU and its concentration of power does not hold, because the working class and people of Britain cannot simply escape the neo-liberal agenda in this way. Similarly the argument to Remain on the basis that the EU will guarantee rights or is internationalist has the flaw that the EU is beset with these contradictions, and the vision of a "social Europe" which consistently favours the people and their rights continues to recede.

The point is that the people must oppose and fight against the injustices they face in their daily lives which are part and parcel of the so-called liberal democracy that characterizes the political system that exists and is in such crisis here in Britain as well as in the European Union, without illusions or preconceptions. They must argue out their positions and see whether the conditions exist for what they aspire to. And they must cognize what is required to bring out the conditions for their rights and set this as their agenda. In other words, the people must resist the temptation to make Remainers or Leavers into things rather than human beings with their own rights and interests.

The issue at the core of considerations for the people is that Brexit or no Brexit, there is still the question of where political power lies. Whatever the relation between Britain and the EU, or Britain and the U.S., or the working class and peoples of this country and of Europe, or the state relationships within the "United Kingdom," there remains the requirement for the peoples to be empowered to control and make the decisions concerning their own political affairs, on which all else depends. Thus it can be affirmed that Brexit or no-Brexit is not a policy decision on which the polity must be split, siding with one or the other as though everything else depended on this policy decision. To view things in this way is to reduce the people to spectators, cheer-leaders or complainers.

For a Solution in Which People Speak in Their Own Name!

(June 4, 2019)

Haut de


(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)



Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca