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
- K.C. Adams -
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
- K.C. Adams -
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.
Note
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/)
Opposition to Anti-Social Offensive in
Ontario
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.
Ottawa
Kingston
Lindsay
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
Whitby
Scarborough
Toronto
York Region
Woodbridge
Mississauga
Hamilton
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.
Kitchener-Waterloo
Guelph
St. Thomas
Chatham-Kent
Windsor
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
Bracebridge
Sudbury
Sault Ste. Marie; Thunder Bay
Support the Korean People's Just Struggle
for Peace and Reunification
- Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist),
June 15, 2019 -
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!
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.
Toronto
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.
Standing Up for Immigrant and Refugee
Rights in the U.S.
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.
- Office of New Mexico Governor Lujan
Grisham -
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."
- American Civil Liberties Union
-
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."
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.
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.
2019 European Parliament Election
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]
Notes
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.
- Workers' Weekly -
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!
(To access articles individually
click on
the black headline.)
PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|