|
May 23, 2020 - No. 18
Our
Security Lies in the Fight
for the Rights of All!
Self-Serving
Imperialist Definition of
"Systemically Important and Viable Businesses"
• State Funding for "Systemically
Important"
Privately-Owned Businesses
• From "Too
Big To Fail" to "Systemically Important Businesses"
- K.C. Adams -
State Financial Help for Private
Airlines
• Crisis at
Air Canada and WestJet
• Layoffs at
Air Canada
- Garnet Colly
-
Avoidable Consequences of Spring
Flooding in Northern Alberta
• Social
Irresponsibility Once Again Forces Working People
to Suffer Great
Losses
- Peggy Askin -
Situation of Indigenous Peoples in
Canada
• COVID-19
Pandemic on Reserves and in Off-Reserve Communities
• Manitoba First Nations' Justified
Blockade of Keeyask Dam Site
- Barbara Biley -
• Statement of Manitoba Keewatinowi
Okimakanak Inc.
• Supreme
Court of Canada's Decision to Deny
Taseko Mines Limited's
Appeal
-
Tŝilhqot’in Nation -
Stepped Up War
Exercises During COVID-19
• Crash of the
Snowbird
- Tony Seed -
Opposition to
Imperialist Sanctions and Blockades
• High-Level
Representatives of Affected Countries Call for
Lifting of
Economic Sanctions
• Canadian Labour Congress Letter to
Foreign Affairs Minister
Terrorist Attack on
Venezuela
• Statement by Venezuelan Delegation at
Virtual Public Session
of United Nations Security Council
Supplement
• COVID-19 Update
Self-Serving Imperialist
Definition of
"Systemically Important and Viable Businesses"
  
The amount of debt the federal and other
governments are
incurring under the conditions of the pandemic is alarming as
both the lenders and the government expect it to be paid back
with interest. The brutal neo-liberal anti-social offensive
unleashed in the early nineties after free trade was launched in
the mid-eighties has always been justified under the claim that
there is no alternative to paying the rich. In the beginning of
the wave of anti-social measures taken under neo-liberalism, the
claim to justify paying the rich was that deficits and the
resulting debts were incurred due to bad policies of governments
that were on a spending binge to finance the social welfare state
and the time had come to get rid of deficits and debt. The logic
was that Canadians were "living high off the hog" and that, as a
result, they now had to pay for their sins. Today, the conditions
of pandemic are cited to justify massive borrowing from private
lenders which will take a huge toll on the society. Not a few are
fooled into believing that the borrowing by the state makes it
"public spending on social programs" but the public authority has
long-since been destroyed as narrow private interests have
directly usurped the public institutions and turned them into
their exclusive purview.
The fact is that deficits and borrowing were
incurred in the
past to pay the rich and programs to "eliminate the deficit and
pay down the debt" had the same aim. Now, the lenders consider
the current crisis a windfall of unprecedented proportions for
which they believe the people will happily pay. The state is at
their disposal as are the ministries of the Trudeau government,
working furiously to rationalize pay-the-rich schemes to support
"private enterprise."
Pay-the-rich schemes have long been rationalized
as supporting
private companies that are "too big to fail," not only for their
own sake but that of the economy, workers and country. In the
present context of the global pandemic, the governing elite are
giving huge sums of money borrowed from private lenders to
privately-owned companies and, in particular, to those they
consider "systemically important" to the economy and country,
which they say must be "publicly supported."
In the not so distant past, the capitalist
mythology was that
the competition in the market would sort out winners and losers
amongst companies. Some would win and become bigger while others
would be either swallowed up or go bankrupt and disappear. This
was considered efficient even though it gave rise to anarchy of
production, regular economic crises and suffering amongst the
working people who lost their jobs.
Under imperialism where the financial oligarchy
dominates all
political, economic and social affairs, the ruling elite have
adjusted the mythology to serve their private interests. They
contend the competition of the market is no longer sufficient to
sort out winners and losers and that those in control of the
state should do that by deciding which big companies are vital to
the economy and viable and should receive funds from the state
when in trouble or even just to expand under the banner of
becoming competitive in the global imperialist economy. The
private companies chosen to receive funds from the state are
often labelled "systemically important businesses," as if this
makes it proper and just and not gross corruption and pandering
to the rich and powerful.
What should the working people think of this
imperialist
mythology? If the state is going to fund these "systemically
important private businesses" should the people not have a say in
their subsequent aim and in addition exercise control over their
activities and how the value that their workers produce is
distributed? Should not some mechanism and form be developed to
make these "systemically important private businesses" serve
nation-building and the people, and be held to account for their
activities? Or should it just be business as usual with the rich
becoming richer, the poor poorer and the economy suffering its
regular crises, with festering social problems remaining
unresolved and working people blocked from political
empowerment.
 Why should the
working people, who are the human factor in
creating social product, agree to fund these "systemically
important private businesses" with public value that workers have
produced and which is now supposedly under public/government
control. Why should they agree if the aim of these companies
remains the making of maximum private profit for a privileged few
who may live anywhere within the imperialist system of states and
use the money from profit to favour themselves? This makes no
sense. Having their companies saved or enlarged through state
funding, these private enterprises and their global owners will
not and do not change their stripes and outlook. They do not now
reject their imperialist outlook and aim and suddenly become
concerned with the people's welfare and nation-building. They
still want to expropriate the new value workers produce and will
not allow it to be used to finance social programs and public
services and enterprise that favour the people. They declare
legal and just that the value they expropriate is their own to
use as they see fit, whether for their private enjoyment or in
competition with other oligarchs and enterprises within the
imperialist system of states. Within this position of strength of
private ownership of the productive forces and the value workers
produce, they receive the complete support of the cartel
political parties in government and the agencies, police and
military forces of the imperialist state.
Also, workers are told the existing one-sided
unjust social
relation will remain between the imperialist oligarchs who buy
workers' capacity to work and those who sell it. Why should this
be? If the state is doling out money to save these "systemically
important" private enterprises and others, workers at least have
the expectation of a change to equilibrium in the social relation
with those who buy their capacity to work and not a continuation
of the one-sided unjust state-supported dictate they now
endure.
The money to pay the rich through bailouts, loans
and other
means comes from the new value workers produce. It may seem to
come from taxes but that is a deceptive illusion. The value
arises from what workers produce. No other source exists within
the modern economy. Whether the value is seized through taxes or
some other means does not change the fact that the working people
have produced the value to be handed over to these "systemically
important private businesses" and others.
 The working class
has the expectation that the value they have
produced which goes to governments, should play a positive public
role and not a narrow private one to sustain the class privilege
of the rich global oligarchs. Governments do not make this clear
nor do they put forms and mechanisms in place to ensure the
proper use of state funds.
Increased investments in social programs and
public services
and enterprises that serve the people and economy are badly
needed. The pandemic has made this perfectly clear. The owners,
from their social position as those in control of the private
enterprises that receive funding from the state, are still in a
position to expropriate the new value workers produce and to use
it anywhere in the world according to their narrow private
interests. This is not right!
If the state is going to fund these "systemically
important"
private businesses and others, then the outcome and aim must
favour the public representing the majority who are the producers
and the workers who produce the new value, and not favour the
privileged few, the minority who are not the producers. If those
in control refuse to accept an arrangement that favours the
people and nation-building and equilibrium between those who sell
their capacity to work and those who buy it, then those private
enterprises should not receive any state funding and should
survive or die on their own. Funds are needed to increase
investments in social programs and public services and
enterprise, they are needed to look after laid-off workers and
find them employment in public enterprise and to strengthen the
needed tendency within the economy towards a new aim to serve the
well-being of all and nation-building with the development of a
diverse planned economy that becomes a bulwark against economic
and other crises.
- K.C. Adams -
The imperialist oligarchs have promoted yet
another term
to explain their plunder of state revenue to pay the rich. During
the last economic crisis in 2008, they professed the necessity to
funnel state/public money into private industrial and financial
monopolies because they were "too big to fail." If their
industrial and financial global empires were to fail, the world
as we know it would collapse and something unthinkable would
replace it. The unthinkable for the imperialist oligarchs would
be their loss of control and privilege to exploit the working
class and a possible resurgence of a mass movement of working
people towards a pro-social direction and aim for the
economy.
 The pay-the-rich
schemes over the years to hand out state
funds to those entities deemed "too big to fail" and others
consolidated even further the power and control of the global
oligarchs leading to greater concentration of wealth in fewer
hands and growing poverty and unresolved social problems. The
diversion of state funding to GM, the banks and other global
industrial and financial powers during the last decades led to
starving of funds for social programs, including importantly the
health care and long-term care sectors. The rich became richer
and the poor poorer and more vulnerable worldwide, and the
anarchy of production and exploitation of the working people
intensified.
With even greater wealth concentrated in fewer
hands, the
oligarchs became ever bolder and more violent in their
competition to plunder the world with war preparations,
sanctions, boycotts, blockades, interference, regime change,
regional wars and threats of wider wars amongst themselves for
power. The imperialist world became exposed and vulnerable to a
global health crisis for which it was unprepared, laying bare its
underlying economic contradiction between a modern socialized
economy and its outmoded private control by competing gangs of
imperialist oligarchs interested primarily in their private
wealth and power.
During the pandemic, in country after country
within the
imperialist system of states, the health care and long-term care
sectors have been exposed as incapable of dealing with the public
health crisis. In addition, an economic crisis has exploded and
those imperialist enterprises deemed too big to fail in 2008 and
propped up with state funds are back begging for more public
money to save their private empires, this time with the moniker
"systemically important and viable businesses."
The imperialist think tank C.D. Howe Institute
writes in its
pandemic communiqué #5: Viable Businesses Need Access to
Capital[1]:
"The group's focus at the meeting was on the
recovery phase
and how to ensure companies with viable business models can make
the types of investments needed to adapt to the changing
structure of the economy, avoid unsustainable debt, and replenish
their working capital....
"There are steps governments can take to
facilitate business
access to both short-term working capital and new sources of
patient capital without propping up businesses that would have
failed anyway, or whose models will not work post-pandemic. [...]
"On this front, the Bank of Canada has supported
financial
institutions with plenty of liquidity through the pandemic.
Therefore, as long as companies have viable business models,
financial institutions should be there to help companies restore
their working capital....
"Members did feel that some companies are likely
too
systemically important, as judged by their knock-on effects in
the rest of the economy, to be able to go through the bankruptcy
and insolvency process. The challenge is determining which
companies are truly systemically important.
"Governments need to be clear on the criteria they
will use to
make this determination....
"Actual government intervention might be necessary
in the more
immediate term. One option for government intervention involves
incentivized loans, where government provides favourable terms to
companies in exchange for them making specific investments.... [Another
option would be] government or Crown lenders taking a
mezzanine debt or preferred equity position, which would allow
companies themselves to determine the appropriate investment....
While no perfect option exists, members did favour the preferred
equity approach. The group ... noted that the government might
want to consider tax measures that facilitate the flow of patient
equity capital....
"Policymakers and regulators should take the
following steps
to ensure capital is flowing efficiently to businesses best
placed to drive economic growth during the recovery: Reduce
regulatory impediments to capital flow; [Incent] more investment
in companies and infrastructure projects that do not have public
credit ratings; Encourage companies to take advantage of Canada's
bankruptcy and insolvency programs, which give companies with
viable business models a second chance through negotiations with
creditors; Be upfront about the criteria that will determine
systemically important Canadian businesses. If government is
forced to invest, lean towards preferred equity."
The imperialist oligarchs fashion their
pay-the-rich schemes
to "systemically important and viable businesses" and others for
the lofty purpose of supporting the jobs of ordinary working
people and saving the economy from collapse. Companies need
workers to operate, whether they are "systemically important
businesses" or not, and if the largest companies collapse then
this heralds the collapse of the broader economy and the need for
public enterprise with a new pro-social aim and direction.
 The imperialists
want working people to ignore the aim of the
systemically important businesses, which receive public money,
and the private investors who profit from the value the workers
produce. The aim of the "systemically important businesses" is
not nation-building and the security and well-being of the
people; the aim is to expropriate as much value as possible for
those in control and ownership. Those in control or ownership of
"systemically important businesses" in Canada are more than
likely not even residents of the country. They may be equity
owners living on their private island or powerful shareholders in
New York, London, Frankfurt or possibly Toronto. They are
obsessed with the return on their private investment within the
"systemically important businesses" they own.
Working people need to pose for themselves the
question: why are
public funds and government institutions supporting this aim and
passion for private profit? Doing so is precisely the "business
as usual" which must be ended if a way forward is to be found for
society. This obsession stands in opposition to nation-building,
it stands in opposition to moving the country forward in a new
direction to solve the problems and social relations of a modern
socialized economy of industrial mass production to meet the
needs of the people and to humanize the social and natural
environment.
For the imperialist oligarchs the "systemically
important
businesses" are crucial for their private interests because they
own and control them. They are not viewed as crucial for the
broad public interests and nation-building. The structure and aim
of the private businesses, the social relations with their
workers and the state institutions supporting the whole are what
they do not want to change. They are terrified of change to bring
in new "systemically important and viable businesses" with a new
aim and direction that serve the people and nation-building. They
are terrified of the working people and any questioning of the
unjust one-sided social relation with them, which centres on
buying workers' capacity to work so their "systemically important
businesses" can function and the imperialist system can continue
expropriating the value workers produce and block any resolution
of its internal contradictions to open a path forward.
 Of note is C.D.
Howe Institute writing of the importance to
"Encourage companies to take advantage of Canada's bankruptcy and
insolvency programs." These cruel programs target the working
class, its jobs, savings and pensions. Workers in Canada have
bitter experience with "Canada's bankruptcy and insolvency
programs," in particular the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) for large companies that
has
been used extensively to save the investments of the rich
oligarchs and steal what belongs to workers by right.
The working class cannot allow the imperialist
oligarchy to
escape this crisis without challenging its authority. Obviously,
the ruling elite are not going to change a system that gives them
private profit, privilege and the power to exploit. They are
determined to keep the status quo, to keep business as usual and
not allow the working class to just waltz in and take over. The
working class has to bring in change through its own organized
efforts and actions, through determined struggles to claim what
belongs to it by right, which includes the right to determine the
direction of those economic and political affairs that affect
their lives.
The "systemically important businesses" must serve
the people
and nation-building and not the narrow private interests of the
global rich. That much must be made clear and enforced. Canada
and the rest of the imperialist world need a new aim and
direction and the organized working people have the social
responsibility to bring it into being.
Note
1. Members of the Monetary and Financial Measures
Working
Group of the C.D. Howe Institute include:
- David Dodge, Co-Chair, former Governor of the
Bank of
Canada
- Mark Zelmer, Co-Chair, former Deputy Superintendent of the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, an agency
of the Government of Canada reporting to the Minister of
Finance
- Riaz Ahmed, TD Bank
- Steve Ambler, Université du Québec à
Montréal
- Dwight Duncan, McMillan LLP (Global business law firm with 400
lawyers under contract)
- Paul Jenkins, Former Senior Deputy Governor, Bank of
Canada
- Phil Howell, Former Superintendent, Financial Services
Regulatory Authority of Ontario
- Thor Koeppl, Queen's University
- Andrew Moor, Equitable Bank
- Tamara Vrooman, CEO VanCity (Credit Union), former BC Deputy
Minister of Finance under Liberal Party government, assuming
position of CEO Vancouver Airport (YVR) on July 1
- Jeremy Kronick, C.D. Howe Institute
- Duncan Munn, C.D. Howe Institute
State Financial Help for
Private Airlines
The government is moving to declare Air Canada
and WestJet
"Systemically Important Businesses" that will receive more public
funds in one way or another.
Both companies have announced massive downsizing
of their
workforces since March. Air Canada has already taken advantage of
the 75 per cent federal wage subsidy with the rehiring of 16,000
laid-off employees. In spite of this assistance, Air Canada
announced it will lay off more than half of its 38,000 employees
starting June 7. The layoffs will affect a minimum of 19,000
staff and could go as high as 22,800. Air Canada said those
furloughed workers will no longer receive the wage subsidy but
instead will have to apply for other federal assistance even
though the government extended the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy
through to the end of August. Air Canada has grounded some 225
airplanes and slashed flight capacity by 95 per cent. WestJet has
taken similar measures.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he is having
discussions
with the airlines regarding further public financial help.
Trudeau said on May 15, "We will have conversations with Air
Canada as we will with airlines across the sector to try and see
how the best way to get through this particular pandemic is."
Trudeau would not elaborate on the form of the
aid, if it
would be a bailout, a federal stake in the company's equity or
whether the federal government would help with the company's
pension and health benefit obligations. Trudeau also noted the
airlines and other big employers can also access the newly
announced bridge financing program being made available to
companies with at least $300 million in revenues so they can stay
open, keep employees on their payrolls and avoid
bankruptcies.
 How should
active, laid-off and retired airline workers
respond to this situation? What would they like the government to
do?
Should they agree to a public bailout of Air
Canada and
WestJet even though these are private enterprises that answer to
their owners and serve their private interests? The imperialist
investment cartel ONEX is the majority owner of WestJet.
If the airlines are "systemically important
businesses" for
the economy and nation should they not fall under the control of
a public authority and be accountable to the people? Does this
not require a change in the aim of the current authority from one
taken over by narrow private interests to ones where the people
constitute the decision-making power? Does it not require giving
priority to businesses which the working people define as
"systemically important and viable"? Such businesses would not
have making private profit for private owners their raison
d'être but be guided by an aim of serving the
country, people
and nation-building. This in turn would require a change in how
public opinion is created and who controls the process of
decision-making. How that is accomplished begins with speaking
out about the developments based on what serves the people, not
what pays the rich. The situation calls for airline workers and
others to respond to this situation and lay their own claims on
what is needed at this time.
- Garnet Colly -
After two months of uncertainty and instability,
Air Canada
on May 15 announced massive layoffs of up to 60 per cent of its
workforce -- as many as 20,000 employees.
With the spread of COVID-19, airline travel was
one of the
sectors of the economy that was affected quickly and seriously.
Passenger traffic to various destinations dropped off
immediately, followed by countries closing their borders to
international flights. It has reached the point that airlines in
Canada are declaring that they are operating at five per cent of
the capacity they had last year. This, along with the
cancellation of a multitude of flights, has led to increasing
insecurity among airline workers in all departments.
In March, Air Canada already laid off 16,500
flight
attendants, mechanics and customer service agents who they
rehired in April under the federal government's Canada Emergency
Wage Supplement (CEWS), with the government paying 75 per cent of
the wages to a maximum of $847 per week, which would apply only
for those at the top of the wage scale having worked the maximum
hours. New hires and those lower down on the wage scale were
already having a difficult time making ends meet with 100 per
cent of their wages when they were working full time.
Companies are "free" to top up the CEWS, yet
despite it being
called a supplement, the companies have all declared that they
cannot afford to pay the other 25 per cent. And while this
program has now been extended to August 29, so far Air Canada
appears to have decided that it will not continue with the
program beyond June 6.
Regarding upcoming flights, not only has Air
Canada not yet
informed workers of its flight schedule for June, but it has not
made any definitive announcement as to what, if any, mitigation
measures it will put in place over and above the fundamentals in
the collective agreement. For In-Flight Service, these include a
"Resignation Program" with continuing, but lower priority travel
privileges; a Special Leave of Absence Program, with no loss of
seniority or accumulated service for retirement considerations,
and with leaves being offered for six, 12, 18 and 24 month
periods; and a Reduced Flying Program, allowing flight attendants
to work approximately half the standard number of hours, while
maintaining their benefits but having to contribute to top up
pension contributions and the insurance plan covering loss of
wages in case of long-term disability.
 The Air Canada
Component of the Canadian Union of Public
Employees (CUPE), representing the flight attendants had also
presented the idea of voluntary separation packages, pension
bridging and financial separation incentives along the lines of
what management and the pilots have received. The company advised
that this was not possible, "due to the financial crisis and
liability the company currently has." Oddly this was not an
obstacle when it came to offers made to management to reduce
their numbers.
The unions representing the workers in the various
departments
have been reaching out to the company with suggestions for
reducing the numbers of layoffs -- including continued
participation in CEWS until it expires -- but it is clear that
the company is determined to maintain the old way of doing
things, namely, finding a way for the major shareholders to
continue making a profit rather than attending to the well-being
of those who create the wealth. While admitting publicly that the
CEWS does not represent a large sum of money, the company chose
to abandon the program in order not to have to contribute to the
pensions, insurance and other marginal benefits that were its
responsibility under the CEWS.
This situation has affected workers at all of
Canada's
airlines. Sunwing and Air Transat have suspended operations,
except for a handful of management employees on the CEWS.
WestJet, which was recently bought by ONEX, also announced
massive workforce reductions in April, over and above those it
had announced in March. WestJet has extended the CEWS program
until August but is currently down to only 35 flight
attendants.
It is well-known that the airlines are working
together,
lobbying the federal government for some sort of "bailout." There
is intense speculation that this declaration by Air Canada to lay
off more than half its work force, despite the federal assistance
program, is an effort to "up the ante" and increase pressure on
the federal government.
 This situation is
creating insecurity and anxiety among the
employees as to their future. Without being given the numbers of
employees who will actually be needed, nor without numbers for
those who will take advantage of any mitigation programs being
offered, thousands are actually left wondering about the
challenges they will be facing in the coming weeks, months and
years. Of course, this has been the fate of airline workers for
decades because of the boom and bust cycles of the unplanned
economy over which we have no control. Nothing has ever been done
to ensure that workers can weather the storms. This must change.
There is no better time than now to demand a new direction for
the economy.
Avoidable Consequences of
Spring Flooding in
Northern Alberta
- Peggy Askin -
Photo of flooding in downtown Fort McMurray from uncredited facebook
post.
The working people of Fort McMurray and the Wood
Buffalo
region are once again suffering the consequences of spring
flooding due to the refusal of the private interests which
control governments to build in a manner that brings spring
flooding under the control of human beings.[1] This year's
flooding comes when many in Fort McMurray have yet to
overcome the damages from the 2016 wildfires which forced
the evacuation of the entire city, with 2,400 homes and buildings
destroyed and another 2,000 people displaced because their homes
were unsafe. Since the oil price crash in 2014, close to one in
10 jobs in the oil sands has been eliminated despite increased
production. The pandemic has now severely cut demand for oil at a
time when contention among the imperialists in the energy sector
has become increasingly sharp. Now the workers and small
businesses in Fort McMurray must deal with the
destruction left behind by a devastating flood.
 Working people
should stand with the hard-working people of
Fort McMurray and region, who have once again been left to fend
for themselves by governments that serve private interests.
Fort McMurray is located at the confluence of the
Athabasca
and Clearwater Rivers. On April 26, a massive ice jam in the
Athabasca River caused the Clearwater River to reverse course,
overflow its banks and flood Fort McMurray's downtown and several
surrounding neighbourhoods. Over 13,000 people were immediately
evacuated from their homes. Four hundred and fifty people were
evacuated from the Fort Vermillion and Tall Cree First Nations
due to flooding of the Peace River in Mackenzie County.
Tragically, a member of the Fort McKay First Nation, located 55
kilometres north of Fort McMurray, died from injuries after being
caught in the floodwaters of the Athabasca River. Thousands of
people were forced from their homes, and about 2,500 are still
living in work camps, hotels and other temporary housing.
This is the second time since 2016 that many residents
of Fort
McMurray have had to deal with either a severely damaged or
destroyed home. Reports indicate that an estimated 1,230
structures have been damaged by the flooding. Many people had
just finished building new homes to replace those destroyed in
the 2016 wildfires. With forest fire season looming, there is
further anxiety about what that might bring.
One week after the flood, Don Scott, Mayor of the
Regional
Municipality of Wood Buffalo, told CBC that without long-term
financial assistance many people will face financial ruin. He
said that most evacuees do not have overland flood insurance,
which is not included in regular home insurance policies.
Homeowners may not be eligible because of a high risk of
flooding, and if they are, the cost is prohibitive, about $10,000
a year. The Mayor called on the federal and provincial
governments to extend disaster relief funding to the close to
13,000 people who have been forced from their homes. At this
point the Alberta government has made one-time payments of $1,250
per adult and $500 per child, to cover some expenses for those
affected by the flood.
Downtown Fort McMurray, including the hospital and
major
grocery stores, are built on a flood plain, as are neighbouring
communities. While many Albertans now have overland flood
insurance and insurers have come out with products over the last five
years, a spokesperson for the Insurance Bureau of Canada said
overland flood insurance is relatively new and this option is
complicated for people who live on flood plains or in high risk
areas.
"Flood insurance there is usually much more
limited or
restricted because the likelihood of flood is so much higher. The
policy would be unaffordable," she said.
All of this begs the question, how in the
21st century is
it not possible to protect towns and communities from flooding
and wild fires if the required attention is paid to where and how
building takes place? Yet once again -- as was the case with the
fires that destroyed their homes in 2016 when homeowners reported
protracted battles with their insurance companies -- those affected
will be fighting for compensation while their expenses and
debts mount. Why is this happening again? Why is this disaster
considered each individual homeowner's responsibility?
The provincial government has announced that it
will make $147
million available from the Disaster Recovery Program. This is a
complete hoax, because the program explicitly excludes damage
from overland flooding on the basis that homeowners can now
obtain insurance to cover such damages. In this cozy arrangement
between insurance companies and the government, the insurance
companies offer a product people cannot afford, and governments
then wash their hands of any responsibility, claiming people
"chose" not to obtain coverage.
The Alberta government has responsibility for
releasing
land in the oil sands region for housing development. Workers in
the region had no say in how Fort McMurray was developed, or in the
decision to build housing on a flood plain, with no consideration
given to flood mitigation or measures to safeguard the
community from wildfires. Governments serve narrow private
interests so they declare that the consequences of their
decisions are not their problem. It exposes the real meaning of
Premier Jason Kenney's praise for the people of Fort McMurray and
other communities as displaying "northern resilience," as if
fending for oneself is a rite of passage to declare oneself
Albertan.
 Ice jams are a
frequent occurrence which raises the legitimate
question why is more not done to mitigate the damage they cause?
They mostly form at locations where the rivers are constricted
such as sharp bends, narrow sections, islands, shallow bars,
bridges, or where a change in the channel bed has formed. How to carry
out preventative measures is a known science. However, the aim of
the economy is not based on taking responsibility to look after
the people and mitigate flooding. Along with the
insurance companies, the Alberta government washes its hands by
declaring such calamities to be "acts of god."
In the same way, governments take no
responsibility for the
immense difficulties facing the working people, including those
of Fort McMurray, or for the consequences of an economy dependent on
providing energy resources to serve U.S. imperialism and its war
machine. Governments refuse to recognize the need for a new
direction for the economy, and instead lash out with warmongering
vitriol against China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and others so
as to distract attention that the problem lies with their defence
of the rule and control of the global energy oligarchs.
The majority of people in Fort McMurray and region
either work
in the oil sands, or service the oil and gas industry. Their hard
work adds tremendous value to the economy. It is the corporations
that own and control the oil sands and the provincial and federal
governments that enable them that should provide immediate and
adequate living expenses to the evacuees and full immediate
compensation to clean up, repair and rebuild their homes. Whether
we are dealing with floods, fires or economic disaster caused by
the stranglehold of the financial oligarchy pursuing its own
narrow interest, the most important question is, how are we
going to deal with achieving decision-making power so as to
exercise control over the matters that affect our lives?
Note
1. The
Lower
Townsite, Waterways and Ptarmigan Court areas of Fort McMurray
have a long history of flooding. There have been at least 15
notable floods since 1835, 14 of which were due to ice jams.
Situation of Indigenous
Peoples in Canada
On May 22, Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)
reported,
"On First Nations reserves in provinces, as of May 22, ISC is
aware of 209 confirmed positive COVID-19; 18 hospitalizations;
four deaths." It gives the following case numbers by province:
British Columbia: 41; Alberta: 38; Saskatchewan: 49; Ontario: 46;
Quebec: 35. What ISC does not say is that this number of
infections on reserves where Indigenous populations are very small, is
devastating. As well, negligence by the Canadian state on
reserves has created conditions where health care is limited and
other health issues are common, a situation that makes people
more vulnerable to COVID-19.
As concerns Indigenous peoples who are not part of
the reserve
system, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples -- which represents the
interests of off-reserve status and non-status Indians,
Métis and
Southern Inuit Aboriginal peoples -- filed a federal court
application on May 13 alleging the federal government's COVID-19
assistance has been "inadequate and discriminatory," compared to
other groups. In mid-March, the government created the
$305 million Indigenous Community Support Fund, of which $15
million went to support groups that work with Indigenous peoples
who are not part of the reserve system, even though they make up
more than half of the Indigenous peoples living in Canada.
In its press release regarding this filing,
the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
states:
"The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) and its
Provincial
and Territorial Organizations (PTOs) today filed an urgent court
application over the federal government's inadequate and
discriminatory funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. The shocking
lack of funding and discrimination impacts the most vulnerable
and disadvantaged Indigenous peoples in Canada.
"National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal
Peoples Robert
Bertrand stated, 'The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and our
provincial and territorial partners provide critically needed
support and deliver services to many of the most susceptible
Canadians. The federal government has abandoned its fiduciary
responsibility towards a significant number of Indigenous peoples
during this pandemic.'
"The urgent court application filed today in the
Federal Court
of Canada challenges the funding allocation under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter").
The
application seeks to address the fact that despite the federal
government's laudable goals, the funding allocations have been
discriminatory and at the expense of the doubly-disadvantaged
Indigenous populations served by CAP.
"As a result, it is simply not possible for CAP
and its PTOs
to provide any meaningful relief both to the many thousands of
off-reserve Indigenous peoples it actively supports or to the
hundreds of thousands of off-reserve Indigenous peoples that CAP
has been advocating support for. These Indigenous people are
included within federal responsibility in the Supreme Court's CAP-Daniels
Decision.[1]
This urgent support must address Elders and
others, health care, inadequate housing, food insecurity,
educational and other support for children, mental health
services, and COVID-19 preparedness.
"The legal action comes after the federal
government ignored
CAP's repeated efforts and preference to work with Indigenous
Services Canada (ISC) to rectify the problem without litigation.
The large majority of Canada's Indigenous population lives
off-reserve and this court action addresses the needs of this
population.
"Chief and President Lorraine Augustine of the
Native Council
of Nova Scotia concluded, 'There is a long history of
underservicing, neglect, and discrimination towards off-reserve
Indigenous peoples. The Supreme Court recognized this and now the
Federal government is discriminating against the most vulnerable
Canadians at the worst possible time. We had no choice but to go
to court to save lives.'"
In response to the determined fight of the
Congress of Aboriginal People and others, Trudeau announced, on May 21,
"$75 million in new funding for organizations that address the critical
needs of the over a million Indigenous people living in urban centers
and off reserve." In a statement issued the same day by the Congress of
Aboriginal People, National Chief Robert Bertrand said "This funding is
an improvement over the previously announced funding that was beyond
inadequate. As the National Chief I am glad to see some recognition
from the federal government that they have an obligation to support the
needs of off-reserve Indigenous peoples."
Note
1. On
April 14, 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Daniels
v. Canada that the federal government, rather than
provincial governments, holds the legal responsibility to
legislate on issues related to Métis and Non-Status Indians.
In a
unanimous decision, the court found that Métis and
Non-Status
peoples are considered Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867
-- a section that concerns the federal
government's exclusive legislative powers. (Canadian
Encyclopedia)
- Barbara Biley -
 May
21, 2020, Tataskweyak Cree Nation continues to blockade Provincial Road
280 to protect the community from exposure to COVID-19.
Four Manitoba First Nations, partners with
Manitoba Hydro
in the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership (KHLP), are
supporting actions taken by the Tataskweyak Cree Nation on May 14
to block Provincial Road 280 and the main gate and north access
point to Keeyask. Keeyask is a 695-megawatt hydroelectric
generating station being built on the Nelson River, 725 kilometres
north of Winnipeg, scheduled for completion in 2021. The four First
Nations in the partnership with Manitoba Hydro are
Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Fox Lake Cree Nation, War Lake First
Nation, and York Factory Cree Nation.
The blockade was set up
with the aim of stopping the spread of the COVID-19 virus to
their community. On May 18, Manitoba Hydro served the Tataskweyak
Cree Nation with a ten-day injunction issued by Manitoba Court of
Queen's Bench to remove the blockade. The following day, Manitoba
Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) Inc., which represents 26 First
Nations who are signatories to Treaties 4, 5, 6 and 10, issued a
statement of support for the blockade. Also on May 19, the Fox
Lake Cree Nation issued a state of emergency and locked down its
community and established another blockade at the south access
road to the construction site.
On May 20, over a hundred people
gathered on the grounds of the Manitoba legislature to protest
the injunction, joining activists who have been camping on the
grounds since May 14 in solidarity with the blockade.
 The action of the
Tataskweyak Cree Nation was prompted by the
decision of Manitoba Hydro to bring in up to 1,200 new workers to
the site over the next month, including workers from across
Canada and some from the U.S. The arrival of these workers will
allow the 600 to 700 workers who have been on the site since March to
leave. Those workers volunteered to stay so that the
normal rotation of workers into and out of the site would stop in
the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, with the approval
of Manitoba's Chief Medical Health Officer, Manitoba Hydro
intends to resume regular work rotations, in spite of the fact
that Northern Manitoba remains closed to non-essential
travel.
The First Nations partners in the KHLP have never
agreed with the decision to continue construction. They have
proposed that Keeyask be put into 'care and maintenance' mode
which would require about 250 workers. York Factory First Nation
Chief Leroy Constant is quoted in an APTN report of May 19
saying, "We have been discussing these issues for weeks, but it
seems that our partners at Manitoba Hydro are not interested in
hearing our concerns. This is not how a partnership is supposed
to operate ... If Manitoba Hydro was to reduce the number of
people working at the project while we come to terms with this
pandemic, it would show respect for the concerns we have for our
people's health and wellness."
Northern Manitoba First Nations have taken action
to protect
their communities by managing access to prevent the introduction
and spread of COVID-19. They should be supported by federal and
provincial government leaders and health authorities but in
Manitoba, as in other provinces, major construction projects have
been exempted from travel restrictions and deemed "essential"
work. Concerns about the consequences of this decision have been
borne out by the transmission of COVID-19 through travel from the
Kearl Lake oilsands project near Fort McMurray in Alberta.
According to Alberta Health Services, as of May 20, the Kearl Lake
site outbreak has been linked to 84 patients in Alberta, 19 in
BC and one in each of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and
Labrador.
 Throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic and the emergency measures taken
by provincial governments to restrict travel and close all but
essential services and production, First Nations and remote
communities have acted in accordance with their particular
circumstances, including the level of health care services and
conditions that increase the vulnerability of the people in these
communities. Concerns about the 'essential' designation of
industrial camps with hundreds of workers on projects like Kearl
Lake and others in Alberta, Keeyask in Manitoba, Site C, LNG
Canada and Coastal GasLink in BC, Muskrat Falls in Labrador, and
others have been raised by Indigenous organizations, health care
professionals, and unions, including Building Trades Unions which
represent some of the workers in the camps.
On April 29, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs issued
a statement
entitled " Governments must respect First Nations
Jurisdiction," in which the First Nations Leadership Council urges
"all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, to
recognize and respect First Nations jurisdiction and decisions as
they take actions to protect their communities during the
COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical for all levels of governments
to include and work collaboratively with neighbouring First
Nations in our collective efforts in the fight against
COVID-19."
Gathering at blockade, Tataskweyak Cree Nation, May 21, 2020.
Manitoba Keewatinowi
Okimakanak (MKO) Inc. is issuing this statement along with the
four Cree Nations that have entered into a partnership with
Manitoba Hydro in the construction and operation of the Keeyask
Generating Station in Northern Manitoba. The four First Nations
are: Tataskweyak Cree Nation, Fox Lake Cree Nation, War Lake
First Nation, and York Factory Cree Nation.
MKO First Nations have been expressing concerns
about Manitoba
Hydro's plans for the Keeyask construction site since March.
Manitoba Hydro plans to implement a shift transition starting
today, May 19, when 700 current employees at Keeyask will be
allowed to leave the site to return home. Manitoba Hydro is
starting to bring in up to 1,200 new workers to the site. Staff
will come from various parts of Canada and the United States,
including regions hit hard by COVID-19 such as Quebec, Ontario,
and British Columbia.
The Tataskweyak Cree Nation, a community of 2,500
people,
announced on May 14 that it planned to shut down the Provincial Road
(PR) #280 and
enforce a lock down with the aim of stopping the spread of the
COVID-19 virus to their community. The First Nation is also
blocking the main gate and north access point to Keeyask. On May
18, Manitoba Hydro served the Tataskweyak Cree Nation with an
injunction to end the community's blockade of PR #280.
The Fox Lake Cree Nation has also issued a State
of Emergency
and enforced a lock down of the community. Fox Lake Cree Nation
is restricting access to Keeyask on the South Access Road until
Manitoba Hydro properly addresses community concerns about the
risk to communities and the safety of their people during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Quotes
MKO Grand Chief Garrison
Settee, said "Corporate interests do not trump the safety of First
Nations
peoples in Northern Manitoba." "As leaders, our role is to protect our
people, this is
our foundational concern. The provincial government deems the
Keeyask construction site as essential, critical infrastructure
and yet this construction site is not providing any
hydro-electric power at this point so it doesn't make sense that
it's deemed as essential. MKO asserts that the Keeyask project be
classified as being non-essential infrastructure at this
time."
"Other jurisdictions have placed resource
development projects
on hold until the risk of COVID-19 passes. We are urging the
Province of Manitoba to place this construction site into 'care
and maintenance mode.' First Nations have undertaken many actions
to restrict the transmission of COVID-19, including closing our
borders to ensure our communities are safe. We urge the province
to do their utmost to protect our people as well," stated Chief
Doreen Spence of the Tataskweyak Cree Nation.
 "By allowing over
one thousand people to travel to Northern
Manitoba, the actions undertaken by Manitoba Hydro are
inconsistent and contradict public health orders shared by the
Province of Manitoba," stated Chief Betsy Kennedy of War Lake
First Nation. "The 1,000 plus people are coming from Manitoba, as
well as numerous jurisdictions across Canada and the United
States. We are told that the workers coming to Northern Manitoba
are asked to self-isolate for 14 days in their home province
prior to travel. How do we know these people are truly
self-isolating? There is no way we can actually know this as
Manitoba Hydro has not shared information on how self-isolation
is being monitored, if at all. Also, workers from other provinces
will be tested for COVID-19 upon arriving in Winnipeg and, if
negative, will be allowed to immediately travel north to start
working. If a worker was infected during travel to Winnipeg, the
COVID-19 test is not sufficiently sensitive to identify infection
after such a short incubation period. It is noteworthy that,
unlike workers from other provinces, all Manitobans returning
from out of province must isolate here for 14 days following
travel."
"As First Nations leaders, we are extremely
frustrated," said
Chief Leroy Constant of York Factory First Nation. "We have been
discussing these issues for weeks, but it seems that our partners
at Manitoba Hydro are not interested in hearing our concerns.
This is not how a partnership is supposed to operate. We have
raised the issue of putting Keeyask into 'care and maintenance
mode,' which would mean the operation is reduced to 250 workers
without advancing construction. If Manitoba Hydro was to reduce
the number of people working at the project while we come to
terms with this pandemic, it would show respect for the concerns
we have for our people's health and wellness."
"We are calling on the CEO of Manitoba Hydro to
meet with the
four First Nations that are supposed to be partners in the
Keeyask construction project," stated Chief Billy Beardy of the
Fox Lake Cree Nation. "Despite multiple and ongoing calls for
action, Manitoba Hydro continues to ignore the concerns expressed
by First Nations. This is a flagrant violation of how they should
be carrying out a mutually respectful and cooperative
partnership. We absolutely should be working together in the best
interests of the people who call Northern Manitoba home since
time immemorial."
- Tŝilhqot’in
Nation -
Protest against Taseko Mines project outside Federal Court hearing in
2014.
The Tŝilhqot’in Nation is celebrating
the Supreme Court of
Canada's denial of Taseko Mines Limited's application to
appeal the rejection of the New Prosperity Mine proposal by the
Government of Canada in 2014. New Prosperity Mine threatened a
sacred area of profound cultural importance to the
Tŝilhqot’in
peoples, with a destructive open pit gold and copper mine that
did not have the consent of the Tŝilhqot’in Nation.
 In October 2013,
an independent federal panel of experts
concluded, in its environmental assessment report, that New
Prosperity would have significant and immitigable impacts on
water quality, fisheries and Tŝilhqot’in cultural heritage,
rights and traditional practices. This New Prosperity Panel
affirmed the importance of Teẑtan Biny (Fish Lake) and Nabaŝ? as
"unique and of special significance" for the Tŝilhqot’in
peoples.
The Federal Panel noted that Taseko Mines was unable to even meet
"proof
of concept" for its unprecedented, unproven, entire-lake
recirculation proposal and that Teẑtan Biny would be
contaminated over time, despite mitigation efforts.
In February 2014, the Government of Canada
accepted the
conclusions of the Federal Panel Report and rejected the New
Prosperity Mine. In response, Taseko Mines filed legal challenges to
both
the Federal Panel Report and the decision of the Government of
Canada rejecting the New Prosperity Mine. The Federal Court
rejected both of Taseko Mines' legal challenges in December 2017 and
the
Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Taseko Mines' appeals in
December 2019.
Both levels of court affirmed the position of the Tŝilhqot’in
Nation that the Government of Canada made the eminently
reasonable and fair decision to reject this destructive
project.
Today [May 14], the Supreme Court of Canada
dismissed Taseko's
application to hear a further appeal. This means Taseko has no
further legal avenues to appeal the rejection of the New
Prosperity Mine. The New Prosperity Mine is now dead -- it cannot
be legally built.
Chief Joe
Alphonse, Tribal Chairman, Tŝilhqot’in National
Government:
"This decision has been a long time coming. We are
celebrating
the Supreme Court of Canada's decision today, and taking the time
to reflect on the immense sacrifices made by our communities and
members to finally have their voices heard and respected. Now we
call on Taseko Mines to accept that this is the end of the
road for them.
It's time to move on and protect this sacred area for the
survival of our way of life. We look forward to turning our focus
and energy to supporting responsible economic projects in
appropriate areas of our Territory, as we move towards building a
regional economy that respects our culture, our spirituality and
our Aboriginal Rights and Title. BC should finally recognize the
importance of this area to the Tŝilhqot’in and support the
Dasiqox Nexwagwezʔan. The Nation should never have to face the
burden of an industrial threat to this sacred area ever
again."
Chief Russell
Myers Ross, Vice-Chair, Tŝilhqot’in National
Government:
"We are relieved and welcome this news. The last
30 years has
been challenging and onerous on our communities and people.
Today's decision is another step in our journey to reimagine a
more respectful relationship with the Crown, grounded in
recognition of our Aboriginal Rights and Title. We continue to
invest our energy into such a future, and in the case of Teẑtan
Biny and Nabaŝ?, we are pursuing an alternative vision called the
Dasiqox Nexwagwezʔan ('It is there for us'). We are hopeful that
now we can finally move forward with those plans and bring that
vision to completion."
Chief Jimmy
Lulua, Xeni Gwet'in First Nations Government:
"Today we celebrate the courts' recognition of
Aboriginal
rights and title. Further, we celebrate the resiliency and the
perseverance of our people. Yes, the courts delivered justice,
but that required our communities to remain vigilant and strong
throughout this entire process, at an immense cost of our time
and resources. Without the leadership shown by our communities
and Nation, we would have lost the integrity of a sacred place in
our territory, and our lands, water and wildlife would be at
further risk. The government and the courts needed to be educated
on Aboriginal rights and title to arrive at this decision. We
will continue to protect our culture and our sacred places from
threats like Taseko Mines and we will never stop standing up
for
ourselves, our rights and for our future generations."
Stepped Up War Exercises
During COVID-19
- Tony Seed -
On May 17, a Royal Canadian Air Force Tutor jet
crashed in
a residential area near Kamloops, BC. It was part of a
cross-country public relations aerial show of the aerobatic Royal
Canadian Air Force demonstration squadron, known as the Snowbirds.
Code named Operation Inspiration, the tour began in Nova Scotia
on May 2, in the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic
immediately after Operation America Strong of the USAF
Thunderbirds that began in mid-April over the state of
Colorado, headquarters of NORAD.[1]
The crash took the life of a young public
relations officer,
Capt. Jennifer Casey, with the Canadian Armed Forces and NORAD,
while the pilot survived after ejecting safely. On May 24, the
RCAF is staging a public memorial procession through the streets
of Halifax, Nova Scotia, her home province. No such public
tributes have been organized for the fifty seniors who have died
of COVID-19 at Northwood Manor, the for-profit long-term care residence
located in the same city.
The nine-plane tour organized by the Department of
National
Defence was to be a "mood-making" distraction. On April 29, Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau declared: "As we watch the Snowbirds fly
over our homes, let's remember that we are all in this together."
The tour was enthusiastically pushed by the monopoly media. It
featured live in-plane video on CBC-TV when it began in Halifax
on May 2. But, according to the Department of National Defence
and contrary to what the Prime Minister said, the Snowbirds are
primarily an "important public relations and recruiting
tool."
On April 22, U.S. President Donald Trump announced
a program
of air shows featuring the USAF Thunderbirds and U.S. Navy Blue
Angels to cross the United States. "What we're doing is we're
paying tribute to our front-line health care workers confronting
COVID. And it's really a signal to all Americans to remain
vigilant during the outbreak. This is a tribute to them, to our
warriors. Because they are equal warriors to those incredible
pilots and all of the fighters that we have for the more
traditional fights that we win and we win."
 In
parallel, U.S.
and Canadian fighter jets under the command
of NORAD conducted a war exercise over Greater Toronto, a centre
of the virus, on April 27. On April 29 Canadian Press acknowledged
“Some Canadians took to social media on Wednesday to ask whether
the flyovers are necessary, given many people are continuing to
struggle and die from COVID-19. That echoed criticisms of the U.S.
military’s decision to deploy its Blue Angels and Thunderbirds
teams.”
NORAD is under Northern Command of the Pentagon,
part of U.S.
Homeland Security. To give a sense of how sensitive the
deployment of U.S. military forces is, even though they are
allegedly operating under "bi-national control," NORAD still
found it necessary to go out of its way to assure the public that
it was independent of any Canadian program. "This NORAD training
event is not related in any way to the Government of Canada's
response to COVID-19," it announced in a press release,
encouraging residents to look up in awe and watch the fighter
jets in action.
NORAD said the U.S. fighters were working with the
Canadian
Air Defence Sector at 22 Wing North Bay, ON, and civilian air
traffic control in the Toronto area to "practice response
procedures in high-density airspace." It was conducted under
Operation Noble Eagle, which places emphasis on the surveillance
and control of airspace over Canada and the United States, and
ran 10:00 am to 11:30 am "By ensuring the airspace was clear, NORAD
was able to conduct training in what is normally high-density
airspace."
Why this was so, why during this period, or why at
high noon
over the largest city in Canada is not explained.[2]
Their CF-18 Hornets departed 3 Wing Bagotville,
Quebec and
flew to Toronto. NAV CANADA controllers at Toronto Air Control
Centre cleared the way for the fighter jets in a process that
involves separating all other aircraft from the Restricted
Operating Area. "This area is pre-determined airspace that allows
NORAD aircraft to conduct military missions such as air-to-air
refuelling, surveillance, and training scenarios, without
interference."
The exercise was one of a little-publicized
series. On April
23, NORAD conducted "a bi-national air defence exercise near the
U.S. and Canadian border to reinforce interoperability and
maintain our rapid reaction capabilities amid the #COVID
response." The border area was not revealed and the exercise
followed loud Canadian government objections by deputy prime
minister Chrystia Freeland on March 26 asserting sovereignty and
objections to the stationing of U.S. troops along the border
proposed by Trump. "What we have said is, 'We really do not
believe at all that there would be a public health justification
for you to take this action.'" And "We do not take orders from
anyone," she said.
Such breast-beating had no real meaning except to
serve as a
cover for other trans-border military exercises. On May 13, CF-18
Hornets and a CC-150 Polaris air-to-air refueller "conducted a
patrol in Canada's north," without again revealing the location
or rationale let alone any "public health justification."
Trump also announced that he is planning to hold an air
show similar to those conducted in April, on July 4. The event he
planned last year featured a military display that cost $2.5 million.
 The extensive
range of deployments of the military during a
public health crisis of which the airshows by the Snowbirds were
an integral part, includes repeated use of the "at war" metaphor
by Trudeau and Trump, in which military personnel are
deliberately equated with health care professionals as "heroes"
and "warriors." In this regard, the military is included as a
lead agency in the public health crisis in both the U.S. and
Canada. In the U.S. some 64,000 troops have been deployed. In Canada troops have been deployed into seniors' homes -- some
1,700 members of the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed in around 30 long-term care homes, 25 in
Quebec and five in Ontario, up from the original 1,400 -- and Indigenous communities. Furthermore, some 2,000 armed forces
personnel are deployed in 20 overseas military missions while
Canada continues to participate in provocative NATO military
exercises in Europe and the Mediterranean. The disaster of the crash of Sikorsky Cyclone helicopter from the HMCS Fredericton
in the Ionian Sea on April 28 and the spread of the coronavirus in the
armed forces has passed relatively unreported, as has the decision to
deploy Canadian warships to participate in the RIMPAC war games to be
held around Hawaii and in the Pacific this coming August, the largest
naval war exercise in the world.
The propaganda around Operation Inspiration is aimed at
the ranks of the military as much as the public, as is the pledge for
inspections of the 57-year old aircraft used by the Snowbirds. Concerns
about the safety of armed forces personnel from the
coronavirus have been mounting, especially in the navy where the
legitimate and just demand to bring the troops home has now found
expression.[3]
Seven
personnel have needlessly died in a two-week period and another
soldier last June in a U.S. parachute drop in a NATO exercise in
Bulgaria. At that time too an inquiry was promised. The culture
of secrecy is such that both the Pentagon and then Canada's
Department of National Defence in lock step instituted a
draconian lock down on the release of statistics of infections in
the ranks of the armed forces. This is coupled with an
ideological offensive directed at both armed forces personnel and
the public that they are maintaining the "balance between health
and safety and security" as war preparations and insecurity for
the people of the world are accelerated. The premise underlying
all the calls for the complete integration of Canada's armed
forces into the U.S. war machine is that security means
"securing" the North American "Homeland" as "free and prosperous"
-- that is, against any threat to the rule of the oligopolies
under the sway of the U.S. imperialists. It is completely devoid
of a modern and human-centred concept of security.
This is very dangerous. The statements of
President Trump
about using the military to distribute vaccines suggests the
possible enactment of Martial Law in the case of the coronavirus.
Martial Law could also be established, using the pretext of the
outbreak of COVID-19 in China and other foreign countries and its
continuing potential impacts on the U.S. during the U.S.
election. In other words, the military rather than the country's
civilian health authorities would be put in charge, which is in
part already underway. Notably, the Trudeau government in March had been reviewing the powers contained in the Emergencies Act,
legislation that permits the unfettered use of military and police
powers, in the name of protecting the public from the pandemic.
Despite broad concerns about the safety of the
Snowbird
program, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan proclaims that he is
eager to continue it.[4]
This is a time to draw warranted conclusions about
the nature
of Canada's integration into the U.S. war machine. The military
alliance NORAD is always described as being responsible for the defence
of North America but, like NATO, it is an aggressive military
alliance.
Note
1. Until
recently, we heard that NORAD is the "strongest bi-national
military organization in the world" (and not only military). The
NORAD website openly preens that it defends "the continental
United States" and "the homeland as its sacred mission." NORAD
defines our country as "the Canadian region." NORAD specifically
comes under Northern Command, part of U.S. Homeland Security; its
website boasts that it is the "lead" in the U.S. deployment of
19,000 troops along with 45,000 National Guards. Every state,
three territories and Washington D.C. have activated Army and Air
National Guard personnel. By the U.S. Constitution, all U.S.
military commanders are subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of
the U.S. armed forces, the U.S. President. In fact, this means
that through the NORAD treaty it is Donald Trump who is the
commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces -- the man whom the
media claim the Trudeau policy is different from, or even directed
against!
For an in-depth history, see "62nd anniversary of
NORAD -- The
Demand to Dismantle NORAD Is More Urgent than Ever," TML
Weekly, Supplement, June 2, 2018.
2. Noble
Eagle was launched following
9/11. In a departure from military tradition, the perception
managers took over the naming of the war. Military code names
were originally chosen for reasons of security. In current U.S.
warfare, however, military code names have become "part of the
marketing." Along with Operation Noble Eagle there was Operation
Valiant Strike, Operation Provide Comfort, Operation Enduring
Freedom, Operation Uphold Democracy, Operation Iraqi Freedom and, now, Operation Reassurance, Operation America Strong and
Operation Inspiration.
3.
Referring to the case of the USS Roosevelt, where
some 1,000 sailors tested positive, Scott
Taylor, editor and publisher of Esprit de Corps,
wrote on
April 22, "There is a lesson the Royal Canadian Navy can learn from this
incident, and that is that since we are not at war and the virus
is real, the safety of our sailors must take priority over
operational duties."
"Make personnel safety during coronavirus crisis
the top
priority," he was quoted saying by the Hill Times,
April
22, 2020.
4. As
long ago as 2003, a Department of
National Defence study warned that "With each passing year, the
technical, safety and financial risk associated with extending
the Tutor into its fifth decade and beyond, will escalate. These
risks are significant." Cited by Michael Byers, "Snowbirds --
grounded," National Post, May 12, 2014.
Opposition to Imperialist
Sanctions and Blockades
 
On May 9, as part of an international campaign
calling for
the lifting of sanctions and blockades everywhere, a webinar
sponsored by the U.S.-based Sanctions Kill coalition provided a
platform for representatives of six countries subjected to U.S.
economic sanctions to speak about how this form of warfare is
affecting their countries, in particular their ability to cope
with the COVID-19 pandemic. The webinar was viewed by over 1,000
people from around the world, with another 4,000 watching it
livestreamed on Facebook.
There are 39 of the 193 member states of the
United Nations
currently subjected to economic warfare in the form of unilateral
coercive measures, also referred to as economic sanctions. The
only sanctions considered legal under international law are those
endorsed by the UN Security Council. All others, such as those
the U.S. has put in place unilaterally against more than 30
countries and a host of individuals and organizations under
various pretexts, are in violation of the UN Charter and the norms
of international law and diplomacy. They are illegal and amount
to acts of war aimed at the people of targeted countries, despite
being presented cynically by those who impose and support this
type of coercion as "non-violent" and "peaceful." The U.S.
maintains unilateral coercive measures of different types,
including those that are called comprehensive in that they
broadly target the people in countries or whole regions with whom
almost any kind of U.S.-linked dealings are prohibited. Such
measures currently apply to Iran, Syria, Cuba, the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Crimea.[1]
The U.S. and some of its allies, that include
governments in
Europe and Canada, also apply what they call targeted sanctions
against individuals and entities with whom their citizens,
residents and others inside the country are prohibited from having
financial or other dealings of all sorts. Targeted sanctions also
involve such things as prohibitions on travel to, or the targeted
persons' "inadmissibility" to the country applying the sanctions, the
freezing or seizure of property or assets such individuals or entities
might have in the country, and more.
What Representatives of Sanctioned Countries Had
to Say
Deputy Permanent Representative of Cuba to the UN
Ana Silvia
Rodríguez opened the program. She stated that the economic,
financial and commercial blockade the U.S. has imposed on Cuba
since 1962 has been strengthened by an array of restrictions and
laws signed over the years. Over the past year in particular the
U.S. has stepped up its aggression, targeting the tourism
industry and preventing shipments of fuel, medical equipment and
other supplies necessary to combat the pandemic from reaching
Cuba, she said. Rodríguez said multilateralism and
anti-imperialist solidarity are needed to counter the
blockade.
A statement read on behalf of Dr. Frank Guni, a
representative
of ZANU-PF in North America, said Zimbabwe had been subjected to
unilateral coercive measures aimed at forcing regime change since
2001. Dr. Guni said the U.S. set out to destroy the country's
economy because Zimbabwe's struggle for independence and for the
return of the land to the people represents a bad example for
Namibia and other countries in the region, to the U.S. and others
intent on recolonizing Africa. He said that due to prior
experience in dealing with natural disasters and epidemics,
Zimbabwe has been able to limit the impact of COVID-19. He called
the sanctions against Zimbabwe a declaration of war, adding that
it is "a war we must win."
Nicaraguan Ambassador to the U.S. Francisco
Campbell said the
U.S. was using its international influence to restrict
Nicaragua's access to loans in violation of international law. He
said that in spite of U.S. sanctions impacting Nicaragua's health care
system and ability to deal with COVID-19, the work of its public
health care brigades in communities, implementation of policies
related to social distancing and contact tracing, border control
agreements with neighbouring countries and the assistance
provided by China, Cuba and others had greatly limited the
virus's spread.
Syria's Permanent Ambassador to the United
Nations, Bashar
Ja'afari, pointed out that two billion people -- almost 20 per cent
of humanity -- are affected by unilateral coercive measures right
at a time when combatting the coronavirus pandemic requires all
governments to work cooperatively. Instead, the U.S. and others
following its lead, in applying unilateral coercive measures are
wreaking havoc with people's basic rights to such things as
health care and education, he said. Ja'afari said all Syria's
basic economic sectors are affected by unlawful and illegitimate
sanctions. "The central bank of Syria is unable to access our own
funds, frozen by sanctions and U.S. pressure on international
banks. The sanctions amount to health terrorism, on top of
political, economic, financial, media and military terrorism by
the U.S.," he stated.
Ja'afari said the so-called humanitarian
exemptions granted by
the U.S. Treasury Department were and still are subject to
politicized considerations so that this aid, which he said
includes weapons, is delivered exclusively to areas under the
control of armed terrorist groups.
Ja'afari expressed appreciation for recent
statements made at
the UN Security Council against unilateral coercive measures and
by UN Secretary General António Guterres who called for the
lifting of sanctions, but noted that several draft resolutions
and declarations put foward by "dozens" of UN member states
lacked any reference to Guterres' call because of infiltration by
those he called phony Western humanitarians.
The Deputy Foreign Minister for North America of
the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Carlos Ron, said his country has
been subjected to unilateral coercive measures since 2006 but
that these spiked in 2014 just before Obama issued his spurious
Executive Order of 2015 declaring Venezuela "an unusual and
extraordinary threat to U.S. national security." He also made it
clear that all Venezuela's attempts to import food and medical
products, which the U.S. says are exempt from its sanctions, are in
fact blocked, typically by banks that refuse to receive payments
from Venezuela, given U.S. domination of the international
financial system. As in the case of Syria, Iran and Cuba, he said
the illegal U.S. punitive measures targeted all sectors of
Venezuela's economy. Suppliers either will not sell to Venezuela
fearing penalties from the U.S. or they charge two or three times
the price for their goods. The same applies to insurers of
shipments and shippers.
 Ron said
Venezuela has a case before the International
Criminal Court against the U.S. for its acts of collective
punishment and extermination against the Venezuelan people. He
also denounced the fact that, in the middle of the COVID-19
pandemic, the U.S. was holding its biggest military exercises in
30 years in the Caribbean not far from Venezuela's shores. In the
face of all this, he reported that with the solidarity of Cuba,
China and Russia, assistance from the World Health Organization,
and relying on its personalized public health measures and the
efforts of the people's organizations, Venezuela was successfully
managing the pandemic, administering the most tests per capita in
the region.
Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. Majid
Takht-Ravanchi said the
unilateral coercive measures applied against Iran were the most
drastic ever imposed on a country, inhibiting its ability to
treat those afflicted with COVID-19 despite the high professional
level of Iran's medical personnel. He also emphasized it was
untrue that U.S. sanctions do not apply to medical supplies. He
said the Swiss channel Iran has been using for international
transactions is subject to fierce pressure from the U.S. and that
several medical suppliers recently stopped shipping to Iran
because the U.S. had made it virtually impossible. Everyone fears
accidentally getting caught in the web of the U.S. sanctions
because of the breadth of their reach, he pointed out.
Sanctions Kill has announced that it will sponsor
webinars and
other efforts and actions on sanctions during the COVID-19 crisis
and build toward an International Week of Actions Against
U.S.-Imposed Sanctions and Economic War from May 25-31.
Further information, as well as links to view the webinar, can be
found at sanctionskill.org.
Note
1.
Gibson Dunn, one of
the many law firms that have proliferated around the world to
advise businesses in particular about how to avoid falling afoul
of U.S. unilateral coercive measures of all types, states in its
Year-End Sanctions Update for 2019:
Sanctions
promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of
Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") have become an increasingly
prominent part of U.S. foreign policy under the Trump
administration. For the third year in a row, OFAC blacklisted
more entities than it had under any previous administration,
adding an average of 1,000 names to the Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons ("SDN") List each year -- more than
twice the annual average increase seen under either President
Barack Obama or President George W. Bush. Targets included major
state-owned oil companies such as Petróleos de Venezuela,
S.A.
("PdVSA"), ostensible U.S. allies such as Turkey
(and -- almost -- Iraq), major shipping lines, foreign officials
implicated in allegations of corruption and abuse, drug
traffickers, sanctions evaders, and more. As if one blacklisting
was not enough, some entities had the misfortune of being
designated multiple times under different regulatory
authorities -- each new announcement resulting in widespread media
coverage if little practical impact. At last count, Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ("IRGC") has been sanctioned
under seven separate sanctions authorities. Eager to exert its
own authorities in what has traditionally been a solely
presidential prerogative, in 2019 the U.S. Congress proposed
dozens of bills to increase the use of sanctions. Compounding the
impact of expansive new sanctions, OFAC's enforcement penalties
hit a record of more than U.S.$1.2 billion.
While President Obama described his sanctions
team as his favorite "combatant command" (likening it to the
traditional military forces employed by the United States),
President Trump has truly unleashed the power of OFAC
sanctions -- employing them frequently, quickly, and unilaterally.
The Trump administration announced new sanctions 82 times in
2019 -- eclipsing the previous record set in
2018.
In its update, Gibson Dunn refers to
OFAC's "compliance guidelines" for the sanctions it administers,
showing how the U.S. blockades targeted countries such as Cuba,
Venezuela, Iran and others by taking extraterritorial punitive
measures against non-sanctioned countries and entities for
violating its illegal economic and other sanctions against
countries and individuals it has targeted for attack. These
pernicious measures are also referred to as secondary sanctions.
To avoid penalities for violating U.S. sanctions, OFAC advises
organizations and individuals against such things as
"facilitating transactions by non-U.S. persons; exporting or
re-exporting U.S.-origin goods, technology or services to
OFAC-sanctioned persons or countries; and utilizing non-standard
payment or commercial practices."
Dear Minister François-Philippe
Champagne:
I write to you today to raise concerns with the
particular
situation in Cuba as it struggles to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic while struggling under the unjust and illegal blockade
imposed by the Government of the United States.
 The decades-long
economic, commercial and financial sanctions
have had a significant negative impact on the Cuban economy and,
consequently, have severely damaged the basic living conditions
of the Cuban people. Furthermore, due to their extraterritorial
reach, they affect Cuba's trade and external economic and
financial relations and have a detrimental impact on legitimate
business interests and trade relations of other countries with
Cuba, since these nations try to avoid falling afoul of U.S.
legislation.
On November 7, 2019, for the 28th consecutive
year, the United
Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted by a vote of 187
countries (including Canada) to 3, the Resolution that demands
the United States put an end to the blockade imposed on
Cuba.
However, the United States has ignored this
worldwide demand
and has continued to tighten unilateral sanctions, the effects of
which are felt much more now, when Cuba is fighting the COVID-19
pandemic. The blockade has become a major impediment to
purchasing much-needed medicines, equipment and materials to deal
with the pandemic, as well as to receiving and providing
international aid.
Additionally, the restrictions imposed by the
blockade on
banks, shipping companies and airlines to prevent them from
having any dealings with Cuba hinder the arrival of medical
supplies and donations to the country.
Likewise, the fuel shortage, due to the blockade,
damages the
operation and the rapid response capacity of the national health
system.
In the face of the global pandemic, there have
been outspoken
condemnations of this policy, from, among others, the UN
Secretary-General, who has called for "the waiving of sanctions
imposed on countries to ensure access to food, essential health
supplies, and COVID-19 medical support."
This crisis is a time for solidarity. We call on
the
Government of Canada to work with members of the United Nations
to resolve the U.S. blockade imposed on Cuba.
Sincerely,
Hassan Yussuff, President
Terrorist Attack on Venezuela
Delivered by Samuel Moncada, Permanent
Representative of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United
Nations, May 20, 2020.
 Mr. President,
1. I thank you for convening this meeting to
discuss the
latest events in Venezuela, especially those that occurred on May
3, as well as the imminent threat of an armed attack, an imminent
breach of peace in my country and of all the region if the
aggression continues.
Mr. President,
2. By signing the Charter of the United Nations we
all pledged
to "take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate
threats to peace, suppress acts of aggression or other breaches
of the peace, and achieve by peaceful means, and in accordance
with the principles of justice and international law, the
settlement of disputes or international situations that may lead
to breaches of the peace." Today, this provision has been
violated, with impunity, and with full contempt for the
Charter.
3. In a letter to the Security Council, dated May
13, 2020, we
demonstrated to the world the armed aggression against my
country,[1]
which, according to public and irrefutable evidence
shared at that time, demonstrated that the governments of the
United States of America and the Republic of Colombia provided
planning, training, financing and, still today, they are
protecting groups of mercenaries and terrorists, who carried out
an armed attack with the objective of perpetrating 1)
indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians; 2) selective
murders against high officials of my government; and 3) the
assassination of President Nicolás Maduro.
4. This is an evident violation of the Charter of
the United
Nations, of international law and of multiple resolutions of this
Security Council, which are legally binding on all Member States.
The governments of Colombia and the United States of America
violated their relevant obligations under international law, in
particular those provided for in the following four (04)
resolutions:
a. Security Council resolution 239 (1967), which
condemns any
State that allows or tolerates "the recruitment of mercenaries
and the granting of facilities to them in order to overthrow the
governments of the Member States of the United Nations."
b. Security Council resolution 1269 (1999), in
which States
are called upon to "prevent and suppress in their territories, by
all lawful means, the preparation and financing of any act of
terrorism."
c. Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), in
which it is
decided that all States should refrain from providing any type of
support to entities or persons participating in acts of
terrorism, including by repressing their recruitment and the
supply of weapons to terrorists, and deny asylum to those who
finance, plan, support or commit acts of terrorism.
d. Security Council resolution 1456 (2003), in
which States
are called upon to "provide mutual assistance, to the greatest
extent possible, to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish
acts of terrorism, wherever they occur," while stressing that
"States must bring to justice those who finance, plan, support or
commit acts of terrorism or provide safe haven, in accordance
with international law, in particular on the basis of the principle to
extradite or prosecute."
5. To this day, the governments of the United
States of
America and Colombia continue to deny any assistance and
cooperation to the competent Venezuelan authorities, in order to
establish the facts and avoid impunity by ensuring that those
responsible are brought to justice. As a result,
these governments violate their obligations under existing
bilateral treaties on mutual legal assistance in criminal
matters. Furthermore, as of today, the United States government
continues to provide a safe haven for people who blatantly
claimed to be the leaders of the last armed incursion against
Venezuela.
Mr. President,
6. Today I must report that operations to capture
the
individuals who participated in this armed aggression are
ongoing, as we are aware of the existence of other groups of
mercenaries and terrorists who were trying to carry out their
criminal plans in other regions of our country. In fact, on May
14 there was an attack against our National Water Supply System,
which in addition to constituting a clear violation of Security
Council resolution 2341 (2017) on the protection of critical
infrastructure against terrorist attacks, confirms the veracity
of the public statements of the criminals who remain at large, in
connection with the preparations for a new attack and the
training of new groups of mercenaries and terrorists. All this
occurs while new evidence continues to be obtained that clearly
points to both Washington and Bogotá, as the main
conspirators
behind the aggression.
7. In addition, there are at least three (3)
additional events
of great concern that I must also report today, since they are
part of the continuous and systematic campaign of aggression
against my country:
a. First, on May 13, the United States government
included
Venezuela on an illegal and unilateral list to falsely blame my
country for not cooperating fully with efforts to fight
terrorism. Nothing is more cynical than an accusation of this
type, which comes only days after the perpetration of an armed
attack with mercenaries and terrorists, with the full support
from U.S. government officials and the direct participation of
U.S. citizens and companies. In addition, the next day, on May
14, a senior Trump administration official told Reuters that the
designation as "terrorist organizations" was being considered for
several Venezuelan security agencies. This is an obvious threat
to the peace and security of my country, since the United States
government is trying to fabricate a narrative which, according to
its supremacist notions, declares its national laws as universal,
that it can take "decisive defensive action" and assassinate
high-ranking officials of the Venezuelan security and
intelligence agencies, and, using its propaganda machinery, later
twist the crime to present it as an anti-terrorist operation. It
is a sad fact of our times that the U.S. government hopes to
openly get away with normalizing the illegal murder of top
national officials around the world through the use of brute
force.
b. Second, as we have denounced in previous
letters to the
Security Council, the United States government has openly
admitted that it is pressuring companies to refrain from
supplying gasoline to Venezuela, which has led to the current
shortage that exists today across the country. In this context,
let me pose the following question: What if, in the midst of the
COVID-19 pandemic, New York City was deliberately deprived of
gas? This, undoubtedly, would count as a crime against humanity,
which is precisely what the government of President Donald Trump
is currently perpetrating against thirty (30) million
Venezuelans. Today, coercion is coupled with a new danger: the
threat of the use of military force against five (5) Iranian oil
tankers with fuel that are headed to Venezuela, violating,
among other things, the freedom of commerce and navigation.
Should the threat materialize, it would constitute actual armed
aggression against an Iranian civilian ship and against the
Venezuelan people as a whole. The government of the United States
insists on presenting itself as our "saviour", claiming to be the
"main donor" of humanitarian assistance to Venezuela and now even
dares to accuse our government of obstructing the provision of
U.S. assistance, when the truth is that all those who are willing
to support our country at this time have been able to do so,
through the relevant United Nations agencies.
c. And third, just under a week ago, on May 13,
the
international media revealed the existence of a "Venezuelan
Reconstruction Unit" within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the British Commonwealth, through which conversations were held
between United Kingdom officials, Venezuelan opposition figures
and the conspirators of the recent armed incursion, promoting the
need for guarantees of preferential status to be given to British
companies in my country after the act of aggression was
successfully carried out. This new evidence that has now come to
light, along with the looting of more than $1.7 billion in
Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England, demonstrates once again
that the British government is an opportunistic accomplice in the
colonial looting of Venezuela's riches. Furthermore, British
warships remain outside our territorial waters, in a hostile and
confrontational attitude, along with Dutch, French and U.S.
warships, conveniently disguised as anti-drug operations, but
actually intended to illegally establish a naval blockade against
our nation. The combination of military provocations with
information operations is a repeat of the old plausible denial
trick used in covert aggression.
Mr. President,
8. On December 14, 1974, the General Assembly
unanimously
approved resolution 3314 (XXIX), which defines aggression as "the
use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty,
territorial integrity or political independence of another State,
or in any other way incompatible with the Charter of the United
Nations," and includes as such acts both "the blockade of the
ports or the coasts of one State by the armed forces of another
State" and "the sending by or on behalf of a State, of armed
bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of
armed force against another State." This text, which perfectly
fits the description of the most recent events in Venezuela, also
recognizes that no consideration of whatever nature may serve as
justification for an act of aggression.
9. For this reason, while urging the Security
Council to
fulfill the duties and responsibilities entrusted to it by the
Charter of the United Nations in relation to the maintenance of
international peace and security, we ask it to determine once and
for all not only the threat that the warmongering policies of the
governments of Colombia and the United States of America pose to
the peace of both Venezuela and the entire region, but also to
recognize the acts of aggression that have been committed against
my country and demand that the perpetrators put an immediate end
to their criminal practices, including the use or threat of the
use of force and the commission of new armed attacks, including
through the use of mercenaries and terrorists.
10. The United States government and its allies
are
creating a
lawless space in international relations where they can disregard
their obligations under international law and impose tyrannical,
arbitrary, and colonial practices on the rest of the world. Thus,
the supremacy of their national interest justifies the most
abominable crimes, such as the case of protecting the "good
terrorists and mercenaries" who attacked Venezuela if they serve
the expansion of U.S. power. The Security Council must enforce
the notions of morality and legality in international relations,
under the principle that "no consideration of any nature, be it
political, economic, military or otherwise, can serve as
justification for aggression." That is the only way to promote
peace and security among nations.
11. Today, in the midst of a deadly pandemic that
affects all
of humanity and that requires the full attention of our national
government to protect the lives of our people, we are also facing
an imminent armed attack that, due to its genocidal effects, is
equivalent to a crime against humanity. Given the gravity of the
situation and its potential escalation, the inaction of the
Security Council at this juncture will embolden those governments
to continue with their warmongering and criminal plans, as has
been the case so far, considering the fact that
the Governments of Colombia and the United States have doubled
their aggression against Venezuela, in contempt of international
law and the Charter of the United Nations, and in a demonstration
of its unrepentant and repeated nature.
12. Let me conclude by insisting that our country
does not
pose a threat to anyone and hopes that everyone will learn this
lesson: Venezuela is not for sale, it will never be a colony and
our people, with serenity and determination, will fulfil our duty
to be free.
Thank you very much, Mr. President
Note
1. To
read the Letter to the President of the Security Council from Samuel
Moncada, Permanent Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela to the United Nations, click
here.
(To access articles
individually click on
the black headline.)
PDF
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Website:
www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|
