Written by Communist and Workers` Parties

The 12th International Meeting of Communist and Workers` Parties took place in Tshwane, South Africa from the 3rd to the 5th of December 2010 with theme “The deepening systemic crisis of capitalism. The tasks of Communists in defence of sovereignty, deepening social alliances, strengthening the anti-imperialist front in the struggle for peace, progress and Socialism”.

102 delegates representing 51 participating Parties from 43 countries and from all continents of the world came together in order to take forward the work of our previous meetings, and to promote and develop common and convergent action around a shared perspective

The Deepening Capitalist Crisis

The international situation continues to be dominated by the persisting and deepening crisis of capitalism. This reality confirms the analyses outlined in the declarations in Sao Paulo in 2008 and New Delhi in 2009, the 10th and 11th International Meetings. The current global crisis of capitalism underlines its historical limitations and the need for its revolutionary overthrow. It shows the intensification of the basic contradiction of capitalism between the social character of production and the private capitalist appropriation.

The crisis is systemic – despite pre-2008 capitalist illusions to the contrary – capitalism cannot escape its in-built, systemic tendency to go through cycles of boom and bust. The current global crisis is a particularly severe manifestation of a capitalist downturn occasioned by capitalist over-production.

Now, as in the past, there is no answer, within the logic of capitalism, to these periodic crises other than crisis itself, marked by the massive and socially irrational destruction of assets, including mass job lay-offs, factory closures, and the wholesale attack on wages, pensions, social security and erosion of people`s livelihoods. This is why, at our previous two meetings, we correctly asserted that the current crisis was not merely attributable to subjective failings, to the greed of bankers or financial speculators. It remains a crisis embedded in the systemic features of capitalism itself.

The persisting crisis is compounded by significant shifts in the international balance of forces. In particular, there is the on-going relative decline of US economic global hegemony, general productive stagnation in most advanced capitalist economies, and the emergence of new global economic powers, notably China.

The crisis has intensified the competition between the imperialist centres and also between the established and emerging powers. This includes the US-led currency war; the concentration and centralization of economic and political power within the EU deepening its character as an imperialist block led by its main capitalist powers; a distinct sharpening of the inter-imperialist struggle for markets and access to raw materials; expanding militarism, including the strengthening of aggressive alliances (for example, the NATO Lisbon Summit with its “new” dangerous strategic concept), the profusion of regional points of tension and aggression (notably in the Middle East, Asia and Africa), coups in Latin America, the intensification of neo-imperialist tendencies of fanning ethnic conflicts and the increasing militarization of Africa through, amongst other things, AFRICOM.

At the same time it has become clear that capitalism`s trajectory with its profit-maximising, headlong destruction of natural resources, and of the environment in general poses a grave threat to the sustainability of human civilization itself. The political elites in the dominant capitalist states with their various proposals for “green technologies” and carbon trading at best represent adjustments which increase the profitability of capital while deepening the commodification of nature, and the transfer of climate change crises onto less developed countries. The crisis of the capitalist system that we face as humankind is directly linked to capitalism`s inability to reproduce itself except through a voracious pursuit of compound growth. It is a crisis that can only be overcome through the abolition of capitalism itself.

Faced with these realities, everywhere capital fights back, seeking to preserve profits and to transfer the burden of its crisis onto the working class by intensifying exploitation based on gender and age, the urban and rural poor, and a wide range of middle strata. Exploitation is intensified, the state is used to rescue private bankers and financial houses while exposing future generations to unsustainable levels of debt, and there are intensified efforts to roll back social gains.

In the entire capitalist world, labour, social, economic, political and social security rights are being abolished. At the same time the political systems are being made more reactionary, restricting democratic and civil liberties, especially trade union rights. The retrenchments, including major spending cuts in the public sector are having a devastating impact on workers, especially women workers. There are also attempts to divert popular distress and insecurity into reactionary demagogy, racism and xenophobia, as well as to legitimise fascist forces. These are expressions of anti-democratic and authoritarian tendencies also marked by the escalation of anti-communist attacks and campaigns in many parts of the world. In Africa, Asia and Latin America we are witnessing the imposition on our peoples of new mechanisms of national and class oppression, including economic, financial, political and military means as well as the deployment of an array of pro-imperialist NGOs.

However, for the mass of peoples, in particular in Africa, Asia and Latin America, it is important to remember that, even before the current global economic crisis, life under capitalism was a continuing crisis, a daily struggle for bare survival. Even before the current global crisis, one billion people were living in squalid slums, and half of the world’s population was surviving on less than $2 a day. With the crisis these realities have been massively aggravated.

Most of these urban and rural poor, along with family members working as vulnerable migrants in foreign countries, are the displaced victims of the accelerated capitalist agrarian development under way in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Global capitalism, spearheaded by the major corporations in the agro-industrial sector, has declared war on nearly one-half of humanity – the three billion remaining rural people in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

At the same time inhuman barriers are being set up against immigrants and refugees. There is an ever-increasing mushrooming of urban and semi-urban slums populated by desperate marginalised masses typically involved in a variety of activities for survival. The accelerated capitalist agrarian transformation in countries with a lower level of capitalist development has genocidal implications.

The Importance of Resistance Struggles of the Working Class and Popular Forces

Across the world, capital’s attempts to load the burden of the crisis onto workers and the poor is being met by working class and popular resistance.

Over the past year the anti-people assault on labour rights, social-security rights and wages provoked an escalation of popular struggles notably in Europe.

Imperialist aggression in the Middle East, Asia and Latin America continues to meet resolute popular resistance.

In Africa and Latin America, anti-imperialist forces, trade unions, and social movements have escalated their struggles for the rights of the people and against the plunder by the multinational corporations. These struggles have, in some cases, led to the emergence of progressive, popular national governments that declare programmatically for national sovereignty, social rights, development and for the protection of their natural resources and biodiversity, giving renewed impetus to the anti-imperialist struggle.

In the current reality, it is an historic imperative that as Communist and Workers’ Parties we participate, to strengthen and transform these popular defensive battles into offensive struggles for the acquisition of broader workers’ and people rights and for the abolition of capitalism.

In advancing this strategic agenda, communists stress the significance that the organisation of the working class, and the development of the struggles of the labour movement in a class-oriented direction, have in the struggle for the acquisition of political power by the working class and its allies.

Within the framework of this struggle we attach particular importance to:
• The defense, consolidation and advance of popular national sovereignty
• The deepening of social alliances
• Strengthening the anti-imperialist front for peace, for the right to full-time stable work, labour rights and social rights such as free health and education.

The Defense, Consolidation and Advance of Popular Sovereignty

In the face of the intensified aggression of transnational capital, the struggle against imperialist occupation of countries, against economic and political dependency and to defend popular sovereignty has become increasingly salient. In these struggles it is important for communists to integrate these struggles with the struggle for social and class emancipation.

Communists, fighting against imperialism, struggle for equitable international relations between states and peoples on the basis of mutual benefit.

The defence, consolidation and advance of popular sovereignty is of particular importance in Africa and for other peoples that have experienced decades and even centuries of colonial and semi-colonial oppression. 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the commencement of the formal de-colonisation of Africa. Yet everywhere, including in the African diaspora, the grim legacy of the slave-trade, of colonial dispossession and plunder persist. Notwithstanding 50 years of formal de-colonisation, everywhere imperialist interventions are reinforced, the dominance of the monopolies is being strengthened with the aid of domestic capital. The struggle against them requires active protagonists and the unity of the popular masses, and the broadening of popular democratic rights.

Deepening Social Alliances

The ongoing crisis of capitalism and its anti-civilisation fight-back are creating the conditions to build broad social, anti-monopolistic and anti-imperialist alliances capable of gaining power and promoting deep, progressive, radical, and revolutionary changes.

Working class unity is a fundamental factor in ensuring the construction of effective social alliances with the peasantry, the mass of urban and rural poor, the urban middle class strata and intellectuals. Particular attention needs to be paid to the aspirations of, and challenges confronting youth.

The land question, agrarian reform and rural development are important issues for the development of popular struggle in lesser developed countries. These are inextricably linked to food sovereignty and security, sustainable livelihoods, the defence of bio-diversity, the protection of national resources, and the struggle against agro-industrial monopolies and their local agents.

In these struggles, the legitimate and progressive aspirations of indigenous peoples in defence of their cultures, languages and environments have an important role.

The Role of Communists in Strengthening the Anti-Imperialist Front for Peace, Environmental Sustainability, Progress and Socialism

Imperialism’s crisis and counter-offensive are leading to the broadening and diversification of the forces that objectively assume a patriotic and anti-imperialist stand. Everywhere, in our diverse national realities, Communists have a responsibility to broaden and strengthen the anti-imperialist political and social front, the struggles for peace, environmental sustainability, progress, and integrate them in the fight for socialism. The independent role of Communists and the strengthening of the Communist and Workers’ parties is of vital importance to ensure a consistent anti-imperialist perspective of broader movements and fronts.

Special attention must be given to the existing relation between various resistance struggles and the necessary ideological offensive for the visibility of the alternative of socialism and to the defence and development of scientific socialism. The ideological struggle of the communist movement is of vital importance in order to repulse contemporary anti-communism, to confront bourgeois ideology, anti-scientific theories and opportunist currents which reject the class struggle, and combat the role of social democratic forces that defend and implement anti-people and pro-imperialist policies by supporting the strategy of capital. We have a key role to play in drawing the critical links in theory and above all in practice between different arenas of popular struggle in the development of internationalist class solidarity.

We are living in an historic epoch in which the transition from capitalism to socialism has become a civilisational imperative. The all-round crisis of capitalism once more underlines the inseparable nature of the tasks of national liberation and social, national and class emancipation.

In the face of deepening capitalist crisis, the experiences of socialist construction demonstrate the conditions of the superiority of socialism.

The strengthening of the cooperation among Communist and Workers` Parties and the strengthening of the anti-imperialist front, should march side by side.

We, the Communist and Workers` parties meeting in Tshwane, in a situation marked by a massive onslaught against workers and popular forces, but also with many possibilities for the development of the struggle, express our profound solidarity with workers and peoples and their intense struggles, reiterating our determination to act and struggle side by side with working masses, youth, women, and all popular sectors that are victims of capitalist exploitation and oppression.

We reaffirm our appeal to the widest range of popular forces to join us in a common struggle for socialism which is the only alternative for the future of humankind.

We point to the following main axes for the development of our joint and convergent actions:
1. With the capitalist crisis deepening, we will focus on the development of workers’ and peoples’ struggles for labour and social rights, the strengthening of the trade-union movement and its class orientation; the promotion of the social alliance with peasants and the other popular strata. Particular attention will be given to the problems of women and youth who are among the first victims of the capitalist crisis.

2. In the face of the all-round imperialist aggression and the sharpening of the inter-imperialist rivalries, we will intensify the anti-imperialist struggle for peace, against imperialist wars and occupation, against the dangerous “new” NATO strategy and foreign military bases, and for the abolition of all nuclear weapons. We will extend active internationalist solidarity with all people and movements facing and resisting oppression, imperialist threats and aggression.

3. We will resolutely fight anticommunism, anti-communist laws, measures and persecution; to demand the legalisation of CPs where outlawed. We will defend the history of the communist movement, the contribution of socialism in advancing human civilisation.

4. We affirm our solidarity with the forces and peoples engaged in and striving for socialist construction. We reaffirm our solidarity with the Cuban people and their socialist revolution, and we will continue vigorously to oppose the blockade and to support the international campaign for the release of the Cuban Five.

5. We will contribute, within the specific context of our national realities, to the reinforcement of international anti-imperialist mass organizations like WFTU (World Federation of Trade Unions), WPC (World Peace Council), WFDY (World Federation of Democratic Youth), and WIDF (Women’s International Democratic Federation). We particularly welcome and salute the 17th World Festival of Youth and Students to be held in South Africa from 13th-21st December 2010.

by Henry Lowendorf

International Conference: Yes to Peace – No to NATO
Lisbon, 2010 November 19
Presentation from the United States Peace Council
Henry Lowendorf

Introduction. The U.S. Peace Council thanks the Portuguese Council for Peace and
Cooperation for today’s opportunity to participate in the major actions for peace it has
organized this week.

The U.S. Peace Council joins the call of the World Peace Council for the immediate
abolition of NATO.

A triumphant United States created NATO in 1949 in order to advance the threat and
spread the expense of its expanding empire. The U.S. directs NATO on behalf of the
financial institutions, the weapons manufacturers, petroleum giants and other
transnational corporations. With NATO’s expansion eastward to absorb more member
countries U.S. imperialism hopes to more ably dominate the globe. This week in Lisbon
the U.S., in a much weakened position economically and politically, urgently seeks
NATO member states to take up the burden of imperialism that it can no longer afford.
A major step forward will be the popular demand to dismantle NATO altogether.
Military extensions of imperialism. The U.S. drew NATO countries into the wars on
Afghanistan and Iraq, and Yugoslavia before that. The militarists are prepared to occupy
Afghanistan and Iraq indefinitely. The people pay with hundreds of thousands dead,
millions wounded, millions forced to flee home, increased civil violence and despoiled
environments. These bloody wars of occupation are waged to control petroleum reserves
and pipeline routes in the oil-rich Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. They are
fought to extend the ring of military bases around Russia and to close in on China. The
thousand U.S. military bases on every continent threaten the national sovereignty of host
and neighboring countries. That the people of many NATO member countries have
forced their governments into recalling military forces from Afghanistan and Iraq is a
welcome step. This step forces the superpower to use its own diminishing resources to
fund its imperial dreams. Let us make sure that this step is not reversed. The U.S. Peace
Council joins the global majority by demanding that the occupations of Iraq and
Afghanistan end now, that all foreign troops and mercenaries be sent home now.
NATO’s agreement to target Iran with economic sanctions and threats of nuclear attack is
part of the undisguised plot to plant additional subservient governments, steal Iran’s
petroleum and install more military bases. Supporting the global network to close all
foreign military bases and shutting down NATO are key elements in fighting
imperialism. We insist that military threats against any country end now.
A major piece of the Pentagon scheme for first-strike capability and what it calls “full
spectrum dominance” is to place weapons in space. Already space satellites are being
used to direct drone attacks against targets in South Asia.

The so-called “missile defense” is part of this first-strike scheme. NATO countries that
agree to install such “missile defense” systems become parties to the Pentagon’s first
strike aggressions over which they will have no determination. They will become parties
to a new arms race that will absorb their resources and youth. They will be advancing
imperialist exploitation to their own and others’ detriment. We call on the people of
Europe and everywhere to forthrightly reject “missile defense.”

In 2009 President Obama announced that the U.S. would lead the effort to abolish nuclear
weapons. But then he dramatically increased the budget for nuclear weapons factories.
Building more nuclear weapons violates the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty. Testing
nuclear-ready InterContinental Ballistic Missiles violates the NPT. The U.S. nuclear deal
with India violates the NPT. We must shout, “End these violations!” To obtain favors and
to support the vast armaments industry, the Obama administration is circling the globe
selling advanced weaponry, thus inflaming the prospects for war. Weapons sales, made in
America, are number one in the world. We join vast humanity in demanding that the U.S.
immediately remove its nuclear weapons from other countries and that the nuclearweapons
states agree on a convention to promptly and totally abolish all nuclear
weapons. We call on an end to the arms trade.

TURNING INWARD

Imperialism has scattered millions of victims over the planet. Among them are the people
of the United States of America. The U.S. empire is threatened by Latin America’s
independent development and its resistance to continued imperial penetration. A
militarist, profit-hungry few are driving the U.S. economy into a deeper ditch even as it is
apparent that other, fast growing economies are quickly recovering from the current
“global” economic crisis or have avoided it altogether. As a result, the financial and
corporate elites are more and more leveling their gun sights on the U.S. population.
Economic crisis. The economic crisis was catalyzed by overwhelming debt, personal,
corporate and national1. One-tenth percent of the U.S. population is bulging with wealth,
while 31 million workers are unemployed or underemployed. Two thirds of the
unemployed receive no compensation2. 42 million people, one in 7 households, receive
food subsidies3. Nearly 60 million people lacked health care coverage for all or part of a
year or more4. When fully implemented, the modest health care legislation signed into
law by President Obama last spring would eventually provide coverage to about half
those currently excluded. Yet many Congressional winners of the recent midterm election
vow to bury health care and additionally intend to slash pensions and medical care for the
elderly and very poor that the people’s struggles created over the last 75 years. In place of
this safety net they propose more tax cuts for millionaires.

Infrastructure crisis.

Imperialism has parasitized the infrastructure of the United States.
Dams, bridges, roads, railroads, water and schools are crumbling and desperately need
repair or replacement5. The United States is the most profligate abuser of energy in the
world. Conservation of energy and conversion of generating sources away from burning
petroleum to environmentally sustainable models is painfully needed but is barred by the
transnational fossil-fuel industries. Millions of jobs are waiting to be done. In order to fill
those jobs, however, the people must starve the war machine and tax the rich.

Going forward.

The existing peace organizations alone are not currently strong enough
to turn the U.S. and its NATO allies toward peace. It is critical that we work in unity with
one another, with broad alliances of labor, human rights, and environmental
organizations to create the kind of political pressure needed for essential change. In that
alliance is the possibility of finally terminating imperialism and reversing course toward a
peaceful world.

We salute the Portuguese Peace Council for its work in creating such alliances and in
organizing the events of this weekend. We are inspired by your enlightened example.

La luta continua!

Obrigado.

1 In order to accelerate their accumulation of wealth, corporations for the last 40 years have taken huge
profits from improved productivity. They have not raised real wages and workers are required to increase
family working hours and amass debt. Government starting with President Ronald Reagan reduced taxes on the rich in favor of borrowing from them, dramatically expanding government debt. The U.S. has become a debtor nation.
2 Art Perlo et al. “Program for Jobs in a green, productive, people before profits, economy for the
21st century.” 31 million workers is 20% of the workforce. The unemployment figures hide even
higher rates for Black and Latino workers, and still higher figures for youth.
3 http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/11/04/some-14-of-us-uses-food-stamps/ The
population using food stamps has increased 50% in the last 3 years.
4 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40098643/ns/health-health_care Nearly 60 million people
lacked health care coverage part of the year and half of that number lack coverage for a year or more.
Fifteen million of these have serious chronic ailments, asthma, high blood pressure and diabetes.
5 http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

via People’s Solidarity for Social Progress

The peace movement must gather its strength to oppose all further actions that threaten the peaceful existence of the Korean people.

24 November 2010

Policy Committee

People’s Solidarity for Social Progress

http://www.pssp.org/eng/?p=169

On November 23 at 2:34pm North Korea fired more than a hundred artillery shells in the vicinity of Yeongpyeong-do, an Island of the west coast of the Korean peninsula that is home to roughly 1,300 South Korean citizens. Many of the artillery rounds landed on Yeongpyeong-do in an area populated by civilians. The South Korean military responded, firing roughly 80 of their own shells. The back-and-forth, which lasted over an hour, left two South Korean marines and two civilians dead, and fires burning across the island.

The South Korean government, while stating it will do its utmost to stop the situation from escalating, has, at the same time, promised a resolute response in the event of further provocation. North Korea, broadcasting its official position on the incident through the Korean Central News Agency on the evening of the 23rd, claimed that the South had persisted with artillery exercises in North Korean territorial waters despite repeated warnings, and that the North had, therefore, “responded with an immediate and forceful attack.” It also promised to “respond without hesitation with a continuous merciless military attack” if South Korea intrudes “even 0.001 mm” into North Korean territorial waters.

This incident reveals clearly the tragic nature of South and North Korea’s on-going military standoff and spiraling antagonistic actions, a conflict that affects, not only the Korean peninsula, but the entire region, stimulating militarization by neighboring countries and thus escalating tensions in the entire East Asian region. North Korea’s shelling of a civilian area cannot, in the end, be justified. At the same time, was must recognize this incident as a demonstration of the extreme extent to which the conflict between North and South Korea has escalated, egged on by a policy of antagonism and supposedly defensive military training staged by the South. The South’s antagonistic policies and military exercises must be halted immediately.

The Tragic Result of Aggressive Military Exercises

Based on reports by the Korean Central News Agency, it appears that the North’s artillery attack was a response to South Korean maritime artillery drills carried out as part of “national defense” military training. The South Korean military began these exercises on November 22, and they were scheduled to go on until November 30.

According to news reports, immediately after the plan for national defense exercises was announced, the North Korean Committee for Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland issued a statement referring to the exercises as a “military provocation” and again on the 22nd, referred to them as an “intolerable criminal action against the Korean people.” After the exercises began, the North again sent a memo of protest to the South suggesting that the drills were being carried out with an attack on the North in mind and demanding that they be stopped.

South Korean military authorities responded to reports of these warnings sent by the North by claiming that that the shelling was not a response to national defense exercises, but rather a planned provocation. They added that the drills carried out in the waters around Yeonpyeong-do on the 23rd were regular periodic exercises, not national defense training, and that the North had simply used them as a pretext to attack.

Even if we are to believe this explanation, it is clear that the military authorities on both sides acknowledge that the South’s military exercises are a strong stimulant to the North. In addition, even if the drills were not national defense drills, this does not change the fact that they included artillery practice in the waters right next to North Korea. The farthest distance from North Korean territory to Yeonpyeong-do is less than 12 km. Joint army-navy artillery exercises were carried out on the 23rd is an area directly south of Yeonpyeong-do. Carrying out “periodic” shelling right in North Korea’s front door is unjustifiable, and is clearly a threat.

The South has consistently carried out aggressive military training since the Cheonan incident. Military authorities have clearly stated that these exercises are a “show of force” against North Korea, which have including joint training with the U.S. involving an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and PSI maritime interception drills carried out with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Our peace movement has continuously warned that these military exercises not only cannot prevent a war but, in fact, provoke the deepening of military competition among neighboring countries and an escalation of tensions. The current South Korean national defense exercises, in which the United State participates, were begun as the replaced for the Team Spirit War Games, which North Korea protested strongly in the past. Currently on-going exercises are scheduled to include amphibious landing drills. Such landing drills are carried out in an area that approximates the North Korean coastline and, as such, have been criticized as actually being practice for an invasion against the North and been the target of intense opposition by the North. Nonetheless, joint military exercises involving the United State’s nuclear-powered aircraft carrier began on November 28. This move represents a denial of the central role similar military exercises have had in escalating tensions on the peninsula and threatens to further deteriorate the situation to a state of crisis.

The Vicious Cycle of Militarize Response

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has responded by announcing that the rules of engagement for the South Korean armed forces have been changed to allow for a more forceful response to North Korea, while the conservative South Korean media is calling for armed revenge. These are highly troubling developments.

The governments of both South Korea and the United States have demonstrated their plans to escalate militarized pressure on North Korea several times well before the Yeonpyeong-do incident. The joint communiqué from the recent U.S.-ROK Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), for instance, made the first reference to a “state of instability” in North Korea, clearly suggesting the two government’s intentions to intervene in the event of an emergency situation. Such a measure would mean the actualization of the scenario called for in OPLAN 5029, in which the U.S. and South Korea use joint military force to destroy facilities housing weapons of mass destruction in 30 places in North Korea and land marines on North Korean territory in the event of instability arising during a transfer of power. What is more, on November 22, South Korean Minister of Defense Kim Tae-yeong told the National Assembly that the new Proliferation Policy Committee, established at the recent SCM, would consider the possibility of redeploying American tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. These statements show clearly that the U.S. and South Korean seek to respond to rising tension on the peninsula through military means only.

U.S. and South Korean military operation plans that aim at attacking or occupying North Korea, the aggressive military exercises that aim to make these plans realizable and ceaseless military build-up all only serve to make peace on the Korean peninsula more distant and plant the seeds for the explosion of an even more dangerous incident. An aggressive response on one side of the border only becomes the basis for an even more aggressive response on the other, with the situation escalating in a disastrous chicken fight. We must wake up to the simple fact that in a chicken fight there are only two possible conclusions: One side gives up first or both are destroyed.

The Need for a Mechanism to Stop North-South Military Clashes

The West Sea is becoming a powder keg capable of driving the whole Korean peninsula into a state of crisis. Three have been numerous military clashes in the area, including three in June 1999, June 2002 and June 2009 that led to dozens of casualties. These clashes continue to occur because of conflict over the military demarcation line in the West Sea, which North and South Korea have never agreed upon. The Armistice Agreement concluded in 1953 set the terrestrial border between the two sides, but did not designate a corresponding border in the nearby waters. No agreement on this line was reached in the aftermath of the armistice. The South sees the Northern Limit Line (NLL) it set unilaterally as the legitimate boundary, while the North has set a different border it refers to as the West Sea Military Demarcation Line. South Korea’s responses to any movement by the North across the NLL as if they were a provocation only deepens the conflict, as do statements by the North that it will response to an intrusion of even 0.001 mm across the South Sea Military Demarcation Line with a “continuous merciless military attack.”

Repetitive clashes between North and South Korea make it impossible for the two sides to develop even a basic level of trust and only induce increasingly aggressive responses.

The creation of an institutionalized mechanism for de-escalation is urgently necessary. Efforts must be made to supplement the Armistice Agreement and a set a military demarcation line to which both sides can agree. Concrete and diverse actions must be taken by both sides to develop basic mutual trust before the ultimate conclusion of a peace treaty is possible. It is time that we put our collective wisdom towards developing means to protect the peaceful existence of the people of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korean Attack’s is not Justifiable

The Yoenpyeong-do incident demonstrates that the chicken fight occurring on the Korean Peninsula has taken on an even more brutal form. This is the first time since the end of the Korean War that either side as made a direct attack on the other’s territory

No matter the circumstances, it is not possible to condone a military action that threatens common people’s peaceful existence and steals away lives. As such, we cannot justify North Korea’s shelling of an area populated by civilians. We must state clearly that such military actions cannot be repeated in the future. This is the stance that all people who wish for peace on the Korean Peninsula must take.

The Need for a United Peace Movement

Conflict on the Korean Peninsula has implications for the security of not only North and South Korea, but all of East Asia. We are gravely concerned about the state of tension in the East Asian region due to disputes among neighboring countries over the resources, territory and hegemony of China, Japan and Russia. We are concerned that further conflicts on the Korean Peninsula will only exacerbate this situation. As such, we will resolutely oppose any action that stimulates military tensions on and around the peninsula by even 1%. We cannot allow the Korean people’s lives to be held hostage to a deadly chicken fight. We must choose a future for ourselves that is free of military conflict.

The Yeonpyeong-do incident has showed us the following things: 1) The Korean Peninsula is engulfed in a state of instability in which military clashes can occur at any time. 2) These military clashes are taking more and more severe forms 3) ‘National defense’ exercises and mutual policies of antagonism cannot lead to peace. 4) This situation has and will continue to lead to the loss of life.

We must use this incident as a chance to stop North and South Korea’s antagonistic policies towards one another and move towards the establishment of a peace regime. Let us be clear about just how destructive and terrible antagonistic and threatening military actions are. In order to prevent a war of mutual destruction we must begin by building a movement in South Korea against all the stimulants to military tensions. In other words, we must build a movement calling for arms reductions, an end to aggressive military exercises and dissolution of the U.S.-ROK defense alliance.

Will our future be that of a peaceful Korean Peninsula or a peninsula engulfed by the smoke of artillery fire? The answer to this question lies in whether we mobilize under the banner of peace, or allow the South Korean government to continue to respond with antagonistic policies and shows of force. We must resolutely denounce the logic of aggressive militarize response and unite in a powerful peace movement that can build a peace regime and protect the peaceful existence of the Korean people.

http://www.pssp.org/eng/?p=169

http://www.endthekoreanwar.org/index.php

Action Alert – ONLINE DEMONSTRATION for Peace in Korea – Sun 11/28 and

Wed 12/1

President Obama is sending the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington (carrying 75 warplanes and a crew of over 6000) and other warships for additional war-games with the South Korean military beginning this Sunday, November 28.

This only escalates the already tense situation on the Korean peninsula and brings us dangerously closer to an all-out war.

And the blogosphere is already full of hate-mongering rhetoric calling for “retaliation” after the tragic incident on Yeonpyong Island earlier this week.

Two civilians and two South Korean soldiers have died. We say NO MORE LOST LIVES.

We need all those who stand for peace to call for de-escalation on the Korean peninsula and an immediate end to the U.S.-South Korean war games.

On Sunday, November 28, from 12 noon to 3 pm EST (9 am to 12 noon PST)

and Wednesday, December 1 from 7 pm to 10 pm EST (4pm to 7 pm PST)

Join the National Campaign to End the Korean War (www.endthekoreanwar.org) in a coordinated “online demonstration” -

1. Barrage the White House and State Department with emails and urge President Obama and State Secretary Clinton to immediately stop the joint U.S.-South Korean war maneuvers, and sign a Peace Treaty to end the state of war that has existed for sixty years on the Korean peninsula- http://www.whitehouse.gov/contacthttp://contact-us.state.gov/

2. Post replies on online media sites and blogs where they are discussing the issue and beat back the war-mongering rhetoric with calls for de-escalation and a peaceful resolution. Refer to the attached factsheet for talking points. Some suggested sites are -

www.cnn.com

www.nytimes.com

www.washingtonpost.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.npr.org

www.bbc.co.uk

www.news.yahoo.com

www.voanews.com

www.abcnews.go.com

www.foreignpolicy.com

3. Post links to articles calling for diplomacy on listserves, blogs, facebook, twitter -

• “North Korea’s Consistent Message to the U.S.” By former President Jimmy Carter in the Washington Post, November 24, 2010http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112305808.html

• “Retaliation, Retaliation” by Paul Liem of the Korea Policy Institute, Nov 25, 2010 http://www.kpolicy.org/

• “Crisis in Korea?” by John Feffer, Co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus in the Huffington Post, Nov 23,2010http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/crisis-in-korea_b_787639.html

• Tim Shorrock Posted on the Daily Beast.http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-24/korea-standoff-barack-obama-only-has-one-choice/?cid=hp%3Amainpromo1

• Tim Shorrock on Democracy Nowhttp://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_north

• “A Return Trip to North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Complex” By Siegfried S. Heckerhttp://www.nautilus.org/publications/essays/napsnet/reports/a-return-trip-to-north-korea2019s-yongbyon-nuclear-complex

• “Review U.S. Policy toward North Korea” Bob Carlin and John Lewishttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112102276.html

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/ (blog)

Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth. ~Henry David Thoreau

CP of Greece, The CP of China and its strategic dialogues with PASOK and the Socialist International [En., Ru.]
————————————————-
From: Communist Party of Greece, Monday, 22 November 2010
http://inter.kke.gr , mailto:cpg@int.kke.gr
==================================================

The CP of China and its strategic dialogues with PASOK and the Socialist International

Comment of the Newspaper «Rizospastis”-Organ of the CC of the KKE (19/12/2010)

It is well-known that the KKE has come to the conclusion that capitalist relations are developing in China today, with the peculiarity that this is happening under the political leadership of the governing party which bears the title “communist”.

The consequences of this development are well-known: the elevation of China to the top of the countries with the fastest rates of capitalist development and the largest number of billionaires, the abolition of important workers’ gains, such as free health care and education, which the workers have to now pay for, and the existence of millions of unemployed and low-paid workers.

It was not by accident, then, that Liu Jieyi, Deputy Director of the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, in his meeting (16/11) with G. Papandreou, Greek Prime minister and President of PASOK and the Socialist International stated that ” The relationship between PASOK and the Communist Party of China is exceptional and we have every intention of working more closely together, in order to promote our inter-party relations and through inter-party dialogue to reinforce the exceptional strategic cooperation between our two countries, especially now as we face many challenges”. Liu Jieyi did not forget to congratulate G. Papandreou on the “excellent election results”. It could not be otherwise, as the political representatives of the monopolies (such as COSCO), regardless of their packaging, (“socialist” in Greece or “communist” in China), understand their common class interests.

The anti-people choices of the PASOK government are saluted and supported by Chinese officials, as long as they are combined with the opening of the road for the Chinese monopolies.

But as we learned from Liu Jieyi, the “love” of the CPC is not only reserved for “socialist” PASOK but for the whole Socialist International. As he himself said: “We are of the opinion that the continuation of coordination and the exchange of views are important, as is the strategic dialogue between the Socialist International and the Communist Party of China. We have every intention of continuing this dialogue further, because as we discovered in the meetings over the last two days, there are many points of agreement between the Socialist International and the political orientation of the Communist Party of China.”

We should remember that this “International” supported the wars of the USA and NATO, and is a political pillar of support for the exploitative capitalist system in Europe and the entire world.

After all this, one may well wonder that maybe the CP China is getting ready to abandon its last “fig-leaf”-its title?

CP of the Russian Federation, G.Zyuganov”s Article about NATO
————————————————-
From: Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Wednesday, 17 November 2010
http://www.kprf.ru , mailto:zabirov@duma.gov.ru
==================================================

Gennady Zyuganov
Chairman CC CPRF

NATO: Wolf in a Sheep’s Skin

Why should Russia join the North Atlantic Alliance?

Against the background of the global crisis into which Russia was sucked deeper than other leading countries dangerous new phenomena can be observed in the policy of our country’s leadership. I am referring to plans of further sell-off of strategic enterprises, commercialization of education, healthcare and culture and the drive to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.

Recently, the long stalled negotiations on Russia’s entry into NATO were suddenly resumed. Pro-government experts and journalists are at pains to prove that it is a necessary step. Chairman of the Board of the Modern Development Institute (INSOR), Mr Yurgens, publicly aired the idea of dragging Russia into NATO at an international forum in Yaroslavl in September. The Chairman of INSOR’s Board of Trustees is the Russian President. Could it mean that Mr Yurgens launched his initiative with a nod from the Presidential Administration? The Russian President himself intends to take part in the NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19-20. During a recent meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, Dmitry Medvedev said that the Lisbon meeting would not only “give a fresh start to the relations between NATO and Russia but will mark modernization of the mutual relations”. There is nothing new about these “fresh starts”. The road to rapprochement with the West on capitulation terms was opened by Mikhail Gorbachev with his “universal human values”. Flirting with the US and its allies had dire consequences for our country. However, Russian leaders have failed to draw any lessons from that.

Yeltsin agreed to the first wave of NATO expansion towards the Russian borders. He backed NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia, our own ally in Europe. But towards the end of Yeltsin’s rule it became clear that the “partners” had been cynically leading us by our noses. Incensed, Yeltsin sanctioned the famous march of a Russian airborne troops company towards Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, but that was it. Before long Mr Putin started everything from scratch.

One of the first steps of the new President was to have the State Duma ratify the infamous START-II Treaty that could lead to the dismantling of our heavy missiles. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces were only saved because the US Congress refused to ratify the Treaty. The Russian authorities then gave a virtual consent to the second wave of NATO expansion, this time to the Baltic countries. Soon, under the pretext of taking part in an international anti-terrorist coalition, Mr Putin effectively contributed to the establishment of NATO bases in Central Asia. Simultaneously vital Russian bases on Cuba and in Vietnam were liquidated.

However, after six years of tireless efforts aimed at strengthening the relations with NATO, Mr Putin suddenly discovered that the West did not intend to reciprocate but continued to present ever new demands, threatening to take the Russian leadership to international court over its war in Chechnya. So in February 2007 the Russian President delivered his famous anti-NATO Munich speech in which he expressed profound indignation over the perfidy of the “partners”. Now President Medvedev is being egged on to follow the same path. Some major preparatory steps have been taken on the eve of NATO’s Lisbon session. Another “disarmament” treaty with the US has been signed. Moscow has backed tougher sanctions against Iran and tore up the contract to supply defensive anti-aircraft systems to Teheran. Some ill-advised verbal attacks were made on North Korea. The relations with Belarus were aggravated without any cause. A big gift was presented to Norway, the closest US NATO ally, which was given control over large parts of the Barents Sea over which our country has never recognized foreign sovereignty. Now it looks as if the relations between Russia and NATO are going to be taken to a new level as a step towards joining that aggressive bloc.

NATO: From European to Global Policeman

It will be recalled that the Alliance was created on April 4, 1949 allegedly to protect Europe against an invasion of the “Red hordes” from the East. And yet one of NATO’s leaders admitted at the time that the bloc’s true aim was “to keep America in, Germany down and Russia out”.
The Soviet Union has been destroyed. It would seem that there was no reason for NATO to exist any more. But the alliance lives on and indeed is expanding and building up its muscle. The true meaning of the preservation of NATO was highlighted by the brazen interventions against friendly Yugoslavia and then in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became clear that NATO is still an instrument that promotes the global ambitions of the US and its allies. As a matter of fact Western strategists agree that NATO’s role is growing.
The balance of forces in the world is changing rapidly. In 1999 when the NATO members enthusiastically adopted a new Strategic Concept which turned NATO from a defensive European alliance into an offensive bloc with a world-wide zone of action there was no resistance to this, and it had never been expected. Russia lay in the ruins of “reforms”, while China had yet to assert its political and economic might.

Today, as the crisis has shown, the writ of the world oligarchy whose centers are North America and Europe, is shrinking. Under the influence of Communist China the countries of Asia, whose role until recently has been to supply natural resources and cheap labour for Europe and the US, are emerging as key factors in world politics. Similar processes are taking place in Latin America. The countries of the “black continent” until recently a boundless field for plunder by transnational corporations (TNCs) are uniting in an anti-colonial African Union. The Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole are locked in tough confrontation with the West.

The fight for leadership is intensifying. The economic crisis further weakens the capitalist system. The international oligarchy comprises the planet’s wealthiest people, more than 500 powerful TNCs which have a capital of 16 trillion dollars and account for more than 25% of the world industrial output. That “elite” has no intention of relinquishing its hegemony over the planet gained during centuries of wars of conquest. Hence the new series of military conflicts, an aggressive stance with regard to Iran and the DPRK and the growing pressure on China.

The West seeks greater consolidation in order to perpetuate its dominance. While in the 1990s the issue of whether NATO had any meaning was debated, today the oligarchy, concerned about the changing balance of forces in the world, is vigorously building up NATO as world policeman. It sets the task of deploying systems of global control over land and sea surfaces and being able to deliver strikes on any spot in the planet. NATO is emerging as a supranational body which seeks to overturn the system of international law that took shape after the Second World War and subjugate the UN.

Back in 1993 Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book “Out of Control” openly declared that if America wanted to control the world, as it did, then it must establish its preeminence over Eurasia, especially over the ‘Western periphery’ (the European Union), its heartland (Russia), the Middle East, Central Asia and its oil reserves. According to prominent American analyst John Kaminski, American troops are not fighting for freedom. This is a fight for corporate profitsŠ the army exists to capture and plunder other countries and peoples.

At the Lisbon meeting its participants are to approve a new NATO strategic concept to replace the one adopted in May 1999 when the bloc declared it had the right to global interventions. The new concept is likely to confirm that NATO will continue its expansion to the East. It will keep the American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. It will create a European missile defense system together with the US which obviously is directed against Russia.

The oligarchic capital, aware of the threat to its world hegemony coming from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, is trying to counterattack. But its resources continue to shrink.

Russia is being dragged into the war in Afghanistan

What is NATO’s greatest worry? The fact that it does not have enough “cannon fodder” for its colonial expeditions. NATO is feverishly casting about for allies. There are today about 150,000 troops from 47 countries deployed in Afghanistan. Many former Soviet republics have been dragged in: Estonia has sent 160 troops, Latvia 170, Lithuania 245, Azerbaijan 90, Armenia 40, Ukraine 15 and Georgia 925.

Our recent Warsaw Treaty allies have been presented with demands to increase their contribution. Thus, Poland has 2630 troops in Afghanistan, Romania has 1750, Hungary 360, Bulgaria 540, the Czech Republic 500 and Slovakia 300. Even Mongolia has been made to send almost 200 of its soldiers there. Is there any doubt that Russia would be asked to make a more “worthy” contribution to the “fight for democracy” in Afghanistan?

What is the meaning of Article 5 of the NATO Charter? It means that all the bloc’s members must come to the defense of any other member that has been attacked. The nature of the attack is not spelled out. It could well mean the “terrorist threat” which is being made such great play of in the West. Those who are dragging Russia into NATO must understand that Russia will be obliged to protect the alliance’s collective interests. And not only in AfghanistanŠ

Apparently Washington reasonably believes it inadmissible that the Russian government is still evading doing what is the “sacred duty” of all the US partners, i.e. fighting for American interests. Ever louder calls for intervention in Iran are heard in Washington. More and more “cannon fodder” will be needed.

The Western public rejects the futile war in the Middle East, especially since the “noble” goals of “fighting international terrorism” are fast losing their luster and the cost and the number of coffins flown from Afghanistan are soaring. It is therefore extremely important for the NATO leaders to create the impression that this war has broad international support. In general, this is a favourite American trick: having its allies share responsibility for its colonial adventures. This was the case in Korea in the 1950s and in Vietnam in the 1960s. This is what is happening in Afghanistan.

The NATO Secretary General is openly speaking about sending Russian helicopter pilots to that country and in a meeting at the Pentagon several months ago the US Secretary of Defense raised with Mr Serdyukov, the Russian Defense Minister, the question of sending Russian airborne and special units to Afghanistan. We have not heard a resolute refusal of the Russian side to do so.

On the other hand, we know that Russia-NATO military ties were fully restored during the trip to the bloc’s Brussels headquarters by the chief of the General Staff N.Makarov early this year. Several agreements were signed on regular command-and-staff exercises to practice troop compatibility and interoperability, to exchange servicemen for training and other activities aimed at integrating the Russian armed forces into NATO structures.

Western strategists agree to admit Russia to the alliance only as a rank-and-file member, making it clear that the bloc has only one boss, the US. Russia would turn from a dangerous rival to be kept out of Europe into a docile vassal. In other words, the formula is changing. Now NATO’s main purpose is “to keep the US in and Germany and Russia down”.

Consequences of Russia’s entry into NATO

If our country joins the alliance its independence in world affairs will be dramatically diminished. It will have to coordinate its actions with the NATO top brass, or, in practical terms, seek its permission for every international initiative. It will get a “common enemy”. We should all be aware that in the event Russia joins NATO our southern and far eastern borders may first become zones of high tension and then a field of battle.

Like all other members of the alliance, Russia will face “friendly occupation” with the appearance on our territory of NATO bases and rapid deployment forces, and free transportation of NATO military supplies across its territory. As a result of this transformation Russia’s Eurasian geopolitical role will change. So for Russia to join NATO would mean a prologue to its self-destruction.

For the Russian economy the move would sound the death knell for our military-industrial complex which has long been the mainspring of spectacular scientific and technological achievements and had the most advanced forms of organization of labour. We will inevitably be forced to switch to NATO standards and to buy foreign military hardware. The process is in full swing. We have already bought English rifles, Israeli drones, Italian armored vehicles and a “contract of the century” will see the Russian Navy buy French helicopter carriers that it has absolutely no need for. General Ivashov estimates that in the coming years Russia will get at least 30% of its military hardware from NATO countries and from Israel.

Meanwhile the virtual halt of the production of TU-2004 and IL-96 planes means that we are not only becoming totally dependent on the West for passenger planes, but also that we will soon be unable to produce our military transport planes. In the event of conflict we will have no spare parts or capacity to repair passenger planes which have always been a standby reserve.

The destructive “reform” of the Armed Forces falls into the same pattern. It is associated with the name of Mr Serdyukov. But apparently his activity has the support of the country’s leadership. Sad experience of such “reforms” exists. The once strong armies of the former Warsaw Treaty countries – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania – have now been turned into “contingents” totally incapable of defending their countries and their populations but providing mercenaries for America’s colonial wars.

The same fate was suffered by the once powerful People’s Army of Yugoslavia. After the government coup in October 2000 when power in Belgrade was seized by the pro-Western forces a series of “reforms” of the Yugoslavian Army turned it into a pale shadow of the real force which only recently was capable of repelling NATO’s land invasion.

The Russian authorities have destroyed the science and the defense industry they had inherited from the USSR to such an extent that we have lost the capacity to produce enough of our own armaments, let alone develop new ones. The army which was once feared by its enemies, demoralized and disarmed by the “reformers”, is no longer able to defend Russia.

Reorganization of the Armed Forces structure, the adoption of the brigade system, purchases of foreign military hardware, joint exercises in the US and Europe, refusal to admit cadets and attendees to military higher education institutions is nothing if not a drive to prepare a military module for docking whatever remains of the Russian Army and Navy with the expeditionary forces of the US and NATO.

The message is clear: Russia voluntarily forfeits its status of a leading world power and becomes subordinate to the most aggressive forces. Does our victorious people deserve such treatment?

Can one trust NATO’s friendliness?

Facts are stubborn things. They attest that NATO is quietly continuing to prepare an invasion of Russia. Our troops on the European theatre are outnumbered by 10-12 times by those of NATO. In Europe alone NATO has 36 divisions, 120 brigades, 11,000 tanks, 23,000 pieces of ordinance and 4500 war planes. What is the purpose of having such huge military might? To fight international terror which today is held up as the main justification for the existence of NATO?

Meanwhile specialists believe that 70% of all the operational activities, exercises, command-and-staff games conducted by NATO rehearse entry into the initial period of a large-scale war, waged to gain air superiority and carry out offensive operations. Today NATO has no other enemy against whom large-scale operations could be launched, except Russia. One can safely say therefore that NATO wants to occupy us.

NATO is building up its presence everywhere. Russia is being strategically surrounded. A belt of states unfriendly to Russia is being created. US bases are springing up in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania on the Black Sea coast. The Baltic countries are already under NATO control. Naval bases and military airfields capable of hosting up to 200 war planes at any one time, including nuclear carrying planes, have been modernized there. And yet Estonia is within 200 km of Leningrad. NATO aviation can launch its missiles even without entering our air space.

Ukraine and Moldavia are waiting in the anteroom to join NATO. Georgia is already in NATO’s pocket. Azerbaijan is gradually drifting towards NATO. The bloc’s air bases are located in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The new members of the alliance, including the Baltic countries, are not limited in deploying nuclear weapons on their territories, are not covered by the CFE limitations, which makes it possible to create strike groups on their territories.

There is constant work to establish control over our Northern Fleet, Russia’s most powerful group of marine nuclear forces. NATO uses tracking stations in Norway and the Baltic countries, and radio electronic monitoring posts on Spitzbergen. Acoustic buoys, satellites and Orion reconnaissance planes track all the movements of our nuclear submarines. NATO’s reconnaissance aviation along our borders is becoming more and more active.

What is behind the attempts to drag Russia into NATO?

The Russian elite has long been trying to become part of the world oligarchy. But it has been given to understand that the only pass to the “club” is through the NATO military organization. The message behind it is, first fight for us, spill the blood of your citizens for the sake of Western values and then we will think about admitting you to the “club”.

The “sudden” surge of interest in joining NATO is further proof of the fact that the elites of Russia and the NATO countries have the same class nature. The group that rules Russia today is not so much modernizing as “Westernizing” Russia.

Preparation for “Westernization” has been underway for a long time. Russia’s pro-Western elite keeps saying that Russia has no enemies. With the exception of mythical “international terrorists”. Our foreign policy makers refuse to admit the obvious fact that the West’s historical goals have not changed and that Russia is still seen as a source of cheap commodities and a market for goods that have outlived their sell-buy date.

The march of NATO columns through Red Square on Victory Day on May 9, 2010, a day sacred to all Russians, has shown that NATO and Russian elites are moving towards becoming “soul mates.” They are trying to impress upon us that the people which was the first to send its son – Yuri Gagarin – into outer space is only capable of picking up crumbs off Western tables. The comeback of rabid liberalism when more than 900 enterprises, including some strategic ones, are about to be privatized, means that the country’s national security is sacrificed for the sake of gain and selfish interests.

Incidentally, the Russian elite continues to display inconsistency. While strongly opposing the admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, Moscow suddenly declares that it intends to join the bloc itself. Russia’s Military Doctrine names NATO as our main enemy. Are we going to integrate into our main enemy’s organization? Of course, under Russia’s Yeltsin constitution, the President determines the country’s foreign policy. At the same time, the Russian leaders should not forget the constitutional principle which says that the source of power in Russia is its people. Apparently a sharp change of the country’s historical course requires the consent of the people. The mechanism for getting such consent is well known. It is the referendum.

If the present Russian authorities feel that they are infallible, let them put the question of joining NATO to a referendum. The chances are that they will not do so. They know very well that the people preserve in their genes the memory of the previous “visits” to Russia by our European neighbours, be it in the form of the Polish intervention during the Time of Troubles, Napoleon’s great army or Hitler’s hordes with SS legions which represented almost all the present NATO countries.

Russia has already paid for its security with millions of lives in the Second World War having liberated Europe from fascism. To strengthen Russia’s security we should not beg to be admitted to NATO, but develop our industry, education and science. We must revive our armed forces. We must restore the circle of our friends and allies among the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Above all, we must seek to create a union of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine which would bring together the potential of the three Slavic peoples. This is the most reliable guarantee of our security. This has been the case for centuries in our common state. So it will be in the future.

By Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD

http://www.qumsiyeh.org/apalestinianamericanviewofnatostrategypaper/

The new NATO Strategy was adopted last week at a meeting in Portugal by
heads of state of the 28-member NATO alliance while outside over 10,000
marchers shouted “no to war, no to NATO”. Internally, I heard that career
officers of NATO were not happy either. I am a citizen of the USA as well as
Palestinian who lives under occupation. The US, the only remaining
superpower (although declining rapidly) played the key role in forming the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and still largely shapes its
policies. Thus, as a US citizen, I am entitled to question the document and
examine it in detail. But as a human being we should all care what
politicians plan for our ailing planet.

The document states innocuously in the beginning that “NATO member states
form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual
liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law” [1]. Many citizens of
NATO countries wondered where were these lofty ideals of individual
liberties, human rights, and democracy in the past 10 years. Guantanamo,
extraordinary rendition, secret CIA torture camps around the world,
kidnapping, extrajudicial executions and more were practiced by our
countries. All the data are now available for anyone to confirm these. If
these were aberrations and mistakes, why has no high officials (Bush, Blair,
others) paid for them? And why the strategy paper does not state that
member countries are committed to these liberal principles both inside and
outside their borders? Why do many NATO countries fund and support
dictators (for example in Egypt) if they are sincere about democracy?

The new strategy affirms that “the Alliance is firmly committed to the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the
Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security
Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So how
come NATO member countries have not pushed for implementation of any of the
passed 35 UN Security council resolutions that deal with Israel? And how
come they allowed one member state of NATO to veto dozens of other security
council resolutions that attempt to secure international peace? Israel
regularly violates the UN charter and even its own commitments when it was
allowed into the UN (e.g. to accept UN resolutions including the right of
return to Palestinian refugees). So if NATO is committed to this charter
why not ask the US (the chief sponsor of the rogue state of Israel) to
insist that Israel complies with International law? But then again, the US
was forced by Israel’s lobby to invade Iraq, an act clearly in violation of
the charter of the UN [2].

The new strategic concept paper adopted states that “NATO will actively
employ an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help
manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance
security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop ongoing conflicts
where they affect Alliance security; and to help consolidate stability in
post-conflict situations where that contributes to Euro-Atlantic security.”
I kept thinking of one word not mentioned anywhere in the document but
clearly in the minds of those drafting it: Afghanistan. Any rational
reading of the role of NATO in Afghanistan would have to conclude that it
decreased not increased stability. The war on this impoverished country was
ill-advised from the beginning. The rulers of Afghanistan had simply
demanded from the US proof that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11
attacks. The US refused to put-out any evidence and chose to occupy the
country. Here we are, nearly 10 years later and Osama Bin Laden is
supposedly now in Pakistan (itself destabilized by the NATO actions) and the
Taliban insurgency is stronger than ever. Some 2/3rd of Afghanistan is
actually now under the rule of the resurgent Taliban. The puppet government
of Karzai in Kabul is corrupt and is maintained only by Western support and
by bribes to corrupt war lords. Heroin trade, nearly decimated by 2001
under the Taliban rule, is now flourishing. NATO forces regularly use
unmanned aircraft to bomb civilians and hatred of all Western countries
increased round the Middle East. Now copy-cat “Al-Qaeda” cells are
sprouting like mushrooms in places like Somalia, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria,
and sub-Saharan Africa. An average citizen like me asks the question: is
this the employing of “an appropriate mix of those political and military
tools to help manage developing crises” or is it what creates crisis?

Then the strategy paper gets even more bizarre by noting that “Terrorism
poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and
to international stability and prosperity more broadly.” It is bizarre
because it does not bother to define what “terrorism” is. One can only
deduce that terrorism is left to those with big sticks to define. State
terrorism seems excluded. Freedom fighters or even non-violent resisters to
occupation and colonization can be labeled as terrorists. International law
that guarantees rights of resistance can be dismissed. NATO leaders add
that “Extremist groups continue to spread to, and in, areas of strategic
importance to the Alliance, and modern technology increases the threat and
potential impact of terrorist attacks, in particular if terrorists were to
acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological capabilities.” But the
paper does not explain WHY “extremist groups continue to spread”. There are
really only two scenarios, the one promoted by the Zionist media around the
West (that Islam is the cause) and the one academic researchers and
strategists showed that it had to do with western policies (pressured by the
Zionists themselves). If Islam is the cause of extremism spreading, then
NATO should explain why now (not 400 years ago) and what they plan to do
about it other than follow the script prepared for them in Tel Aviv.

Later in the document it states NATO will work to “enhance the capacity to
detect and defend against international terrorism, including through
enhanced analysis of the threat, more consultations with our partners, and
the development of appropriate military capabilities, including to help
train local forces to fight terrorism themselves.” But this is what NATO has
been doing for 10 years and it does not seem to be working. Is it not time
to dig a little deeper in the analysis for example by examining the role of
the Western implanted state of Israel and the World Zionist Organization in
fostering hatred and anger in the Arab and Islamic world and in false-flag
operations that are then blamed in Muslims?

Then we see these even more vague assertions: “Instability or conflict
beyond NATO borders can directly threaten Alliance security, including by
fostering extremism, terrorism, and trans-national illegal activities such
as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people” and “Crises and conflicts
beyond NATO’s borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance
territory and populations. NATO will therefore engage, where possible and
when necessary, to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict
situations and support reconstruction.” Indeed, but why does NATO chose to
get involved in Afghanistan and its key members (US, Britain etc) choose to
get involved in Iraq? Why not get involved in Israel? Will NATO
strategists objectively examine these interventions to decide what could
have happened if alternative strategies were pursued? Will they objectively
examine why most people see the hypocrisy of causing the death of over 1
million civilians in Iraq for alleged violations of a couple of UN Security
Council resolutions while giving billions to Israel (a habitual violator of
International law)?

Need anyone comment on this next pearl of wisdom from NATO other than to say
“show me how, where, and when”: “The best way to manage conflicts is to
prevent them from happening. NATO will continually monitor and analyse the
international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take
active steps to prevent them from becoming larger conflicts.” But wait, they
maybe giving us a hint: “Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO
will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique
conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to
deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field. NATO-led operations
have demonstrated the indispensable contribution the Alliance can make to
international conflict management efforts.” If all you have is a hammer,
surely everything looks like a nail. Is NATO thinking of intervening in
Iran and Venezuela instead of Israel and Columbia? How many areas in the
world will NATO be willing to send troops to? And if NATO keeps
misdiagnosing the etiology of the problems they are facing (minor symptoms
of a more systemic disease), then how can they design effective therapies or
even give people a hope of a reasonably decent prognosis?

More ominous statements are included in the new strategy that is revealing:
“All countries are increasingly reliant on the vital communication,
transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security
and prosperity depend. They require greater international efforts to ensure
their resilience against attack or disruption. Some NATO countries will
become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on
foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a
larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy
supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption.”

One wonders what does this mean. Who will determine “threats” to “supplies”?
Where is the mention here of free trade and supply and demand? Will these
NATO countries dependent on getting natural resources from other countries
be entitled to NATO defense to ensure their supply is not disrupted if
sellers get better offers from other buyers?

The NATO document vagueness gets rather scary:

“Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional
capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy. The
circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be
contemplated are extremely remote. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO
will remain a nuclear alliance.” and NATO will work to “sustain the
necessary levels of defense spending, so that our armed forces are
sufficiently resourced”.

Madness is indeed continuing on a path that produced more destabilization,
doubled the number of countries with nuclear weapons since 1950, and
increased global insecurity. With the economies in Europe and North America
struggling, one wonders what is going on in the heads of these politicians
as they promise to keep pumping more resources into the bloated military
budgets. Even seasoned NATO officers (many retired) are questioning this
logic. The US spends half its discretionary budget on its military, a
military that already has enough weapons to obliterate life on earth many
times over. The Nonproliferation Treaty that all these countries signed
stated that they would work to reduce and then completely eliminate nuclear
weapons. Yet, they proliferate them to their client states (Israel, then
India and Pakistan as examples). And what does it mean that “as long as
nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”? How will they
cease to exist if those with the biggest stockpiles write such bizarre
statements?

The document also claims that the alliance will work to foil “cyber
attacks”. But will this include such cyber attacks as clearly carried out
by US and Israeli intelligence agents against Iran’s civilian nuclear
facilities (facilities regularly inspected by the IAEA and certified
annually to be in compliance with international treaties)? And what message
is sent to any country (friendly or not-so-friendly to the US and Israel if
the rules of the game do not apply to powerful countries and the rules are
discarded to punish smaller countries on the whim of the powerful?

Other issues seemed positive but again vague:
-”increased cooperation with UN”: Does this mean NATO member states like the
US will now obey the UN charter and stop invading and undermining
sovereignty of other countries
-” fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of
full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the
autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations”: The EU has
human rights and other treaties central to its operations but NATO does not
do that. What is the way to reconcile the differences?

The document ends by reiterating that “Our Alliance thrives as a source of
hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy,
human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and
enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members.
These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are
determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve.”

And what about the most egregious violations of these principles by the
fifth strongest army in the world (an army with a state called Israel)?
Where is the insistence on individual liberty, democracy, human rights and
the rule of law? Why is a key NATO country giving this rogue nation 20 of
the most advanced jet aircraft? [3]. As a colonial apartheid regime, the
Israeli violations of all these principles indeed foster instability that
affects NATO member state security at every conceivable level. Further, the
presence of strong Zionist lobbies in NATO key members has pushed these
states (e.g. Britain and the US) to engage in elective and costly wars (e.g.
on Iraq) that undermined global security. And most significantly, where is
the honesty about how the misplaced priority of NATO governments makes the
rich richer and the poor poorer in these countries? Where is the discussion
of people’s rights to economic security? Isn’t the job of government to
ensure people have a future worth living or is the job of governments to
secure corporations and wealthy aristocrats in their endless greed that is
already destroying our planet? Isn’t global warming a more important threat
to our survival than some manufactured threat from a bearded man in
Afghanistan (or is it Pakistan or is it Langley base)?

I ask these questions since I am a US citizen (a NATO country). What of
non-NATO countries? I am also a Palestinian citizen and thus can equally
criticize the Palestinian government which like many non-NATO countries is
intimidated into silence about issues that affect the welfare of people
around the world. Our representatives (whose tenure had ended but still
remain in office without elections) are not even allowing a discussion of
options going forward [4]. But the more I look into machinations of
politicians in this new world order, the more convinced I am of my life long
persistence in trying to effect change at the grass-root level. After all,
that is how real change happens in society not because of political leaders
but in spite of them (see women’s rights, civil rights, worker’s rights,
environmental regulations, ending the war on Vietnam, ending apartheid South
Africa etc). Thus I felt friendship to those 10,000 people on the streets
in Lisbon and I felt sorry for those politicians with the body guards and
the shiny suits shaking hands in well guarded buildings. History will show
indeed that we, the people, hold the answers.