Sandra Finley

2008-07-24 Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of cluster bombs. Other nations taking action against them. What’s wrong with us? Plus letter to Dalhousie Univ, recipient of LM money.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Take back the University  No Responses »
Jul 242008
 

As of December 2009, Canada is signatory to the international treaty to ban cluster munitions and to use economic sanctions in support of the ban.

The treaty was under negotiation for a number of years during which time Lockheed Martin was a manufacturer of cluster munitions.

Canada has signed rich contracts with Lockheed Martin in breach of our own and International laws vis-a-vis land mines, and more recently in breach of the International Treaty on cluster munitions.

Our word isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.  I wonder why we bother to send delegations to participate in these international negotiations.

Updates to the following information are at:

2008-12-08  Canada signs international treaty to ban cluster bombs. The treaty conditions and moral authority require us to dis-invest from Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of cluster munitions.

and

2009-05-29 Countries destroying cluster bomb stockpiles. Canada preparing to ratify treaty. U.S. not signing the Treaty. Who runs the U.S.?

CONTENTS

(1)  COMMENTS

(2)  WHAT, AND HOW BAD ARE CLUSTER BOMBS?

(3)  CANADA, PRODUCER AND STOCK-PILER OF CLUSTER BOMBS  (UPDATE DECEMBER 3, 2008: NO LONGER THE CASE?)

(4)  BELGIUM BANNED THE PRODUCTION OF CLUSTER BOMBS AND PROHIBITS INVESTMENT IN CORPORATIONS THAT MANUFACTURE THEM

(5)  NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT PENSION FUND DIVESTED FROM LOCKHEED MARTIN

(6)  NEW ZEALAND “Taking Action Against Cluster Bomb Manufacturers”

(7)  INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO BAN CLUSTER MUNITIONS, AND INVESTMENT IN THE MANUFACTURERS OF CLUSTER BOMBS

a.  NEW BOMB CLEAN-UP TREATY BEGINS, BBC NEWS, GENEVA 2006  (BACKGROUND)

b.  DISCUSSIONS IN LIMA, PERU, 2007 (BACKGROUND)

c.  MEETINGS CONTINUE, GENEVA, JULY 2008

d.  PRESS RELEASE: U.S. OUT OF STEP WITH ALLIES WITH HOLLOW “NEW” CLUSTER BOMB POLICY: UNRESTRICTED USE FOR ANOTHER DECADE

e.  WHERE IS CANADA IN THE INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS?

(8)  BUSH ADMINISTRATION, LARGEST MILITARY BUILDUP, MAJOR BENEFICIARY IS MILITARY CONTRACTORS.

(9)  GOVERNMENT (CITIZEN) INVESTMENT IN LOCKHEED MARTIN UNDOES THE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PEACE WORK OF CANADIAN CHURCHES OVERSEAS

(10)  LETTER RE LOCKHEED’S MANUFACTURE OF CLUSTER BOMBS SENT TO DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY (Lockheed Martin gives money to Dalhousie, with strings attached))

==============

(1)  COMMENTS

Lockheed Martin is a manufacturer of cluster munitions.  Internationally there are continuing efforts and successes in the banning of cluster bombs.

The 2008 United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) is currently in progress in Geneva.  The treaty on cluster bombs is in negotiation.  “A month after 111 nations including major US allies agreed to ban cluster bombs, the United States says it will continue to use its huge stockpile for another decade.”  (Guess who runs the U.S. military?)    UPDATE:  the treaty was signed in December 2009   (hyperlink).

“(2007)  Belgium has not only banned the production of cluster bombs, but also adopted a law in March that bans banks and investment funds operating in that country from investing in companies that make these munitions. All countries should follow Belgium’s lead … Cutting off the flow of money to manufacturers of cluster munitions would discourage production …”

In Canada, cutting off the flow of money might mean cutting Lockheed Martin off from Government contracts?  Forget about the banks – we, the people of Canada help finance this manufacturer of cluster bombs.

A group named “Net Werk” in Belgium is behind the action that led to the refusal of Belgiums to have anything to do with the financing of cluster bomb manufacturers.

In this network we periodically refer to the ethical investing of Norway’s pension funds, more than $300 billion from North Sea oil royalties. The Fund has divested from Lockheed Martin.

When you understand the infiltration of Lockheed Martin into Canada, it is no surprise to see Canada on the list of countries that produce and stock-pile cluster bombs. (UPDATE: DEC 2008  Canada is no longer listed as a producer of cluster bombs and it is in the process of destroying its stockpile in accordance with the UN Convention on Cluster Munitions which it signed.)  There are people in Canada working hard to reclaim our identity of peace-builders in the world.  I am greatly pleased that our network of people can add our weight to help them.

Posting (hyperlink)  was a letter to Dalhousie University to convince Dalhousie to rescind the $two million dollar contract with Lockheed Martin.  The specific information that Lockheed is a manufacturer of cluster bombs may aid their decision.  I will send this additional material to them.

It is always easier and face-saving to prevent the Lockheed funding of universities from happening in the first place.  In a pre-emptive move, please contact people you know who have a connection to a University in Canada.  Alert them to the possibility that Lockheed Martin may already be knocking on the doors of their University.  Talk about it.  Spread the word.

Stop it before it’s a done-deal, as in the Dalhousie case.

” The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power. …  The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force. … ”  (from “Nonviolence:  Twenty-five lessons from the History of a Dangerous Idea” by Mark Kurlansky, 2006.)

Some people may prefer to start communicating with church and other groups, rather than the universities.  Government funding of a corporation that makes cluster bombs is an affront to the work of the Mennonite Central Committee, the Social Justice and Peace initiatives of various other churches, the great “development” work being done by various organizations, Amnesty International, Project Ploughshares, Doctors, Engineers Without Borders, … the list is long.

We dig into one pocket to help fund constructive initiatives in other countries.  Meanwhile the Government dips into our other pocket to take money to give to Lockheed Martin whose work completely destroys the good work of volunteers and under-paid contributors to international justice.

“Violence does not resolve.  It always leads to more violence.”  (Kurlansky) The war in Iraq clearly demonstrates that “People who go to war start to resemble their enemy”.

There are intelligent and creative, effective alternatives to the killing ways.  We are part of the alternative way.

Cheers!

Sandra

=========================

(2)  WHAT, AND HOW BAD ARE CLUSTER BOMBS?

“Cluster bombs are dropped in a canister that splits open in mid-air, scattering hundreds of soda-can-size bomblets over wide areas. The bombs can be either air-dropped or ground-launched.

Critics say cluster munitions are difficult to target accurately, and between five and 30 percent of the bomblets do not explode on impact, remaining in or on the ground and posing a risk to civilians, sometimes for years to come.  According to Handicap International, 400 million people live in affected areas where they are at risk from unexploded cluster bomblets.”    (Link no longer valid:  http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/article.php3?id_article=1705)

98% of cluster munitions victims are civilians.   http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/explosive-investments_financial-insts-and-clusters-netverk-vlaanderen.pdf

“Using cluster munitions is a serious breach of International Humanitarian Law as it is impossible to distinguish between civilian and military targets, and causes disproportionate long-term civilian harm.”

Unexploded, they are the same as the land mines that Princess Diana and Lloyd Awworthy are famous for working to eliminate.

Regarding international stock-piles, from (link no longer valid – – news.bbc.co.uk):

“One billion of them are in the United States alone.”

====================

(3)  CANADA, PRODUCER AND STOCK-PILER OF CLUSTER BOMBS  (UPDATE DECEMBER 2008: THE FOLLOWING NO LONGER APPLIES)

I was surprised to see Canada on 2 different lists of producers of cluster bombs:

a.  The June 2007 information on http://hrw.org/campaigns/clusters/chart/index.htm “A DIRTY DOZEN CLUSTER MUNITIONS” lists Canada under “Countries that Produce Cluster Munitions (34)”.

Canada is also listed under “Countries that Stockpile Cluster Munitions (75)”.

(“Countries Observing a  Domestic Prohibition, or a Moratorium, or Supporting a Moratorium are” (June 2007):

Belgium, Holy See, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway.)

b.  From (Link no longer valid: http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/article.php3?id_article=1705) regarding international treaties,

“At least 30 additional governments will sign the Oslo agreement in Lima … Some of these new adherents, like Argentina, Britain, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, produce cluster bombs.”

===============

(4)  BELGIUM BANNED THE PRODUCTION OF CLUSTER BOMBS AND PROHIBITS INVESTMENT IN CORPORATIONS THAT MANUFACTURE THEM

There is very good information on the website of the group behind Belgium’s principled stand:

http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/explosive-investments_financial-insts-and-clusters-netverk-vlaanderen.pdf

================

(5)  NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT PENSION FUND DIVESTED FROM LOCKHEED MARTIN

Dr. Gor Nystuen from Norway participated in a panel organized in New Zealand, for the purpose of bringing that country on-side with legislation to stop the funding of corporations that manufacture cluster bombs.  Dr.  Nystuen’s biography explains the Norwegian situation:

http://www.stopclusterbombs.org.nz/2008/02/11/public-talks-cluster-bomb-manufacturers/

“Dr. Gro Nystuen chairs the Council on Ethics for the Norwegian Government Pension Fund. This governmental pension fund has amassed a fortune of more than $300 billion over the last decade from oil revenue (Norway is the world’s third largest oil exporter after Saudi Arabia and Russia). Dr. Nysteun chairs the fund’s Council on Ethics, established in 2004 to advance an ambitious ethical code. She has helped establish ethical guidelines and disinvestment policies that are used to screen Fund investments. The criteria for exclusion of companies (corruption, environment, human rights, and manufacturing of certain weapons) has seen the Fund divest from manufacturers of antipersonnel mines, cluster bombs and nuclear weapons or related components (including General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin). Dr. Gro Nystuen is an Associate Professor at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights at the University of Oslo. She has been in the Norwegian foreign service since 1991 and played a key role in helping Norway to secure the 1997 treaty prohibiting antipersonnel mines.”

===================

(6)  NEW ZEALAND “Taking Action Against Cluster Bomb Manufacturers”

http://www.stopclusterbombs.org.nz/2008/02/11/public-talks-cluster-bomb-manufacturers/

The website has a list of links to groups from other countries who are working on the same issue.

===================

(7)  INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO BAN CLUSTER MUNITIONS, AND INVESTMENT IN THE MANUFACTURERS OF CLUSTER BOMBS

(UN Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW))

May 2007:  ” The government officials meeting in Lima this week are following up on a February agreement reached by 47 countries in Oslo, Norway to finish drafting a global treaty next year aimed at eradicating cluster munitions.”

a.  NEW BOMB CLEAN-UP TREATY BEGINS, BBC NEWS, GENEVA 2006 (BACKGROUND)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6140530.stm

Sunday, 12 November 2006, 01:25 GMT

New bomb clean-up treaty begins  By Imogen Foulkes BBC News, Geneva

The use of cluster bombs in Lebanon focused world attention A new international law is coming into force requiring countries to clear up unexploded bombs and mines or pay teams of de-miners to do it.

The treaty on explosive remnants of war covers ordnance such as land mines and cluster bombs.

At the same time, in Geneva, a UN arms review conference is under way amid growing pressure on member states to discuss a ban on cluster bombs.

Aid agencies say such bombs should be banned, not just cleaned up.

‘Cold War remnant’

There are thought to be billions of cluster bombs stockpiled around the world.

One billion of them are in the United States alone.

However, the US is one of the key nations, along with China and Russia who are not keen to discuss the issue.

Cluster bombs have been around for decades, used in wars from Vietnam to Kosovo.

“You can’t achieve your military or strategic aims if you kill large numbers of civilians in the process ”

(INSERT:  to me, you don’t have to be too smart to understand the last statement.)

Full text is on the website.

———

b.  DISCUSSIONS IN LIMA, PERU, 2007 (BACKGROUND)

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/article.php3?id_article=1705

Lima: Taking Aim at Those Who Finance Cluster Bombs

24 May 07 – A future international treaty to ban cluster munitions should prohibit financial institutions from investing in companies that manufacture the weapons, Thomas Nash, coordinator of the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC), told IPS in the Peruvian capital.

Ángel Páez/IPS, Lima – Nash said the draft treaty being discussed Wednesday through Friday in Lima, Peru refers specifically to a ban on financing for cluster munitions manufacturers.

“Belgium has not only banned the production of cluster bombs, but also adopted a law in March that bans banks and investment funds operating in that country from investing in companies that make these munitions. All countries should follow Belgium’s lead,” said Nash in a civil society forum held Tuesday in Lima, ahead of the intergovernmental conference that opened Wednesday.

Cutting off the flow of money to manufacturers of cluster munitions would without a doubt discourage production, said Nash, who added that the international banking community should listen to the world’s clamour.

The government officials meeting in Lima this week are following up on a February agreement reached by 47 countries in Oslo, Norway to finish drafting a global treaty next year aimed at eradicating cluster munitions.

At least 30 additional governments will sign the Oslo agreement in Lima, Nash told IPS. Some of these new adherents, like Argentina, Britain, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, produce cluster bombs. Another manufacturer, Brazil, excused itself from participating in the conference.

Cluster bombs are dropped in a canister that splits open in mid-air, scattering hundreds of soda-can-size bomblets over wide areas. The bombs can be either air-dropped or ground-launched.

Critics say cluster munitions are difficult to target accurately, and between five and 30 percent of the bomblets do not explode on impact, remaining in or on the ground and posing a risk to civilians, sometimes for years to come According to Handicap International, 400 million people live in affected areas where they are at risk from unexploded cluster bomblets.

The six biggest producers of cluster bombs — Lockheed Martin, EADS, Thales, GenCorp, Textron and Raytheon — received 12.6 billion dollars in financing from 68 financial institutions between 2004 and 2007, according to the report “Explosive Investments: Financial Institutions and Cluster Munitions” by Netwerk Vlaanderen, a Belgian organisation that monitors arms trade funding and promotes sustainable investment.

The U.S.-based Textron, whose CBU-105 bombs were used by the U.S. army in Iraq, received a 1.25 billion dollar credit facility in 2005, arranged by Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, which provided 120 million dollars each. A total of 19 banks — including Bank of America, Britain’s Barclays, Germany’s Deutsche Bank and Switzerland’s UBS — are now taking part in the credit arrangement.

In March 2003, U.S. forces dropped cluster bombs in the Iraqi region of Hilla, south of Baghdad, killing at least 33 civilians and injuring 109, according to a report by the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

And although the Vietnam war ended more than 30 years ago, cluster bombs continue to cause severe damages to the civilian population in that southeast Asian country.

The CMC reports that 34 countries continue to produce cluster munitions, another 25 have used them in armed conflicts, and 75 have stockpiles that pose a threat to humanity.

Handicap International activist Anne Villeneuve said that 98 percent of victims of cluster munitions are civilians, the great majority of whom are poor, and many of whom are children.

Although Handicap International has compiled information on 13,308 confirmed casualties from cluster submunitions, it estimates that the total number of deaths from these weapons ranges between 55,000 and 100,000.

U.S. activist Jody Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for leading the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which concluded that year with the signing of a global treaty, was in Lima to deliver a message of support from herself and another five Nobel laureates: Guatemalan indigenous activist Rigoberta Menchú, Iranian lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi, Northern Irish peace activists Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, and Wangari Maathai, an environmental and political activist from Kenya.

The Nobel Women’s Initiative statement says that “Arms control and disarmament are not esoteric issues that only a few ‘experts’ are capable of handling — generally in negotiations behind closed doors. Any discussion related to weapons must not be based solely on military considerations, but must include the humanitarian perspective as well.”

Cluster bombs “have become synonymous with civilian casualties,” the Nobel Peace Prize-winners stated.

Williams said cluster bombs are an even bigger problem than land mines, because their effect is more lethal, and argued that institutions that finance the producers are as responsible as the manufacturers themselves for the fatal consequences of the weapons.

“While so many of the world’s arms cause so much human misery, cluster munitions deserve to be singled out as an especially pernicious weapon of ill repute,” Williams said.

She added that the United States alone has millions of stockpiled cluster munitions.

Since 1999, the areas where the largest numbers of cluster bombs have been used are Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo and Lebanon, and in every case, the large majority of victims have been civilians, said Villeneuve.

The Ottawa Treaty or Mine Ban Treaty should have brought a de facto cut-off of investment in factories producing land mines, but that does not seem to be happening, because there are banks that invest in the manufacturers, even if they come from countries that have banned land mines, said Villeneuve.

That is why the cluster munitions treaty must explicitly prohibit investment in companies that manufacture these weapons, she asserted.

Nash said “we have achieved a world practically free of land mines; now we are trying to clean the world of cluster bombs. And that is not an impossible dream.” (END/2007)

——-

c.  MEETINGS CONTINUE, GENEVA, JULY 2008

EXCERPT from http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news/?id=429

July 08, 2008

NOTE:  CCW = United Nations “Convention on Conventional Weapons”

IHL = “International Humanitarian Law”

” … Both the morning and afternoon sessions lasted less than two hours each and there was some confusion on the continually changing programme of work.

The news of the day was the “new” US policy on cluster munitions leaked via an AP story late on Monday night. The policy (do nothing except export existing cluster munitions until 2018 and then adopt a 1% dangerous duds failure rate for cluster munitions) is unlikely to assist in pushing work forward in the CCW given that India, Pakistan, Russia, Brazil and others have explicitly ruled out a technology based approach. A scheduled lunchtime side event by US cluster munition producer Textron will not help this dynamic. The CMC press release on the US policy was circulated yesterday.

Overall it is becoming more and more difficult to see a meaningful way ahead for the CCW’s work on cluster munitions. The instinct for Canada, France, Germany and others appears to be that something in the CCW is better than nothing. But a new Protocol that does nothing to address the humanitarian concern and that risks undermining existing rules of IHL, competing with the high standard set by the CCM and providing a convenient alternative for states that are wavering about signing in Oslo would clearly be worse than nothing. While there are several weeks of discussions and much positioning to come in the CCW this year, looking ahead to the outcome in November there are three scenarios that might allow compatibility with the Oslo Process:

1) An end to discussions on a new protocol on cluster munitions with perhaps a commitment to renew focus on this in the implementation of Protocol V;

2) A roll over of the current mandate to continue discussions next year on a new instrument on cluster munitions, while the CCM is busy entering into force;

3) Agreement in November on a brief protocol that says very little, but what it does say is consistent with the CCM and so does not conflict with it.

——

d.  PRESS RELEASE: U.S. OUT OF STEP WITH ALLIES WITH HOLLOW “NEW”

CLUSTER BOMB POLICY: UNRESTRICTED USE FOR ANOTHER DECADE

EXCERPT from http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/news/?id=429

(Geneva, July 8, 2008) – A month after 111 nations including major US allies agreed to ban cluster bombs, the United States says it will continue to use its huge stockpile for another decade. According to the new policy memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the US will also seek to ship cluster bombs to other countries, despite US law prohibiting transfers. After 2018, the US will still use cluster munitions with a claimed failure rate of less than 1 percent, despite wide recognition that a failure rate approach will not prevent unacceptable harm to civilians. The policy puts the US squarely at odds with the 111 nations-including nearly all major US allies-that agreed to a new international treaty in May that comprehensively bans the use, production, trade and stockpiling of cluster munitions, no matter what the failure rate. The United States has been the leading known user, producer, stockpiler, and exporter of cluster bombs.

“Washington’s cluster bomb policy is too little, too late,” said Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, and co-chair of the Cluster Munition Coalition. “Most key US allies have already rejected cluster bombs because innocent civilians are killed and maimed, not only when the weapons are used but also months and years after that. Knowing this, how in good conscience can the US wait 10 years to accept a lesser standard?”

The US policy will allow unfettered use of the nearly 1 billion submunitions now in US stockpiles for the next decade, almost all of which are known to have very high failure rates and to be highly inaccurate, as shown in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and in southeast Asia. Even the future policy is flawed with the percentage failure rate approach having been discredited after evidence from the 2006 conflict in Lebanon and rejected by states adopting the global ban last May.

“Even in ten years time, this policy will not be sufficient to protect civilians,” said Grethe Ostern of Norwegian People’s Aid, co-chair of the CMC. “There are no safe cluster bombs. The failure rate determined under testing conditions will have little relationship to the real failure rate in combat. And even then, the new US policy will not address the indiscriminate, wide area effect of cluster munitions during attacks.”

In addition to allowing continued use, the US would seek to transfer cluster munitions around the world, even though current law prohibits it.

“Shockingly, the new policy states the US will seek to ship cluster munitions with high failure rates to other countries, despite the fact that Congress passed and President Bush signed a law last year banning such trade,” said Goose.

————————

e.  WHERE IS CANADA IN THE NEGOTIATIONS?

UPDATE, DECEMBER 3, 2008:  CANADA SIGNED THE TREATY to ban cluster munitions.

Pushing hard for an international ban on cluster bombs?  I don’t know.  But it is something we should find out.  If our Government is not aggressively supporting the positions of Belgium and Norway, etc. it is our responsibility to see that they are.  If they are, we should be extending our support to the officials.  If anyone knows the situation, please send it in.  It looks as though the meetings resume in November.

===========================

(8)  BUSH ADMINISTRATION, LARGEST MILITARY BUILDUP, MAJOR BENEFICIARY IS MILITARY CONTRACTORS.  NUMBERS.

(link no longer valid , worldpolicy.org)

CONTRACTS SOAR ON STRENGTH OF RECORD MILITARY SPENDING

March 2007

The Bush administration has presided over one of the largest military buildups in the history of the United States, and the biggest beneficiaries of this spending boom have been major military contractors.

Counting the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Department of Energy’s work on nuclear weapons and naval reactors, proposed military spending for FY 2008 is $647 billion. After adjusting for inflation, this represents the highest level of military spending since World War II – higher than the peak of the Reagan buildup, higher than spending during Vietnam, and higher than the top year of the Korean conflict. Military spending has more than doubled since President Bush took office in January 2001.

This growth in overall military spending has been accompanied by comparable growth in prime contracts awarded to military firms like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing. Pentagon contracts are up from $144 billion in FY2001 to over $294 billion in FY 2006, an increase of 103%.

Measured in dollar terms, Lockheed Martin was by far the biggest beneficiary of the increase in Pentagon contracts. Between FY2005 and FY2006, Pentagon contracts to this Maryland-based company totaled over $26 billion, a $7.1 billion increase over a one-year period. Other contractors gaining $1 billion or more between FY2005 and FY2006 included Northrop Grumman ($3.1 billion), Boeing ($1.9 billion) and Raytheon ($1.0 billion). Lesser known firms like the American Body Armor and Equipment Company, the Kuwaiti Petroleum Corporation, and Tetra Tech have seen their contracts jump five- or ten-fold since 2001, in large part due to contracts linked to the Iraq war.

Stock prices are another way to measure the degree to which weapons contractors are benefitting from war increases. According to an analysis done by the War Resisters League, Lockheed Martin’s stock price increased 116% since March 2003. Boeing, General Dynamics, Halliburton and L-3 Communications are among the contractors who saw their stock values jump more than 100%. During the same period, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased by 54%, meaning that many weapons contractors enjoyed double the average increase.

=================

(9)  GOVERNMENT (CITIZEN) INVESTMENT IN LOCKHEED MARTIN UNDOES THE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND PEACE WORK OF CANADIAN CHURCHES AND ORGNAIZATIONS OVERSEAS

Discussed under COMMENTARY.  Please help see that information gets to people who are involved in these organizations.

=========================

(10)  LETTER RE LOCKHEED’S MANUFACTURE OF CLUSTER BOMBS SENT TO DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

TO:  DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

SENT:  Thursday July 24th, 2008

EMAIL ADDRESS:  (andrea.power AT dal.ca)

CC:  Dalhousie University Faculty Assoc

DFA   AT dal.ca

CC:  Dalhousie Student Union

dsu  AT  dal.ca

TO:  Dalhousie University

– The Senate

– Board of Governors

– President Dr. Tom Travis

FROM:  Sandra Finley    Saskatoon, Saskatchewan  Canada S7N  0L1

Dear Members of the Dalhousie Governing Body,

In follow-up to my request of July 14th that you re-consider the decision to accept funding from Lockheed Martin Corporation:

The attached information documents:

– that Lockheed Martin is a manufacturer of cluster bombs.

– that cluster bombs contravene International Humanitarian Law.

It is persuasive argument against investing in, or taking money from Lockheed Martin.

Thank-you for consideration of my request.

Best wishes,    Sandra Finley

2008-07-23 Letter to Dalhousie University re 2 million dollars from Lockheed Martin

 Knowledge Base, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials), Take back the University  No Responses »
Jul 232008
 

SCROLL DOWN,  the last item is

TO:  DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

2016 July:   I was going to make a separate posting out of the Letter to Dalhousie University.  But scrolling past the updates on resistance to Lockheed Martin show it as a “one of” in a larger  set of actions.   It also demonstrates, unfortunately, that the expectation of ethical conduct must be driven by citizens.  It sure as hell does not come from leadership in our hallowed halls of learning.

 

CONTENTS

A.  UPDATES

B.  ACTION – THANK GOODNESS THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US!

 

 

=============

A.  UPDATES  (Item #7 is about Dalhousie.)

1.  TODD STELMACH from Kingston makes his 4th Court appearance on Wednesday, AUGUST 6th.  He will plead not guilty to failure to comply with the Statistics Act (because of the 2006 out-sourcing of Census work to Lockheed Martin).  We will likely know the date for Todd’s trial after his court appearance.

To Todd, his wife Chelsea and the group of local supporters in Kingston:

there are hundreds, if not thousands, of us standing behind you.  Many of us are supporting you with our own actions.

Government tenders for the 2011 Census are in progress.  We can help your letter-writing campaign to ensure that the Govt of Canada does not out-source any part of the next Census to Lockheed Martin Corporation.   (INSERT:  the Government did again out-source work on the Canadian census to Lockheed Martin Corp.)

– — — –

2.  BRIAN STEWART, New GlasgoW, Nova Scotia appeared for trial in July over failure to comply with the 2006 Census.  Brian’s reason for non-compliance is not related to Lockheed Martin.  The case against Brian was dismissed following discussion with the Prosecutor.

—-

3.  UNITED KINGDOM, 2011 CENSUS, LOCKHEED MARTIN

It’s been great to connect with Sarah and Susan in the U.K.!

They have taken a stand against Lockheed Martin’s role in the 2011 U.K. Census.  As has the U.K. Green Party. Sarah has an excellent web-site:

http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2007/08/lockheed-martin-and-uk-census-collusion.html

We’re sharing information.   More later.

—-

4.  MEDIA COVERAGE

I can’t thank people enough.  CP (Canadian Press) and Canwest have both carried stories on the Census/Lockheed Martin debacle. Coverage across Canada.  Todd has received on-going, very supportive local press.  I did a 15-minute spot and an hour discussion on Vancouver community radio, with another 15-minute spot on July 28th.

The hour discussion focused on the new “Canada First Defence Strategy”  (earlier posting).  Many, many thanks to Gail Davidson whose role extends beyond media.

Media attention has added to our numbers, and certainly to public awareness of Canada’s involvement with Lockheed Martin.

—-

5.  DID WE FIND OTHERS OF THE 65 PEOPLE CHARGED WITH FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CENSUS?

No.  It may be that in the face of legal costs and the prospect of jail-time, most people pleaded guilty and filled in the form, in exchange for a small fine and no jail-time?  I don’t know.    (INSERT:  Darek Czernewcan found us subsequently in 2008.  And in 2010 a last person in the Court system over the 2006 census and Lockheed Martin found us.)

—-

6.  PREPARATION FOR TRIAL

The Prosecutors are required to “disclose” their case against the accused, so that the accused can defend themselves against the charges.  Through the disclosure process I have requested items such as a copy of the contract between the Government and Lockheed Martin, the amount (dollars) budgeted and then actually paid to Lockheed, the number of persons who did not comply, and so on.  Information has not been forthcoming.

Other work includes a collection of information on Lockheed, for use in Court.  Thanks to Hart Haidn for sending in a paper from Belgium which explains the worst of the weapons (cluster bombs, land mines and depleted uranium) manufactured by the arms dealers and who is manufacturing what.  The research high-lights which of the Belgian banks invest in these companies.  It shows that Lockheed Martin manufactures cluster bombs.

Details in another email.

The weapons are barbaric.  It is hard to believe that humanity, western humanity no less, is so depraved.  It is easy to understand why recruits for the peace movement are to be found among the veterans of war.

If you come across pertinent information on Lockheed Martin please send it in.  Time is short. We are hoping that Todd’s trial date will be later than mine.  We will be pressed to be ready for Court by January 7-8th (my trial-date).   (INSERT:  the trial eventually proceeded, but a year later in January 2010.)

—-

7.  LOCKHEED MARTIN, $TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

An earlier posting  discusses the new “Canada First Defence Strategy”.  It is about making money from war, building up the government-military-industrial-(university?) complex in Canada.  Financed by tax-payors and Canadian resource royalties.

I sent a letter to Dalhousie University to request that they rescind the agreement with Lockheed.  And have sent copies of the letter to Dal Student Union and to Dal Faculty Association.

If you know anyone who has a connection to Dalhousie, or the Nova Scotia community, please forward information to them.  An uninformed population is the only threat we face.

My letter to Dalhousie is below under “ACTIONS”.  Brevity is, alas! not my strong suit.

—-

8.  ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE (RMC), KINGSTON ON.  LOCKHEED MARTIN?

It seems natural that Lockheed Martin might seek to invest in RMC.  A quick search didn’t turn up an announcement like Dalhousie’s. However, it appears that Lockheed has a voice at RMC.

The “Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute” (CDFAI) is at RMC.

Retired General PAUL MANSON sits on the Advisory Council for CDFAI. At one time he was Chief of Defence for Canada, had involvements with NATO, etc.:

“Following military service, he entered business as the president of a large aerospace company, ultimately retiring in 1997 as Chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada.”  You can read his biography at  http://www.cdfai.org/advisorycouncil.htm

—-

9.  CONCENTRATION OF POWER

In the weapons industry, ” … With the decline in producer numbers, competition among relatively large numbers of firms has been replaced by oligopolies of only a few firms and/or monopolies (Hartley and Sandler, 2003).”

The full article is at   (Link no longer valid:  http://www.rmc.ca/academic/poli-econ/idrm/papers/2003-6_e.html)

You will be sick of me saying, “Understand the context in which these events are occurring.  Know the connections.”  Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer.  They don’t sell only to the U.S.  Then look at their Board of Directors.  You will find a representative of the nuclear industry.

Take a look at Cameco, Saskatchewan’s uranium producer.  It has just bought up the smaller uranium-mining companies in Australia. And has an interest in Bruce Power, builder of nuclear power plants. But more on this later. …

It is why I have titled this series of emails “Industrialism”.  It is why this series is not only about Canada’s military strategy, but also about other developments in the plant-animal biotech area, for example.  We are looking at exactly the same phenomenon, but in different manifestations.

Always it is important to discern the root of the problem. Otherwise we address symptoms of the dis-ease.  Putting band-aids over symptoms is a mask that allows the dis-ease to flourish underground in other ways.

Industrialism leads to the same outcomes, regardless of the area or location of endeavour.  Concentration of power.  Concentrated power is extremely dangerous.

===================

B.  ACTIONS – THANK GOODNESS THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US!

1.  DALHOUSIE UNITVERISTY, TWO MILLION DOLLARS FROM LOCKHEED MARTIN

I wanted to send this to you AFTER I looked up email addresses for more Canadian universities and had sent pre-emptive letters to them.  To hopefully dissuade them from taking Lockheed money. Then you could add wherever and however you want.

I am running behind.  Will you look up a couple of universities (Board of Governors, President) and send letters to ask them not to follow Dalhousie’s example?  If the universities get a sense that Lockheed Martin money might bring the public down on their heads, they might not be anxious to enter into commerce with Lockheed.  There are enough of us.

Certainly Royal Military College in Kingston should be more than a little anxious, and therefore open to persuasion, given the high profile in the Kingston Whig Standard of Todd’s resistance to Lockheed Martin.

I am in conversation with a group from the U.S., the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) to see if they will do radio interviews in Canada.  They have done very good work in the U.S. that shows the extravagance of the Government contracts with Lockheed.

We have the money to fund our universities.  We don’t need it to be done through “offset agreements” in Government contracts with Lockheed Martin Corporation.

===================

2.  TO:  DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION

SENT:  Monday July 14th

EMAIL ADDRESS:  (andrea.power  AT  dal.ca)

(I spoke with Andrea in the Administration.  She will see that this email is routed as requested.)

CC:  Dalhousie University Faculty Assoc  DFA  AT  dal.ca

CC:  Dalhousie Student Union     dsu AT  dal.ca

(Note:  I also sent the “Canada First Defence Strategy” (email) to  the Faculty Association and to the Student Union.)

TO:  Dalhousie University

– The Senate

– Board of Governors

– President Dr. Tom Travis

FROM:  Sandra Finley   (contact info)

Dear Members of the Dalhousie Governing Body,

I ask you to re-consider the decision to accept funding from Lockheed Martin Corporation.

I am being prosecuted for failure to fill out my 2006 Census form.

Thousands of Canadians boycotted the Census in protest: part of the Census work was contracted-out to Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest weapons manufacturer.  The U.S. economy is in trouble but Lockheed Martin thrives.  The more war and violence, the richer Lockheed becomes.  The majority of their money comes from tax-payors.  The American’s bill for war currently runs at two billion dollars a week.

There’s much more than the Census and the funding of universities involved in Canada.  Lockheed is a major player in the American military-industrial complex, as you know.

–  the health records of the Canadian military have been contracted-out to Lockheed Martin.  This is an ill-advised conflict-of-interest.  The American military has a history of denying compensation to veterans whose lives and offspring have been seriously maimed by their own U.S. weapons:  chemical weapons (Agent Orange in Viet Nam) and now by the radioactivity of weapons made with depleted uranium (Iraq).

–  the Canadian Military signed a “Troop Exchange Agreement” on February 14th with the American Military.  In the event of “civil emergency” the Government of Canada can call in the American troops.  The official name for the arrangement is the “Civil Assistance Plan”.  This is a breech of sovereignty of the Canadian people.

–  posted on June 19th, Canada has a new “defence” strategy.  We will have “compatible doctrine” with the U.S. and “interoperability”.  The decades-long Canadian dedication to alternatives to “killing wars” is gone.  The new “Canada First Defence Strategy” is remarkably about making money from war.

–  through “offset agreements” in contracts with the Government, Lockheed announced a few million dollars in research funding to you, Dalhousie University.  The only way Lockheed can do this is if the Government contracts provide exorbitant profits.  It is tax-payor money that goes to the universities, but the credit goes to Lockheed.

–  The terms of how the public money is spent in the research community will now be largely influenced by Lockheed Martin, the source of the gifts.  Non-violent resistance serves the public interest.  But the public, no-profit, interest in “defence” will not be the subject of the research at the University.  Armies are defeated not by killing insurgents, but by winning the support of the population and thus denying the insurgents both refuge and recruits.  But there is no money to be made in non-violent resistance, in the ways of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Lech Walesa. (These are the truly great generals.)

It is the same situation at the University of Saskatchewan, but with a different transnational corporation:  Monsanto provides generous funding to the College of Agriculture. There is absolutely no public interest in the development of food crops that are designed by the criterion that they can be sprayed with chemicals and survive.  The public interest in food crops that serve the nutritional needs of the population, and sustainability, are ignored.  Again, there is no money to be made in serving the public interest.  And yet that is the domain of the university.

–  these same offset agreements mean that Lockheed spends money in Canada, building up our military-industrial complex.  Canada will have an economy dependent upon the waging of war.

Lockheed Martin is set to play a pivotal role in the 2011 Census in the United Kingdom. Resistance there is growing.

It is up to us to shape the world.  It is not difficult to see that we are in a time of escalating violence.  Nuclear armaments are again a threat to survival.

There are alternatives to the agenda offered by Lockheed Martin.  George Soros, self-made billionaire, author of “Open Society” brings freedom fighters from different countries to the U.S. for training.  They return to their countries with support.  Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees.  East Germans, clothed in the symbolic white tunic of Gandhi, joined hands on village greens and stood silent. They brought down an oppressive regime.

The ways of non-violent resistance require ingenuity.  Traditional warfare, in the ways of bombs and destruction, is obsolete and for good reason. It doesn’t work.

A world moulded in the image of Lockheed Martin, war-monger and profiteer, in the interests of what is profitable in the short term, is a sell-out of the soul and of our grandchildren.

Please re-consider your decision to take money from Lockheed Martin.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

2008-07-07 G&M readers say this about “Two Face jail time in census protest”

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jul 072008
 

Re:  “Two Face jail time in census protest ”  

From the GLOBE & MAIL WEBSITE, COMMENTS FROM READERS 

Both refused to hand in forms because Lockheed Martin won the contract to upgrade Statistics Canada’s software … 

blue nose from Calgary, Canada writes: I used to work for Statscan doing telephone surveys from 2003-2006 and this is the first time I’ve ever heard of someone actually facing jail time or a fine for refusing to do one of their surveys. 

Of the thousands of surveys I did with people from all over Canada, only once did I hear anything about the Lockheed Martin issue. Many people groaned when they found out their household was selected to do a survey, and some weren’t too happy when they realized that they were obligated by law to do some of them (Labour Force Survey). 

I don’t see any problem with awarding the contract to LM, if they were the lowest bidder, then Statscan is saving taxpayers money. 

Stewart Mawdsley from Canada writes: They have my support. Lougheed Martin is right up there with Halliburton for companies profiting off of death, war and human misery. Kudos to these two for drawing attention to this issue. 

Jack Robertson from Toronto, Canada writes: It’s a shame that millions more Canadians didn’t join them in refusing to support the U.S. war industry.

Given that these two people will become political prisoners if jailed, Amnesty International should take up their cause. 

siren call from Canada writes: I sure hope the Harper government gets real tough on these scofflaws. 

Really, just because Lougheed Martin is one of the greatest purveyors of misery, hopelessness and death on the planet — still their bid came in the lowest (?) and that’s what really matters. 

(Wish I had known about this and refused my census form.) 

blue nose from Calgary, Canada writes: Lockheed Martin doesn’t kill people, governments that go to war kill people! 

Bob McDonald from Canada writes: Lockheed Martin is just one of the military corporations support by Harper. He authorized the spending of billions for new aircraft from these war mongers while the Canadian aero industries lanquish. The NeoCons in Ottawa are anti-Canadian fascist same as the hoodlums in Washington. 

Slippery Slope from Canada writes: Whatever happened to freedom of Privacy? 

Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: It’s the law and the law requires that your personal information be auctioned off to anyone who ponies up the do-ri-mi.

Fcuking Nazis. 

Rt. Revd. Malachy Egan from Halifax, Canada writes: StatsCan is an oozing sinkhole for taxdollars. It’s ‘stats’ are utterly useless and the organization as a whole is a nepotic federal nightmare which provides sinecures for those related to the powerful and their closest cronies. 

Hooray for Todd Stelmach and Sandra Findley I admire them, support them, and having refused to complete the last inane survey that StatsCan threw in my direction [I recall it was about how the ‘clumping’ quality of kitty-litter makes my life easier despite Harper’s arrogant government and their federal contracts with the agents of death] , I am ready to go to jail with them. 

Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: ‘It’s the law and the law requires that your personal information be auctioned off to anyone who ponies up the do-ri-mi.

Fcuking Nazis.’ 

Fcuking A. 

Absolutely right on comment.            

Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada

writes: There’s something wrong with this census. First they threaten you with prosecution if you don’t fill it out. Then what’s the point then. Why don’t we guess our figures from now on then. 

Why is the government awarding a contract with an American company. The problem is that the American government doesn’t believe in privacy hence USA patriot Act and with an American company contributing to the census then there’s the fear that Canadian information can be used in the States for unauthorized purposes. I’m sure that Canadian companies can do a much better job here with lower costs.

I stand behind the two people who are facing prosecution and we the people should dedicate the resources necessary to defend them.

 On another note, I hope Lockheed Martin will go bankrupt for the foreseeable future. 

Robert Loblaw from Canada writes: Rt. Revd. Malachy Egan – The census in question was in 2003. 

The ‘federal contracts with the agents of death’ were not signed by Harper’s government, but by Chretiens. 

Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:

If, unlike some people, you lack immunity from prosecution, the solution is to answer incorrectly. Not blatantly so you get your butt thrown into the slammer, but enough to throw the civil service bean counters off. 

A Concerned Canadian from Vancouver, Canada writes: I’m happy to see there are a few Canadians left who are willing to stand up for what they believe in. 

Rick C from Canada writes: Their reason is irrelevant. They can do the jail time for their crime. 

Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rt. Revd. Malachy Egan from Halifax, Canada writes: ‘StatsCan is an oozing sinkhole for taxdollars. It’s ‘stats’ are utterly useless and the organization as a whole is a nepotic federal nightmare which provides sinecures for those related to the powerful and their closest cronies.’ 

In fact, Statistics Canada and the quality of its work is highly respected.

The Economist magazine calls it the ‘best statistical office in the world’, and many other reputable publications have made similar pronouncements.

(http://www.sshrc.ca/web/apply/background/cissaboute.asp) 

Robert Rivers from France writes: Compliance… NO MATTER WHAT. 

Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Criminals, sentence them to a life as galley slaves on one of BC ferries, soon to be converted from diesel. Time to treat criminals like the vermin they are, and reduce BC’s carbon footprint. 

bobloblaw,better read the article again,it’s the 2006 census. 

Robert Loblaw from Canada writes: garlick toast – Take your own advice – read the article and then read my post. 

The awarding of the contract to Lockheed Martin took place in 2003. Thats what Ms. Findley was protesting. 

So, what’s the answer? The answer is, as it always is, continue the current charade as long as the electorate will stand for it. Historically, the status quo only changes when the body politic no longer meets the needs of a significant majority of the people. I read these posts with almost daily amusement, so forgive me if I say that now in 2008 the balance of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction appears to be about 50/50. [The reasoning ranges from factual, through irrational to assinine.] I guess a swing of 15 to 30% from one side or the other ought to make for an interesting situation, don’t you think? 

Chester Mere from No Fixed Address, Ont, Canada writes: I can understand the census wanting some basic info but for decades we have been bothered with surveys wanting details of our farming op usually during seeding or some other busy time. And the long form wants such details as utility costs per year and it would take quite a while to compile the info to fill it out truthfully. But maybe as many people lie high as lie low so it averages out.

Too bad the privacy acts don’t protect us from nosey governments. 

Mark Shore from soemwhere in Canada, Canada writes: I did know about Lockheed Martin’s involvement but filled the census out like a good little robot anyway. 

For some reason I had a hard time remembering my income, education level, ethnicity, religion, languages spoken, etc. so I just took my best guess. 

After all we Afro-Inuit Zoroastrians have to stand up and be counted or we just get ignored. 

Alberta Dennis Notso,redneck from Canada writes: I hope they throw them in jail. Plain stupid to complain about who gets the upgrade contract. I suggest if they do not like what happens here then get out period. 

michael moore from toronto, Canada writes: Lockeed helped write the software. They don’t get to handle the data. It’s like saying the guy who sewed the pocket into your pants gets to look through your wallet. There are causes worth standing up for — even going to jail for — but this one misses the boat. All emotion and no sense, like most of the posts in this string. 

brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: The “Statistics Act” already contains enough valid reasons for not completing the census, below is a sampling. Besides there’s no law that requires anyone to read mail! 3. There shall continue to be a statistics bureau under the Minister, to be known as Statistics Canada, the duties of which are (b) to collaborate with departments of government in the collection, compilation and publication of statistical information, including statistics derived from the activities of those departments 9.Use of sampling methods (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Minister may authorize the use of sampling methods for the collection of statistics. 1970-71-72, c. 15, s. 8. 0. (1) The Minister may enter into any arrangement with the government of a province providing for any matter necessary or convenient for the purpose of carrying out or giving effect to this Act, and in particular for all or any of the following

matters: (b) the collection by any provincial department or provincial officer of any statistical or other information required for the purpose of this Act: and (c) the supplying of statistical information by any provincial department or provincial officer to the Chief Statistician. Returns under Income Tax Act 24. For the purposes of this Act and subject to section 17,

(a) the Chief Statistician or any person authorized by the Chief Statistician to do so may inspect and have access to any returns, certificates, statements, documents or other records obtained on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue for the purposes of the Income Tax Act or Part IX of the Excise Tax Act (Link no longer valid:  http://www.statcan.ca/english/about/statact.htm )

The Globing Male from Formerly of Beantown, United States writes: “Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: I stand behind the two people who are facing prosecution and we the people should dedicate the resources necessary to defend them.”

…typical socialist – stand BEHIND them to protect them, so you don’t take the bullet. But you can claim later that you were there just the same, and in so, take the glory. 

Mister G. from Canada writes: Some people also refuse to pay taxes because they don’t agree on how the government spends it. Trow the scumbags in jail.

It’s the law to fill the census form in Canada just like it is the law to pay your taxes. 

Joe Liberali from Canada writes: What could be worse? That the data is processed by Lockhead in the US?(which would be wonderfully expropriated by the US gov’t under the PATRIOT act). 

Joe V from Canada writes: Lockheed Martin is a well-run corporation with a history of technological success. I’ll bet unlike most Canadian companies that could have been contracted, StatCan probably got their money’s worth on this contract. As for the actions of the U.S. government, don’t blame the supplier of military hardware. Would you prefer that the U.S. military had junk equipment, leaving Canada defenseless? 

Cognitively Cogitative from Canada writes: The Canadian government benefits substantially from taxes collected from WMD manufacturers. Why shouldn’t they award contracts to these same war profiteers. 

Canadian Woman from Canada writes: Good old NCP boys! Wasting our time & money again on prosecution of a few people who didn’t fill out their bloody census. And yes, boys! LET”S waste a bunch more money on imprisoning these evil-doers! My god! This Gov. keeps on disgusting me more and more. Well.

The good news is that at least they’re consistently disgusting. 

Dave of the North from Yellowknife NT, Canada writes: No .. Really… send me one of these census dealies to fill out. Out of principle alone I will tell you where to go. There was a time when doing something illegal meant you were doing something wrong. How sad that this is no longer the case. 

Randy D from Canada writes: I’d say I hope they become new brides in their cells but being from the left undoubtedly they’d like that. 

4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Statscan at the time said they contracted out to a foreign weapons maker because there was no one in Canada basically smart enough to handle the sofware upgrade. Then they said “don’t worry, no one will have access to your private information because we will be in charge of that”. I asked if you’re not smart enough to do the software when did you become smart enough to monitor what the software can do? 

Statscan has become nothing more than an information gatherer for business and there’s enough of that going on already without us paying a huge bureucracy to make it unlawful for noncompliance. Talk about fascism. 

Read the article – the previous government also prosecuted individuals for refusing to fill out the census forms. 

Michael Powers from Canada writes: Listening to all of these self-proclaimed hero’s is always good for a chuckle in the morning. 

To the ramparts, we have to defend ourselves against whatever nutty cause there is today after all it is silly season and we have to keep ourselves entertained. 

James C from Shenzhen, China writes: they’ll be found guilty, but probably be given several chances to make up for it before serving time. make an example of them, throw the book at them. 

Troy Ackerman from Canada writes: Bob McDonald from Canada writes: Lockheed Martin is just one of the military corporations support by Harper. He authorized the spending of billions for new aircraft from these war mongers while the Canadian aero industries lanquish. The NeoCons in Ottawa are anti-Canadian fascist same as the hoodlums in Washington.

__________________Well, if the Canadian aero industry was capable of producing aircraft of the same type and ability for the same cost we would have. Look at the Griffon helicopter we got from a Canadian company! The thing is junk! Should have used the US helicopter industry to get Blackhawks instead. The yanks make the best stuff, so why not buy off them. WHat is it with all this neo-con anti Cananda crap anyway? Guess the party you voted for didn’t win, eh. 

Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes: “Because of trade agreements such as NAFTA the bidding process for government contracts is open internationally to companies like Lockheed Martin” 

So, if a Canadian company was the lowest bidder to write software which collects personal data on US citizens, it would get the contract? 

“He (Mr. Morrison) likened the company’s role to that of a programmer upgrading a personal computer” 

And we all know that a programmer would NEVER look at the data on our computers, right? 

“Under no circumstances does anyone other than a Statscan employee, sworn in under the Statistics Act ever have access to any confidential census information,” he said.

Well it’s comforting to know that Statscan doesn’t share confidential information with CSIS, the RCMP, Revenue Canada, etc. Oh, and I also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Jeffrey Hallow from Canada writes: What’s with the jokes about purposely messing up the stats??? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The census and the statistics are vitally important to so many aspects of Canada, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to mess with that. 

I hate Lockheed too but these people broke the law. They should be fined or even jailed. If anyone purposely does not fill out census OR if anyone purposely lies on their census form they should face criminal charges. 

Jeffrey Hallow from Canada writes: Anthony B from Maritimes, Canada writes:

And we all know that a programmer would NEVER look at the data on our computers, right? 

Anythony – it’s actually very simple for StatsCan to ensure they do NOT have access to the data. Because you see… there is this thing called SEPERATE DATABASES and environments. Jeez. Lockheed can develop the software completely without any access to real data. StatsCan would have their own seperate database which Lockheed would have no access to. It’s actually quite simple.

Posted 06/07/08 at 8:33 AM EDT 

4Cryin Outloud from Canada writes: Jeffrey Hallow from Canada writes: What’s with the jokes about purposely messing up the stats??? That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. The census and the statistics are vitally important to so many aspects of Canada, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to mess with that. 

I hate Lockheed too but these people broke the law. They should be fined or even jailed. If anyone purposely does not fill out census OR if anyone purposely lies on their census form they should face criminal charges. 

Jeffrey, how many people have you talked to about the census form? There isn’t one person I know of that gives correct information, or fills out the form so that it’s legible. You, by all accounts are screwing up the stats. 

Frank Castor from Zephyr, Canada writes: I have entered false info on each of my last two census, (censi?) (censuses?)….Anytime I’m asked to fill out info on any government survey, I always enter BS…..Try it out next time, it feels like a good alternative. 

P S from Toronto, Canada writes: Let me see if I follow everyone’s logic here. War is bad, Lockheed Martin sometimes makes weapons, therefore try to hurt Lockheed Martin and there will be less weapons and no war! 

Brilliant.. 

And good thing that there are no other companies that make competing weapons or dictators that start wars without buying anything from Lockheed Martin. 

Lefties, it must be nice to live in your simple world. 

Simon Proxy from Canada writes: For those who lie on their census you should know that the info is used to determine how much money and attention to give your groups. As such information is based on percent of population that is something lying simply hurts the categories that actually apply to you and your culture, history, etc. 

But hey, if you don’t care about the voice and funding that your ethnic, social, financial, religious, cultural, or other group gets then go ahead an lie, it harms no one but your ethnic, social, financial, religious, cultural, or other group. 

But the real shame about StatsCan isn’t that they outsourced to the best vendor some work, its that they stopped keeping tabs on foreign takeovers back during the Mulroney era. If your Stats org stops recording certain stats because the tally might upset some people then the data is inherently compromised. It doesn’t matter who they get their pencils and code from. 

Karunaratne Jeyatilleke from Ottawa, Canada writes: ‘2’ people protested and it is NEWS!!! 100,000 Canadian Tamils protested yesterday at the Downsview park and nothing about it!!!! 

J. Bergin from Canada writes: Good, sent them to jail. The country would come to a grinding halt if everyone is allowed to decide what laws they will abide by. Also, these two people should realize, that companies which build military products also build everyday items, I would bet there is a number of items that they use everyday that were built by companies with ties to the defense industry, such as their car, computer and microwave to name just a few. So unless they are ready to live a cave, their argument is ridiculous. 

Troubled Youth from Everywhere, Canada writes: Ya the story is about two Anglos who stood against the system and will be sent to jail and fined, not the 22 reserves that failed to comply with the law. Bias? Really? Oh Canada. 

I know it may be a little difficult for you to accept, but frankly, your personal information is boring. Government workers don’t care what your middle name is, how many kids you have or what your address is. I know everyone likes to think of themselves as being oh-so-important, but you’re not – you’re just a drop in the bucket, unlikely to illicit any reaction close to wanting to sell your information. Get over yourself. 

J P from Vancouver, Canada writes: I have had to include results from Statscan in the research I do and it pains me because I am an expert in my area of research and the questions asked by Statscan and census surveys are the wrong questions, thus generating “wrong” results. Thus, the results are seriously flawed and actually skewed in the “wrong” direction. So, as Canadians we are forced by law to participate in flawed research and in so doing aid government contributions to war profiteers. This bitter irony increases my pain severely. I am saddened by the fact that I, unlike these two forward looking individuals, did no research before complying so I would know about the Lockheed Martin role in this useless exercise. I will most definitely do so next time and if it is necessary I will join the like minded Canadians, who have posted here, in doing righteous jail time.

2008-07-07 Todd Stelmach’s trial. G&M, Two face jail time in census protest. My letter to G&M, I am not breaking the law, intro to Canada First Defence Strategy & Offset Agreements.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jul 072008
 

CONTENTS

(1)  GLOBE & MAIL, JULY 5, TWO FACE JAIL TIME IN CENSUS PROTEST

(2)  LETTER TO THE GLOBE & MAIL, “I AM NOT BREAKING THE LAW”

(3)  IMPRESSIVE LIST OF RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE, FROM CHELSEA

For those new to our network, Todd Stelmach from Kingston ON is one of the two who “face jail time” in the following newspaper article.  (INSERT:  Darek Czernewcan’s trial surfaces later.)  Chelsea Stelmach (Todd is her husband) sent in a partial list of the newspapers that carried the article written by Joshua Clipperton from Canadian Press.

I am the other one of the two names in the article.  My surname is spelt incorrectly.

Today I spoke with a reporter from the Canwest group. If the reporter receives clearance, Canwest papers will also carry a story about the Census boycott because of Lockheed Martin’s involvement.

I sent a letter to the Globe & Mail.  I want to bridge from the story of the Census trials over to the Canada First Defence Strategy so that Canadians understand the mechanics of the process.  The military-industrial complex is and has been tunneling into Canada. Lockheed Martin is the perfect vehicle through which to explain how it is done.  The letter is an attempt to create awareness among the media.

More accurate than “military-industrial complex” is “government-military-industrial complex”. (re Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech: “…Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word “congressional” in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government.”)

The new Canada First Defence Strategy spells out very clearly that it is a “government-military-industrial complex”:

1.  “A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry.”

2.  “It will also allow the Government to develop a stronger, mutually beneficial relation-ship with industry.”

=============

(1)  GLOBE & MAIL, JULY 5, TWO FACE JAIL TIME IN CENSUS PROTEST

/BNStory/National/home

Two face jail time in census protest

JOSHUA CLIPPERTON

The Canadian Press

July 5, 2008 at 4:39 PM EDT

TORONTO – At least two people who defiantly refused to complete the 2006 Canadian census in protest of a software contract awarded to an arms manufacturer say they are willing to go to prison over the issue.

Todd Stelmach and Sandra Findley have never met, but are linked both by their cause and subsequent legal fight.

The two refused to hand in their 2006 census forms because Lockheed Martin won the contract to upgrade Statistics Canada’s software.

The billion-dollar American arms dealer supplies weapons to armies around the world, including for the war in Iraq.

Ms. Findley, 59, said she first heard about Lockheed Martin’s potential bid for the software contract in 2003 and immediately got in touch with Statistics Canada to voice her displeasure.

“[(Lockheed Martin] makes billions of dollars through the business of killing people, and destroying the environment in the process of killing people,” Ms. Findley said from her home in Saskatoon.

“So there’s no way that I’m going to see my tax dollars go to help enrich them.”

Mr. Stelmach’s decision to protest the company’s involvement in gathering Canadian data was quite different.

The 32-year-old Kingston, Ont., resident actually filled out his form before he and his wife heard about a census opposition group called Count Me Out.

“We discovered Lockheed Martin was outsourced by [Statistics Canada] to upgrade their software and do a lot of the processing of the 2006 census,” said Mr. Stelmach.

“This just shocked me and at first I thought it was a bit of a hoax.”

Failing to complete the national census is a federal offence. Ms. Findley and Mr. Stelmach both face a maximum penalty of three months in jail and a $500 fine.

Mr. Stelmach said he met with Crown lawyers on Friday and was offered the opportunity to fill out the form and receive a reduced fine with no jail time.

Mr. Stelmach has already refused similar offers and said he will plead not guilty in court Aug. 8.

Ms. Findley’s court date is set for early 2009.

Statistics Canada forwards the files of people who refuse to fill out the form to federal authorities, who then decide if charges should be laid.

Census branch director-general Peter Morrison said charges are only laid against someone “who has made a very conscious decision numerous times not to comply with the legal requirement of the census.”

“It is the law.”

The federal government uses the census to determine the level of funding jurisdictions across the country receive. In 2007/2008 nearly $70-billion was transferred, Mr. Morrison said.

Most of the 65 people charged for not filing the 2006 census have now complied, he said.

Mr. Morrison called the response to the census a “resounding success,”especially on Canada’s native reserves.

Still, residents of 22 reserves failed to complete the form, but Mr. Morrison blamed the number on rural access.  “You’re not going to charge everybody on the reserve because you can’t get access to it,” he said.

Fifty-two cases of incomplete forms were referred to the federal Justice Department after the 2001 census, with seven people being convicted.

Because of trade agreements such as NAFTA the bidding process for government contracts is open internationally to companies like Lockheed Martin. Mr. Morrison also said concerns the arms dealer would be handling Canadians’ personal information is unfounded.

He likened the company’s role to that of a programmer upgrading a personal computer.

“Under no circumstances does anyone other than a Statscan employee, sworn in under the Statistics Act ever have access to any confidential census information,” he said.

Ms. Findley and Mr. Stelmach both said they’ve received resounding support from family, friends and co-workers – many of whom had no idea Lockheed Martin was involved in the census.

Both say they’re comfortable with their decision and hope the Canadian government will be more “ethical” in the contracts it awards in the future.

“There’s no reason on Earth that the Canadian census, any part of it, needed to be contracted out to enrich [Lockheed Martin],” said Ms. Findley.

The next census is in 2011, with the bidding for the next software contract currently under way.

===========================

(2)  LETTER TO THE GLOBE & MAIL, “I AM NOT BREAKING THE LAW”

Email:  letters AT globeandmail.com

Re:  Two face jail time in census protest, July 5

For the information of the G&M staff:

I did not fill in my 2006 Census form. Part of the Census work was contracted out to Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s number one arms dealer that makes billions of dollars through wars and violence.

I am not breaking the law.

If my case is properly argued, I will be found “not guilty”.  The Statistics Act says that I, the citizen, must comply but it doesn’t end there. It sets out conditions for the Government. I also have responsibilities as a citizen.

StatsCan says “Most of the 65 people charged for not filing the 2006 census have now complied”.

Yes, most of the protestors have complied.  One person sitting in isolation, without people to impartially explain the Statistics Act, intimidated by the court system, without adequate financial resources or time or knowledge or experience, will fill in the form. They get a reduced fine and no jail time in exchange. They hold out as long as possible.

My trial is January 7 and 8, 2009 (INSERT:  dates got changed)  so I have time.  I am not isolated;  I ask for help.   I am very grateful for the support received, I know I could not stand on my own.  I cannot afford lawyer bills which might run to more than ten thousand dollars.  So I will represent myself in court, if absolutely necessary.  I do not have the skills to defend against the day-and-a-half of prosecutor’s arguments, but there is time to figure that part out, too.

Others share my concerns.  In 2003-04 there was fierce protest generated by news of the Lockheed Martin Census contract.  In response Statistics Canada reduced the involvement of Lockheed in the Census.  2006 Census work is just one of the contracts awarded to Lockheed Martin.  In 2004 they were awarded a multi-year contract worth $56 million to look after the medical records of the Canadian military.  In January 2008 “the purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft was valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support”.  That’s a sampling.

Lockheed Martin figures prominently in the new Canadian “defence” strategy (June 19), which requires some explanation.

The language of the strategy leads one to believe that Canadian industries will be the beneficiaries:

“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad, thus enabling a pro-active investment in research and development and opportunities for domestic and international spin-offs as well as potential commercial applications.”

There is a lot of money to be had.  Minister responsible, Peter Mackay: “…reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy to modernize military”.

Who gets the money?  Tax-payors pay it. The billion-dollar contracts are awarded to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed works with Canadian industries: “Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits

– well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude.”  (Source:  Michael M Fortier, Minister of Public Works, Government press release, January 2008.)

Also:  “Dalhousie University is announcing a multi-million dollar research contract with Lockheed-Martin. This contract is the result of government policy, which requires a foreign company to invest in Canada before it can enter into a government contract.”

These are called “offset agreements”.  They will in time duplicate the American military-industrial complex, in Canada.  Some say that has already happened.

The only way that Lockheed Martin has excess money to dole out, is if the government contracts are exorbitant. The contracting-out of the Census and other purchases have nothing to do with the efficiency of Lockheed Martin because it is the private sector doing the work.  It has everything to do with transnational corporate access to the public purse through Government contracts and contacts.  In the U.S., Lockheed Martin spent more on lobbying Congress than any of its competitors, spending $9.7 million in 2002. Only General Electric and Philip Morris reported more lobbying expenses. In the 2004 election cycle, Lockheed contributed more than $1.9 million.

The June 19, 2008 “Canada First Defence Strategy” says that Canada needs to have “compatible doctrine” with the U.S., along with  being “interoperable”.

Lockheed Martin is an obvious vehicle through which to become interoperable.

80% of Lockheed’s money comes from the Government of the USA.  The biggest chunk of the 80% is from military contracts.  (It should be noted that Lockheed is diversifying into other Government service areas.  The Canadian census is one example.  Lockheed is also set to perform “data capture” and other services for the 2011 Census in the United Kingdom, depending upon the resistance in the UK.  It does US census work.  The medical records of Canadian soldiers have already been mentioned.)

Canadian defence strategy is to become “compatible” in “doctrine” with the U.S..  The problem with the “doctrine” of the Bush Administration is that killing creates hatred.  Hatred breeds violence. Violence becomes terrorism. It is known that dropping bombs on people is counter-productive.  But lucrative for Lockheed Martin.

The killing-combat model (doctrine) only escalates problems.  It does not mobilize the tremendous power of people, as Gandhi did.  A crowd of thousands, eventually millions, will overcome the various forms of violence, given time. It is the fastest road to peace.  The killing ways of “combat” add to the hatred, prolong the conflict, is transferred from one generation to the next and will destroy the earth.  In its long history, the killing ways have never accomplished peace, only destruction.  This planet is and has been our one and only home.

Another individual who understands that we must discover alternatives to the killing ways is George Soros. George Soros is a self-made billionaire.  He helps bring freedom-fighters from various countries to the U.S. where they are trained in resistance.  They return to their countries to help overthrow oppressive regimes.  Soros works with local people “on-the-ground”.  It is about empowerment, the best weapon.

Becoming compatible with “the doctrine” of the Bush Administration, its buddies in Halliburton Corporation, Lockheed Martin, the contracting-out to mercenaries, etc., Canada too is setting up to cash in on “combat”.  Is that what we want for “defence” strategy – –  opportunities to make money?  (Really, it is a transfer of money out of the public purse to the military industry that has record profits because of illegal and immoral war.)

The Canada First Defence Strategy states: “It will also allow the Government to develop a stronger, mutually beneficial relation-ship with industry.”  The role of Governments is the relationship with human beings and other species, not corporations.

Canadians need to determine

– how much it will really cost Canadians and

– who benefits from this $490-billion defence strategy to modernize the military under Minister of Defence, Peter Mackay.

But getting back to Lockheed’s contract for Census work, the reason I will be on trial in January:

In the G&M article, Census branch director-general Peter Morrison is quoted:

“Mr. Morrison called the response to the census a “resounding success,”especially on Canada’s native reserves.”

The response to the 2006 Census (May) was a disaster that caused huge cost overruns. You may remember all the “Count Me In” advertising.  By July, 2006, ten thousand people from B.C. alone had still not filled in their Census forms. A portion of the overruns should be included in the costs when the “low-bid” from Lockheed Martin is considered.

The part of the statement related to First Nations (a “resounding success,”especially on Canada’s native reserves.”), of and by itself might be true.

But in the context of the court cases it is very misleading.   From newspaper reports in January 2008:  “Charges won’t be pursued against natives on reserves because their compliance rates used to be considerably worse, says Anil Arora, director general of the census program branch at Statistics Canada.”  The head line of the newspaper article is: “No charges sought for 35,000 natives who ignore Census.”

First Nations’ compliance was being handled well by StatsCan:  “Statistics Canada seeks co-operative approach as compliance climbs”.  There has been a change.  The January 2008 article names Anil Arora as branch director-general; the July 5 news report identifies Peter Morrison as branch director-general.

The frank and honest approach of Government builds respect.  Misleading statements bring disrespect and distrust.  So does Lockheed Martin’s record of court convictions and fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

If Lockheed Martin was a person, they would be in jail.  If they could not hide behind the corporate person, their conscience would bother them.

I am a person and so eligible for the jail cell. I have a conscience which is clear.  With effort and help I will, in justice, stay out of jail!

Sandra Finley

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(3)  IMPRESSIVE LIST OF RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE, FROM CHELSEA STELMACH

(INSERT:   I suspect that many of the links are now invalid.  The cartoon is still up!)

First, many thanks to Chelsea and to Todd!

I had a good laugh over the middle-of-page cartoon on the blog (still there)  http://aprilreign.breadnroses.ca/2008/07/todd-stelmach-and-sandra-findley-remember-those-names/

Also – there is a very good letter to the Kingston Whig Standard about people who pray but don’t take action, valuable words of local support for the Stelmachs.

I find that a sense of peace follows successful action. Personal inaction in the face of awareness only makes me frustrated and angry.

Best to you all down there in Kingston,

Sandra

(from Chelsea:))

So, it looks like a larger number of news agencies have picked up Todd’s story, and now we’re getting calls at the house …

News:

CTV:   (Link no longer valid)

CBC:   (Link no longer valid)

Macleans Magazine:   (Link no longer valid)

LOCAL NEWSPAPER:  http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1094191

(Link no longer valid)   //calsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2008/07/06/

(And many others! just google Todd’s name)

Blogs:  http://aprilreign.breadnroses.ca/2008/07/todd-stelmach-and-sandra-findley-remember-those-names/

http://www.benedictionblogson.com/2008/06/12/christians-wrestle-with-lockheed-martinstats-can/

chelsea

www.thehousefamous.blogspot.com

2008-06-25 Letter on Bill C-33 – mandated agri-fuel content in gasoline

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Energy, Food  No Responses »
Jun 262008
 

CONTENTS

(1)  LETTER TO SENATE COMMITTEE

(2)  NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INFORMATION ON BILL C-33

(3)  COUNCIL OF CANADIANS INFORMATION ON BILL C-33

=================

(1)  LETTER TO SENATE COMMITTEE

I wish I didn’t feel a need to support the people, in this case the Council of Canadians and the National Farmers Union, who initiate action around these various pieces of legislation.  I wish they were wrong in their assessment so we wouldn’t have so much work to do!  It’s summertime!

While in Halifax I attended a panel presentation about agri-fuels.  The panel included people from South America.  The idea of “agri-fuels” is part of industrial agriculture.  The issues associated with it remind me of the line  “I didn’t realize it was so hard to prevent human society from committing suicide.”

Please scroll down to the information from the Council and the NFU for more information on the issues around agri-fuels.  My gratitude to these organizations for their hard work and resulting accomplishments.

I have sent the following letter to the Senate Committee.  The Bill is unfortunately scheduled to make its final pass through the House of Commons Today Thursday June 26.  I am sending the letter to some MP’s but the Senate is our last hope.

======

Email sent Wed June 25.

SENT TO:  Members, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources  (names appended).

Sent to email addresses:   bankst@sen.parl.gc.ca; nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca; adamsw@sen.parl.gc.ca; brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca; cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca; kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca; mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca; milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca; mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca; spivam@sen.parl.gc.ca; trenhm@sen.parl.gc.ca

——

Dear Senators,

 

I urge you to examine the dynamics behind Bill C-33.

From my reading, listening and experience,  I believe you will find that action to divert crop production to agri-fuels will accomplish two things, neither of which is in the public interest (which is the business of Government):

(1)  It is a rather ruthless way to address over-population by creating a deliberate deficit in the global food supply.

(2)  It will be very beneficial for the biotech corporations (Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta, etc.)  because the majority of the crops that are or will be used for agri-fuel production are genetically-engineered or muta-genesis-engineered crops.  Farmers typically pay a $15 per acre “technology fee” when they buy the seed.

Agri-fuels are another expensive, even calamitous boondoggle.  Follow the money and see who’s behind the promotion of it.

The transnational biotech corporations have a very large influence on the Government of Canada, as you will know from Government funding of half of their research costs (I don’t know if that practice has stopped yet?  There haven’t been any announcements that it has.).

Also, you may recall that the Government of Canada, through their organization “Biotec Canada” was an intervenor on the side of Monsanto (seller of bioteched seeds engineered to be resistant to applications of their chemicals) in the Supreme Court of Canada (Monsanto vs Schmeiser).

Bill C-33, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, would allow the federal government to implement regulations requiring 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations would also require 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 on successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

The agri-fuel scheme doesn’t make sense when you compare energy in to energy out.  So let’s answer the question, why are we pursuing it?  Mandated, no less.

 

Thank-you for your work on behalf of Canadians.

I am sure your job is not an easy one.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

 

SENT TO:  Members, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Senator Tommy Banks
Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
bankst@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Pierre Claude Nolin,
Deputy Chair, Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Willie Adams adamsw@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Bert Brown brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Ethel M. Cochrane cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Colin Kenny kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Elaine McCoy mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Lorna Milne milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Grant Mitchell mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Nick G. Sibbeston sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Mira Spivak spivam@sen.parl.gc.ca

Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell trenhm@sen.parl.gc.ca

======================

(2)  NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INFORMATION ON BILL C-33

 

Biofuels legislation aggravates food crisis

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                      JUNE 25, 2008

 

BIOFUELS LEGISLATION AGGRAVATES FOOD CRISIS, SAYS NFU

Legislation aimed at mandating 5% ethanol content in all Canadian gasoline will aggravate the global food crisis while offering little or no proven benefit to the environment or farmers, says Colleen Ross, Women’s President of the National Farmers Union (NFU).

In a presentation to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources on Bill C-33, an Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, in Ottawa June 25, Ross said the legislation is likely to accelerate the diversion of grain from food to fuel markets. Any benefits to farmers from short-term increases in grain prices will quickly be wiped out by steep hikes in input costs.

“The small window of opportunity farmers have to make any real money from our crops will quickly close as input suppliers and grain traders siphon off the profits,” she stated. “Already farmers have seen the cost of inputs like fuel, fertilizer and chemicals rise considerably. In fact, the massive increase in input costs have forced farmers to go to the bank for short-term loans just to put this year’s crop in the ground. Meanwhile, seed, fertilizer and chemical companies are boasting of new record profits.”

Ross said there is also growing recognition that the environmental benefits of agro-fuels have been overstated. She cited a recent report to the UN General Assembly evaluating the impact of biofuels on the Right to Food calls for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to review production technology and create regulatory structures to protect against negative environmental, social and human rights impacts of biofuel production.

The Harper Government claims mandating higher percentages of biofuels in gasoline, diesel and heating oil will lower prices, reduce environmental emissions and stimulate economic investment in rural communities. But Ross said pinning hopes that Bill C-33 will fix the farm income crisis in rural Canada is “a naïve fantasy.”

“Bill C-33 actually undermines any potential for real positive change because it continues to feed into the coffers of corporations, and does absolutely nothing to restore sustainable, resilient, locally-based food systems across this country,” she concluded.

“The only way to increase farmers’ incomes is to strengthen their market power.”

Ross concluded that “the biofuels train left the station a long time ago. History tells us that there are some trains that we are better off not getting on board. This is certainly one of them. Funds designated for Bill C-33 would be far better spent on public research to create ways to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.”

Ross was accompanied at the Senate Committee hearing by Pat Mooney, Director of the ETC Group.

 

– 30 –

 

Contact:          Colleen Ross, NFU Women’s President (613) 652-1552 or (613) 213-1522

 

===============

(3)  COUNCIL OF CANADIANS INFORMATION ON BILL C-33 


ACTION ALERT: Demand a full examination of Bill C-33 on biofuels

June 25, 2008

The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) has noted that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, would allow the federal government to implement regulations requiring 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations would also require 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 on successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

A position paper from Via Campesina states, “The current massive wave of investment in energy production based on cultivating and industrial processing of vegetal materials like corn, soy, palm oil, sugar cane, canola, etc, will neither solve the climate crisis nor the energy crisis. It will also bring disastrous social and environmental consequences. It creates a new and very serious threat to food production by small farmers and to the attainment of food sovereignty for the world population.” To read the full position paper, please go to… Via Campesina position paper on biofuels »

Additionally, the Beyond Factory Farming Coalition notes, “When soil acidification, fertilizer use, water use, biodiversity loss and toxicity of agricultural pesticides are taken into account, the overall environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel may well exceed those of gasoline and diesel. It is unlikely that crop based biofuel can deliver a major contribution to the energy demands of the transport sector without compromising food prices and the environment.” To read their brief on C-33, go to…- Beyond Factory Farming Coalition brief on Bill C-33 »

TAKE ACTION

Bill C-33 is due to be passed this Thursday June 26. Write to the Senate Committee today to ask for a full examination of Bill C-33 in the Fall, in order to give Canadians more time to become involved in this critical debate. Email addresses for the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources can be found at http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Agrofuels/Senators-contacts

—
The Council of Canadians

2008-06-25 Excellent editorial in Kingston Whig Standard, “A matter of conscience”, Trial of Todd Stelmach

 Culture and Ethics, Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jun 252008
 

 Kingston Whig Standard  (the webpage no longer exists)

A matter of conscience

Wed June 25  

Our national census -taking operation, Statistics Canada, is a valuable federal institution. Using feedback directly provided by citizens, it shoots out reports that enable us to track important social trends and attitudes. 

But Statistics Canada is no benign, merely informative, bureaucracy. As an arm of the federal government, it holds one important power: the ability to make you comply. 

Just ask Todd Stelmach of Kingston. Stelmach appears on a list of 63 Canadians who have refused to fill in and return their census forms. And despite his conscientious objections, Stelmach has been tracked down by the RCMP and has had to appear in court twice already. If ultimately charged by police, he faces a possible $500 fine or three months in jail. 

The compliance rate for Canadians filling out their census forms is high.

With little concern for the legal requirement of the task, the vast majority of Canadians don’t mind offering up their personal information for the statistical cause. Stelmach, however, has some serious personal concerns. 

He found out that the American company Lockheed Martin Corporation had been contracted by Statistics Canada to develop the software to process census information. Lockheed Martin is also a global giant in the production of arms for military purposes. As a Christian opposed to war, Stelmach decided it would contravene his personal values to participate. 

In an interview with the Whig-Standard, the director general of census management for Statistics Canada downplayed the Lockheed Martin role. “It’s like upgrading the software on your PC. They update the software to process the questionnaires,” said Peter Morrison. 

But the bottom line is that Lockheed Martin profits from our tax dollars. 

Perhaps Statistics Canada should conduct a survey asking Canadians how often they make decisions based on ethical considerations. 

More and more people are opting, for example, to invest their money in financial portfolios that are sensitive to environmental and political issues. There are probably more than a few people who, if they discovered Lockheed Martin or some other arms manufacturer in a list of investment options, would decline to invest in it – for the very same reasons Todd Stelmach is withholding his information. 

What’s most disturbing is how the heavy hand of the federal government is squeezing Stelmach. 

The RCMP were called in to hunt him down. And he has already appeared twice in court to hear the evidence against him. He is scheduled to hear the charges in a Brockville court on July 4. 

How much money has been spent on his case involving a host of Statistics Canada officials, police, lawyers and judges? Then multiply that figure by 63 to represent all the Canadians in the same position.

All because they refused to fill out a census form. Clearly, the laws are wrong when a person cannot opt out of a census on matters of principle. One of the most important roles we have as citizens is to vote. Yet even participation in elections isn’t mandatory. 

Statistics Canada has created its own headaches. It can cite the rules of the North American Free Trade Agreement requiring it to consider all bidders for contracts, foreign and domestic. It can wield the powers granted to it by the state to prosecute those who don’t comply. 

But it didn’t factor in the conscience, free will and independent thinking of one citizen when it chose Lockheed Martin.

2008-06-22 Pharmaceutical (2 of 2): Bill C-51 Pharma interest, Genetically engineered plants become “natural”; no labelling requirement

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Genetically Modified, Health  No Responses »
Jun 222008
 

There needs to be an explicit statement in the “Natural Health Products” Act:  genetically engineered plants do not qualify for inclusion.  They are not “natural”;  they are a separate category that requires label standards. 

My letter to the Government is appended with email addresses in case you are equally dismayed and wish to write the Government. 

This is a continuation of the battle over herbicide-tolerant (genetically-engineered) crops.  It is also part of the battle over labeling requirements.  And corporatist Government. 

In this discussion, remember that in the current economic model small, successful innovators (e.g. “bio-pharmaceuticals”) are quickly gobbled up by the large transnational corporations.  People often develop a business with the idea that they will strike pay dirt when the buy-out happens. 

((1 of 2) was about the familiar “pill” side of the drug companies.  This is about their less-well-known forays into “alternative” (“natural”) therapies.)  

========================== 

Bill C-51 is proposed amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.  (Government web-site http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/about-apropos/  

I attended the Government-sponsored meeting over C-51 when it was in Saskatoon last month.  

A strong lobby organized by natural health practitioners and product sellers has caused the Government to make changes to the proposed legislation. 

HOWEVER, there is a critical issue that is being missed.  Most natural health products are plants – roots, leaves, seeds used by First Nations people, by Chinese people, by Africans – ground flax seed, ginseng, hemp seed – the list goes on for days. 

The pharmaceutical companies are well along the road of plant engineering.  

I asked the Government officials at the C-51 meeting if genetically-engineered plants (that become alternative “remedies”) are required to be labeled under the Natural Health Products Act.  The answer is “no”. 

Ipso facto they become “natural” health products. 

Because of our work on wheat that has been engineered by the chemical companies to be resistant to chemical applications, I draw connections. 

1.  IT IS GOOD BUSINESS TO BE AHEAD OF THE TRENDS

Connection:

  • Monsanto has been invested in “organic” companies for a number of years because of the flight of money into organic markets.
  • the pharmaceutical companies have been into “bio-pharmaceuticals” for years. The flight of money out of the drug culture of medicare into alternative/complementary therapies threatens their profits. 

2.  EVIDENCE OF THE CONTROL OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA BY THE BIOTECH/CHEM/PHARMA COMPLEX OF CORPORATIONS, WORKING WITH THE GOVERNMENT

Connection:

  • The Patent Act was never intended to be applied to life forms and yet it is.  This is in spite of admonitions by the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada in two separate court cases (onco-mouse and Monsanto vs Schmeiser) telling the Government that the Patent Act needs to be updated.  The Patent Act remains unchanged.
  • Europeans have insisted that genetically-engineered foods must be identifiable – they must be labelled.  Canadians have consistently stated that they want labelling of genetically-engineered foods.  Do we get the labelling?  No. 
  • Bio-technology has NEVER been debated in the Canadian House of Commons. 

3.  CONTROL OF THE PLANTS 

Connection:

The consequences of biotechnology as presently practiced in Canada, in-step with the U.S., based on earlier work in this network: 

  • the corporations seek control through ownership (patenting) of the seeds
  • the corporations use the police and judicial system to intimidate people who grow the plants, or who are a threat to their profits (think of the court cases brought by Monsanto in the U.S., against the small dairies who label their milk as coming from cows that are not injected with bovine growth hormone).
  • we are talking about very corrupt corporations/people, both in the chemical and in the pharmaceutical industries
  • little information provides control.  The mainstream media in North America doesn’t do a good job of investigative journalism.  Advertising revenues influence the tune played by some of the media.  The public has very little idea of what is going on in the biotech field.  Growth genes inserted into fish to make them grow to 6 times the size of normal fish within a year.  What happens when they are “accidentally” released into the wild?  Pigs whose genes have been manipulated to include human growth genes.  Engineered trees. Nano-technology.
  • bio-engineered plant seeds soon contaminate natural seed stocks.
  • there are no natural predators or controls on introduced plants.  They take over.  They are a large threat to natural species.
  • the “science” behind the bio-teched corporate products is bought by the corporations.  They fund the universities and they fund the “scientists”. 
  • corporate “ownership” of life forms is wrong.  The Patent Act does not make it right. 

Always the question:  in whose interests?

Always the answer:  the Government serves the corporate interest.  Bill C-51 is yet another example; engineered plants bought and owned by corporations, expensive, not labeled as genetically engineered, serve only the corporate interest.   

It will happen only if we are uninformed – if we don’t know the connection between the pharmaceutical companies and bio-pharmaceuticals, the connection between plants and “natural” health products.

———— 

At the outset of the meeting on Bill C-51 the Government officials emphasized that Canadians want labelling of ingredients so we know what we’re ingesting.  They said that Bill C-51 addresses this expressed desire of the Canadian public. 

No it doesn’t. Not if bio-engineered plants don’t have to be labelled.  And worse, the effect of the legislation is to make genetically engineered plants into “natural” products.  If ever there was a scam, there it is. 

Until the Government stops working for the corporations, they destroy their own credibility.  There can be no respect.  They are actively undermining our system of governance. 

An official from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (Agriculture Canada) attended the meeting on Bill C-51 (an initiative of Health Canada). 

There were people that when asked, were from the bio-pharma industry. 

======================== 

LETTER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 

TO: 

  1. Tony Clement, Minister of Health     Minister_Ministre@hc-sc.gc.ca 
  2. Gerry Ritz, Minister of Agriculture    sthomas@agr.gc.ca 
  3. Health Canada Working Group on Bill C-51  fcsap-paspac@hc-sc.gc.ca   Telephone:  1-866-891-4542
  4. Carole Swan, President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Agriculture Canada       swanc@inspection.gc.ca       (613) 221-3737 

Dear All,

There needs to be an explicit statement in the “Natural Health Products” legislation:  genetically-engineered and “mutagenesis” plants do not qualify for inclusion.  They are not “natural”;  they are a separate category that requires label standards. 

From the Health Canada web-site: 

” Health Canada’s mission is to help the people of Canada maintain and improve their health. Part of this includes having appropriate checks in place to help ensure that the natural health products Canadians use are safe, effective and of high quality and also that products are labelled accordingly and truthfully (including any warnings or cautions) so that Canadians can make safe and informed choices.”    (Item 38 at (Link no longer valid:  http://www.canadiensensante.gc.ca/pr-rp/billC-51_e.html  ) 

Truthful labelling requires that genetically-engineered plants will be labelled. 

Failure of the Government to insist upon the labelling of genetically-engineered plants through the “Natural Health Products” legislation will be, once again, confirmation that the Government serves corporate interests at the expense of the public interest. 

Should the legislation fail to require disclosure of genetically-engineered and mutagenesis ingredients, please provide your reasons. 

Thank-you. 

Yours truly, 

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon SK Canada

2008-06-21 Pharmaceutical companies (1 of 2): Is the question “placebo” or is it “self-healing” (the mind-body connection)?

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Health  No Responses »
Jun 212008
 

The following is in response to CBC interview of a fellow who will market placebo pills.  Parents can use them to make a complaining child “better”.

(One of us should market slices of a tasty red apple in competition!) 

These two emails challenge the stranglehold of the pharmaceutical companies on the medicare system and the public purse. 

==================== 

” … Had I been given a pain-killer when I went to the walk-in clinic, the cessation of pain would have been attributed to the drug.  Had I been given a placebo, the cessation of pain would have been attributed to the “placebo effect”.  Nowhere in our paradigm of understanding do we allow for the possibility that our bodies provide direction to us. …”  

———–

TO:  CBC Radio, The Current, Friday’s host Linden McIntyre 

RE:  Placebo pills sometimes make it better.  (June 20th broadcast.) 

My experience leads me to conclude that “the placebo effect” is often not the placebo effect, but rather, it is part of the healing and communication processes carried out by the body itself.   

As a society we do not appreciate our ability to self-heal, nor do we seek to understand the dynamics of the process.   

The placebo effect will remain incomprehensible if we treat it as the cause.

The cause-and-effect relationship between placebo and “getting better” is wrongly attributed.  If we understand the larger self-healing phenomenon, the placebo effect will become comprehensible in that context.  

The question “under what conditions and how does the body self-heal?” yields different results than the question “how does the placebo effect work?”  

The more useful answers arise out of attempts to understand how our immune system works – the self-healing.  Unfortunately many of “the authorities” in the medicare system remain stuck in a drug-centred view that denies the organism’s self-healing capability. 

I understand self-healing by thinking of my self as a dynamic system that has feedback mechanisms.  The feedback we receive from our bodies is purposeful.  If we respond with the APPROPRIATE action, in a TIMELY way, then “the system” (me) has the potential to return to health, if supported.

In order to take the appropriate action, the body has to communicate with the conscious self in order to tell me what remedial actions I need to take. 

I am not an authority.  However, my experience has validity.  One of several experiences can perhaps illustrate .  If it is taken seriously and if other similar experiences were collected from other people, we would progress in understanding.  

I went to a walk-in clinic in response to three days of persistent stab-like pains in my side rib, which had followed a weekend of very severe flu-like symptoms (elevated temperature, aches in my bones).

The doctor x-rayed my chest.  He left the room while the x-ray was being developed.  The pain stopped obviously and suddenly for no apparent reason when he walked out the door.  I thought, “Oh my lord, this must have been a psycho-somatic pain.  The Doctor is going to return and say there is no evidence of anything wrong.  Am I nuts?”.  I was embarrassed by the prospect of being in the doctor’s office for no good reason.  And perplexed by the idea that my mind could play such games on me. 

 The Doctor returned with the x-ray.  It showed a large volume of fluid on one lung.  What relief!  

I was hospitalized and tested.  It was several days before any of the fluid was drained off.  The procedure was carried out twice over the course of a week and a half. 

THE CRITICAL POINT:

after the appropriate steps in getting my self to a doctor, the relentless stabbing pain stopped and not once did it return, even though it was several days before anything was done.  The insertion of the needle to drain off the fluid was a bit nerve-racking because of the potential for puncturing the lung, but it was not painful.  

Had I been given a pain-killer when I went to the walk-in clinic, the cessation of pain would have been attributed to the drug.  Had I been given a placebo, the cessation of pain would have been attributed to the “placebo effect”.  Nowhere in our paradigm of understanding do we allow for the possibility that our bodies provide direction to us.  

I work on learning to read the feedback provided to me by the other parts of  me.  It seems reasonable that another part of my being knew that “we” would be in good hands – that I would help to look after “us” – if it could get me to the doctor.  There was no need for the pain after the x-ray was taken.  The “self” had confidence that its communication was being acted upon – the problem would be “fixed”; the pain stopped.  (The “fix” wasn’t the draining of fluid. The toxin level inside my body was more than my immune system could handle.  When that was addressed I returned to health.) 

I do not say that all pain works this way.  I do say that it is feedback from the larger self.  

If we listen and respond appropriately and early in the game (timely response), if we understand that we are more than our conscious and rational minds, if we work WITH rather than against our immune system (which is just a part of the larger being), we enable our immune systems to look after us. 

We are taught to be repulsed by pain; sweat is another example.  Rather than repulsed, we should be in gratitude – sweat is a mechanism for moving wastes and toxins out of the body.  The sweating during menopause is extremely healthy.  A person who understands their body would pat it on the back and tell it “thank-you”!  Work with your body while it does what has to be done today – – it will save you pain and disease down-the-road.  

We are ignorant and made more ignorant through advertisements that have been carefully researched to mold our thinking and to then play on learned, but nonsensical, fears. 

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon SK  S7N 0L1

2008-06-19 “Canada First Defence Strategy” – serious. The American military-industrial-government-university complex in Canada.

 Peace or Violence  No Responses »
Jun 192008
 

” . . .   the opportunities for Canadian businesses to make money from our military strategy is prominent in the document;  there is no discussion of peace-keeping.”   ( “A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry“) 

”  …   The Canadian military strategy document  (Canada and the U.S.)  “.. the two nations’  armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.”   The Americans are into first-strike war and profiteering from war.   About the worst “defence” strategy I can think of.  Lovely.

There is a re-statement on the compatible doctrine theme which ensures that if the Iraq War scenario arises again, we will go to war with our lovely American friends and no matter what the UN or NATO position is.  How incredibly awful.   Who in the hell is making these decisions on behalf of Canadians?    /Sandra

CONTENTS

1.  “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”.  WE ARE NO LONGER PEACE-KEEPERS.

a.  ONE STATED OBJECTIVE:  DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S.

b.  MAKES THE CANADIAN ECONOMY MORE DEPENDENT UPON WAR, BLATANTLY.

c.  BETTER GET THE UNIVERSITIES INVOLVED TOO.  DALHOUSIE FOR STARTERS.

d.  WAR BY KILLING IS THE STRATEGY OF FOOLS, ENTIRELY LACKING IN CREATIVITY

2.  HOW DEPENDENT IS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY UPON THE WAGING OF WAR?

(Includes words from retiring U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell speech)

3.  NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW CANADIAN DEFENCE STRATEGY

4.  OFFSET AGREEMENTS

5.  MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, PETER MACKAY, DETAILS OF $490 BILLION DOLLAR DEFENCE STRATEGY (newspaper)

6.  CANADA’S UNRECORDED MILITARY TRADE

7.  LETTER TO EDITOR SENT BY LEO KURTENBACH. I HOPE IT GETS PUBLISHED.

8.  LETTER I SENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.  (UPDATE:  see   2008-09-17 Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”

======================

Instead of reading all of this posting, you might want to scroll down to item #8.  It captures and adds to the detail, but in summary form.  The detail is necessary to substantiate and source the statements I make in summary form.  The detail will not be necessary for all of you.

========

1.  “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”.  WE ARE NO LONGER PEACE-KEEPERS.

I read the Canadian military strategy document.  Can’t believe this is happening.  If it doesn’t spur people to get out and fight everything related to the extension of the American military-industrial complex into Canada, I don’t know what will.

The letter I’ve sent is in #8 below. The addresses sent to are included. The text of Leo’s letter-to-editor is #7.  Feel free to cut, copy and paste – – use, as you see fit.

The Government posted the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” on a web-site but didn’t make an announcement.

Among other points:

a.  ONE STATED OBJECTIVE:  DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH THE U.S.

The military strategy document released, but not announced, by the Government of Canada includes “.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.”

We are definitely into combat.

I don’t think we are any longer into peace-keeping.

I searched the Canada First Defence Strategy for “peace keeping” in various forms – there’s nothing.  The word “Peace” appears 3 times in the 22 page document:

–  “The peace dividend from the end of the Cold War was short-lived.”

–  “Contributing to international peace and security” appears once and then again later as a heading with not much under it.

I would say that the opportunities for Canadian businesses to make money from our military strategy is prominent in the document, whereas there is no discussion of peace-keeping. 

Note this from the document:  “These operations will often be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada will continue to support and contribute to these key international bodies. In addition, the Canadian Forces will participate, where circumstances dictate, in missions with like-minded states as a responsible member of the international community.”    Which means we would have participated with the U.S. in the illegal war on Iraq.   It is very hard for me to hold my tongue and not swear.

The SOURCE DOCUMENT, “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“, is at:

(Link no longer valid:    http://www.dnd.ca/site/focus/first/June18_0910_CFDS_english_low-res.pdf)

Also at (Link no longer valid: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/doc-canada-first-defence-strategy-1.htm)

The U.S., among other atrocities, invaded and bombed Iraq using falsified information.

Even people inside the U.S. are calling for George Bush to be tried for War Crimes.  I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.

Canada align itself even more with the U.S. military doctrine?  Abu Ghraib, the contracting of mercenaries, the theft of resources, …

I am quite sure that a ten-year-old could think up a better “defence” strategy.

We need to run some people out of office.  They’re bloody dangerous.  To us and to a whole lot of other people around the globe.

——-

b.  MAKES THE CANADIAN ECONOMY MORE DEPENDENT UPON WAR

Decades ago I read that the American economy was dependent upon the waging of war, because of the size of its military-industrial complex.

From the new Canadian Military strategy we get this:

“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry  

The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad, thus enabling a pro-active investment in research and development and opportunities for domestic and international spin-offs as well as potential commercial applications.”

And “It will also allow the Government to develop a stronger,  mutually beneficial  relation-ship with industry.”

The document is remarkably about making money from war.   Canada, too, will develop a growing and progressive economy, fueled by war.

I want to swear.

———-

c.  BETTER GET THE UNIVERSITIES, OUR YOUNG PEOPLE, INVOLVED TOO.  DALHOUSIE FOR STARTERS.

Because of my trial  which most of you know about, I pay more attention to the relationship between Canada and the American military, and Lockheed Martin Corporation in particular.   I receive the news reports from you.

I will send you the report from people who demonstrated at Dalhousie University because of Lockheed’s funding of the University.  And now in reading the military strategy document, Canadian Universities will play a role in military research and development.

—–

d.  WAR BY KILLING IS THE STRATEGY OF FOOLS, ENTIRELY LACKING IN CREATIVITY

Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees.  His weapon of choice was non-violent resistance.  I circulated this after a visit to Berlin in 1999.

ALL OUR COWARDICE AND SERVILITY 

“… nonviolent resistance as a political force is still young, its possibilities not yet well enough known, and is thus seldom an incitement to the masses and is seldom encouraged by the media. For all that, those striving for human rights are dependent on our solidarity and the feeling is growing of an ever increasing threat through the power of dictatorships, the armaments race and the immobility of bureaucrats. 

Gandhi presented the principles of nonviolent resistance to the world, but the methods – corresponding to the various hierarchies – have to be very different, should they lead to success. Through the multiplicity of nonviolent resistance, so rich in ideas, it can be demonstrated that the most powerful effective opposing forces can be mobilized against every form of violence …” 

The Berlin Wall and the Communist regime in East Germany came down. The non-violent resistance that brought it down is graphically recorded in this homey, old, cramped museum. This poem was penned by an unknown East German.

It spoke to me then and always will:

“The red-painted tyranny was not

The worst about our tyrants

The worst thereby were we ourselves

All our cowardice and servility

And that we also were the evil ourselves

Just that is the chance and our luck

You see: It works! We also take back

The everlasting human right ourselves 

Now we breathe again, we cry and we laugh

the stale sadness out of the breast

man, we are stronger than rats and dragons

– and had forgotten it and always knew.”

There are millions of us.  Certainly enough to challenge this “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.

—————–

2.  HOW DEPENDENT IS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY ON THE WAGING OF WAR?

We have to stand up for what we want.  Do we want the Canadian economy to become dependent upon killing, destructive wars?  Are we incapable of maintaining the vision of earlier Canadian Prime Ministers like Lester Pearson? Do we want to follow the U.S. doctrine?

Military-industrial complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address.  A military-industrial complex (MIC) is composed of a nation’s armed forces, its suppliers of weapons systems, supplies and services, and its civil government. It is a type of iron triangle.

The term “MIC” is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure. It is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and Executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity. A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry.

Contents

1 History

2 Origin of the term

3 Cultural references

4 See also

5 Sources

6 Notes

7 Further reading

8 External links

History

According to historian William H. McNeill, the first modern MICs arose in Britain and France in the 1880s and 1890s. The naval rivalry between these two powers was of utmost significance in the fermentation, growth and development of these MICs. Conversely, the existence of these two nations’ respective MICs may have been the source of these military tensions.

Officers like Admiral Jackie Fisher influenced the shift toward faster technological integration (which meant closer relationships with private, innovative companies). Similar MICs soon followed in nations like Germany, Japan, and the United States.

Industrialists who played a part in the arms industry of this era included Alfred Krupp, Samuel Colt, William G. Armstrong, Alfred Nobel, and Joseph Whitworth.

Technology has always been a part of warfare. Neolithic tools were used as weapons before recorded history. The bronze age and iron age saw the rise of complex industries geared towards the manufacture of weaponry. These industries also had practical peacetime applications, as well; industries making swords in times of war could make plowshares in times of peace, for example. However, it was not until the 19th or 20th century that military weaponry became sufficiently complicated as to require a large subset of industrial effort solely dedicated to warfare. Firearms, artillery, steamships, and later aircraft and nuclear weapons were markedly different from ancient or medieval swords — these new weapons required years of specialized labor, as opposed to part-time effort. Furthermore, the length of time necessary to build weapons systems of high complexity and massive integration required pre-planning and construction even during times of peace; thus a portion of the economies of the great powers (and, later, the superpowers), was dedicated and maintained solely for the purpose of defense (and war). This trend of coupling some industries towards military activity gave rise to the concept of a “partnership” between the military and private enterprise.

The term is often used to refer to the “complex” in the context of the United States, where the term came into wide use by the public, following its introduction by President Dwight Eisenhower in his “Farewell Address”; the U.S. has a complex which, on an annual basis, accounts for 47% of the world’s total arms expenditures [1]. This also may be due to the ahistorical pattern of the previous ~70 years of military expenditures by the United States; prior to the Second World War, the U.S. maintained a small military (in comparison to its peers) in times of peace and instead relied on militia or, in later years, reserves, in the event of war; indeed, spending for arms in times of peace has always been looked upon with suspicion by the people of the United States[citation needed]. The coming of the Cold War changed that; the Cold War represented an indefinite period of low-intensity, unconventional conflict between the superpowers, with the ongoing potential to metastasize into an existential military struggle that could happen with only minutes of notice, would likely destroy both superpowers, possibly cause a new Dark Age, and might even result in the extinction of the human species. And in this time overshadowed by acronyms like M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) and N.U.T.S. (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection), the military-industrial complex rose to great prominence, and power, in the United States.

It is difficult to estimate the degree of dependence of the U.S. economy on its military and defense spending, but it is clearly enormous, and legislators fiercely resist defense cuts that affect their districts. In Washington State, an economist[citation needed] estimated in 2002 that in Western Washington 166,000 jobs, or about 15% of the workforce, depended directly or indirectly on military installations alone, not counting defense industries. In Washington State overall in FY2001, about $7.06 billion arrived in U.S. Department of Defense payroll, pensions, and procurement contracts—and Washington State was only seventh among the fifty states in this regard.[citation needed] Overall, U.S. spending on defense acquisitions and research is equal to 1.2% of the GDP.

Origin of the term

President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction…  This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. ”

In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government. The actual authors of the term were Eisenhower’s speech-writers Ralph Williams and Malcolm Moos.[2]

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern “military-industrial complex” existed before Eisenhower’s address. In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control.

Vietnam War-era activists, such as Seymour Melman, referred frequently to the concept. In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted, “[b]y the mid-1980s the term had largely fallen out of public discussion… whatever the power of arguments about the influence of the military-industrial complex on weapons procurement during the Cold War, they are much less relevant to the current era.”

Contemporary students and critics of alleged American militarism continue to refer to and employ the term, however. For example, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the second, third, and fourth paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower’s address as an epigraph to Chapter Two (“The Roots of American Militarism”) of a recent volume[3] on this subject. Peter W. Singer’s book concerning private military companies illustrates contemporary ways in which industry, particularly an information-based one, still interacts with the U.S. Government and the Pentagon.[4]

The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have also been used in association with this term.

The term is also used to describe comparable collusion in other political entities such as the German Empire (prior to and through the first world war), Britain, France and (post-Soviet) Russia.

Noam Chomsky has suggested that “military-industrial complex” is a misnomer because (as he considers it) the phenomenon in question “is not specifically military.”[5]. He claims, “There is no military-industrial complex: it’s just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time).”[6]

=================

3.  NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON INTRODUCTION OF THE DEFENCE STRATEGY

Article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, Regina Leader Post, the National Post.

Under heading

– Conservative defence strategy quietly released on Internet

– Parliament in the dark on major weapons purchase

(Link no longer valid:  http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=602046 )

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=c3fcf7c4-0f60-41e1-89f8-0c95a2640229

Parliament in the dark on major weapons purchase

David Pugliese, Canwest News Service

Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008

Members of the U.S. Congress have been told the Canadian government plans to spend $114 million on new howitzers to contribute to the war on terror while parliamentarians at home have been kept in the dark over the deal.

And in another example of how the government is handling its defence policy, the Conservatives’ Canada First Defence Strategy was quietly released Thursday night on the Internet.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay will inform members of the public in a speech today that they can read details about the strategy online.

Dan Dugas, MacKay’s communications chief, said he didn’t have details on why the strategy was released the night before Parliament adjourns for the summer.

Asked for comment on the strategy, Dugas noted that “I think the whole document is a comment on it. I think it stands on its own.”

But parliamentarians are not amused.

“It’s like they’re sneaking something out there that they’re ashamed about,” said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who heads the Senate’s defence and national security committee. “It’s astonishing they didn’t have the material in the first place when they announced the strategy last month.”

“What happened to respect for Parliament and tabling it in the Commons?” he added.

The strategy was announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in May, but defence analysts and opposition MPs criticized the fact there was no actual written document.

Military officials later held a technical briefing where they provided more details.

The document outlines the proposed future purchase of new naval vessels, surveillance aircraft and vehicles for the army.

It also outlines the Conservatives’ ongoing defence equipment projects, which include the purchase of new transport aircraft, helicopters, supply ships and used tanks.

The 22-page document released Thursday night repeats that information as well as information in previous government news releases. It does not contain any significant new details.

New Democratic Party Defence critic Dawn Black says she thought the release’s timing was more than a coincidence. “This leaves no time for the Commons defence committee to ask questions on this, nothing,” said Black. “Is that accountability?

“It’s embarrassing Canadians have to read a U.S. government website to get this information while our Defence Department says nothing about it.”

Neither the Defence Department nor Public Works released details on the howitzer deal, but Congress was told Wednesday about the pending sale.

Under American government accountability rules, the U.S. Defense Security Co-operation Agency must tell Congress of upcoming sales of weaponry. That information is also made public.

The estimated cost is $114 million, according to the security co-operation agency.

The agency told Congress that the proposed sale would contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the military capabilities of Canada and the Canadian military’s interoperability with U.S. forces.

“This proposed sale would greatly contribute to Canada’s military capability by making it a more sustainable coalition force to support the global war on terror,” the agency stated.

Canada currently operates M777 lightweight howitzers in Afghanistan.

U.S. firms in Mississippi and in Michigan will provide the equipment.

There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren’t required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008

=================

4.  OFFSET AGREEMENTS

Regarding the last line of the preceding newspaper article,  “There are no offset agreements in place for the sale, which means that the U.S. companies aren’t required to provide industrial benefits to Canadian firms.”

I didn’t know they had a name, “Offset agreements”.  They are of particular concern.  They are the vehicle to accomplish the “Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry” under the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.

There is something wrong with the statement in the newspaper article, “There are no offset agreements in place for the sale“.  There is information on the Government web-site to contradict it.

I left a phone message for the journalist, David Pugliese to request clarification.  What is the source of information for this statement?  It seems to be at odds with:

(1)  The Govt of Canada web-site, January press release.  (Link no longer valid: http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372509 )

Government of Canada Awards Tactical Airlift Contract

For immediate release

GATINEAU, January 16, 2008 – The Honourable Michael M Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, along with the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced that the government has awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation for the acquisition of the Canadian Forces new tactical lift aircraft.  …

The purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft is valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support.

Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract.

“We are continuing to make sure Canada’s aerospace and defence industries obtain maximum benefit so they can build and sustain capacity to support these aircraft over the long-term,” Mr. Fortier said. “Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits – well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude.”

The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, believes Canadian firms will play a significant role in the project’s progress. “Through the government’s industrial benefits policy, we are delivering maximum, high-quality economic benefits to Canadians while providing the military with the best equipment for its needs,” said Mr. Prentice.

Delivery of the first aircraft is expected in winter 2010.

(2) The statement in the newspaper is also at odds with the information from the people who protested Lockheed Martin’s funding to Dalhousie University:

“Dalhousie University is announcing a multi-million dollar research contract with Lockheed-Martin. This contract is the result of government policy, which requires a foreign company to invest in Canada before it can enter into a government contract. (How does the Industrial and Regional Benefits (IRB) policy work?

(Link no longer valid:  http://www.strategis.gc.ca/epic/site/ad-ad.nsf/en/ad03661e.html)

==========================

5.  MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE, PETER MACKAY, DETAILS OF $490 BILLION DOLLAR DEFENCE STRATEGY

(Link no longer valid:  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/defence_strategy)

MacKay reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy to modernize military   Fri Jun 20, 4:50 PM

HALIFAX – The chairman of the Senate defence committee criticized the federal government Friday for releasing its long-awaited defence strategy with no notice, while also accusing Ottawa of producing an unrealistic plan that’s a rehash of old promises.

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny said he was stunned when he was tipped off late Thursday that something “interesting” might be appearing on the Defence Department’s website and later saw a posting for the $490 billion Canada First Defence Strategy.

“This business of releasing it at seven o’clock at night is for the birds,”Kenny said from Ottawa. “It doesn’t make much sense to me unless you don’t want a lot of people to notice it.”

He described it as “a lousy paper.”

Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed the claim, saying the government merely wanted to add more details to the plan announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Halifax last month.

Speaking at an international conference in Halifax on Friday, MacKay said the plan would modernize the Forces and provide the personnel, equipment and infrastructure to carry out domestic and international missions.

“It is a plan to give predictable, long-term funding and to rebuild and expand the Canadian Forces,” he told the audience, inviting them to view the 21-page document on the Defence Department’s website.

“We need to have a capable, flexible and deployable military and this is what we are doing in Canada with the Canada First Defence Strategy.”

The 20-year plan includes an annual spending increase of two per cent starting in 2011 that will boost the defence budget to $30 billion in 2027-28 from the current level of $18 billion.

The funding includes $20 billion for new aircraft, tanks and ships, in addition to $15 billion in transport planes, trucks and helicopters that had been purchased earlier.

The price tag includes a projection of $250 billion to recruit 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserve force personnel, along with $140 billion for spare parts, maintenance and training.

It focuses on six core principals: support for a major international event in Canada, like the 2010 Olympics  (INSERT:  try the G-20 Summit in Toronto in June 2010); responding to a terrorist attack; supporting civilian authorities during a natural disaster; leading major international operations for an extended period; deploying personnel to international crises; and maintaining the ability to conduct continental operations through NORAD – the North American Aerospace Defence Command.

The strategy cites the purchase of four C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft and the procurement of 17 new C-130J Hercules tactical lift aircraft, along with plans to acquire 16 Chinook helicopters.

The acquisition of those previously announced items, including Arctic patrol ships, and new fleet replacements is projected to cost $35 billion over two decades.

Infrastructure and its maintenance is pegged at $25 billion over 20 years.

But one defence analyst said the document is based on economic factors and inflation that can fluctuate wildly and dramatically jack up the costs.

“That is vulnerable to some wild shifts down the road,” said Brian MacDonald of the Conference of Defence Associations, adding that the price of equipment can rise steeply over time.

“I’m pleased with the plan, but I have reservations about whether this is enough money to handle the equipment side.”

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the document reaffirms her assertion that the Conservative government is aligned with the military goals of its neighbour to the south, and that Canada’s role in Afghanistan is the priority.

“This so-called Canada first strategy really indicates a lack of putting Canada first and putting the war in Afghanistan as the top priority,” she said.

“There is a strong emphasis on interoperability with the U.S. military, which I think will be a major concern to a majority of Canadians.”

In the document, the government says the strategy is based on the need for a boost in troop strength and modernized equipment to address global terrorism, the “proliferation of advanced weapons” and “nuclear-capable adversarial states headed by unpredictable regimes,” while establishing a strong presence in the Arctic.

================

6.  CANADA’S UNRECORDED MILITARY TRADE

This was written in 1996.  I don’t know today’s status.

(link no longer valid, www ploughshares ca)

Export controls loophole: Canada’s unrecorded military trade

Each year Canada exports more than $100-million of equipment to overseas military users that is neither subject to export controls nor reported as military sales. Ken Epps reports on a large conventional arms control loophole that could widen.

(Please go to web page for full article.)

======================

7.  LETTER TO EDITOR SENT BY LEO KURTENBACH. I HOPE IT GETS PUBLISHED.

To the Editor,

Your readers who may have read my recent June letter regarding the possibility of a World War 3, may have muttered to themselves that the message came from the pen of a scaremonger or an alarmist.

If so, please consider the June 19th posting of a military strategy document by the Department of National Defence.[DND]

One Canadian military strategist wondered why this document had been released at this particular time of day, and just a day before the House of Commons prorogued for the summer.  There was no public announcement. The following are some of the main points in that document.

1.  It is proposed that the military budget be increased by 490 billion dollars over the next 20 years.

2.  60 billion dollars are budgeted for the purchase of helicopters, patrol ships, planes, destroyers, frigates, land combat vehicles and weapons.

3.  250 billion on personnel, 140 billion on training, and 40 billion on buildings and infrastructure.

The document stated that there would be more cooperation between the arms industry and the “state” in order to build up Canada’s arms industry on world markets.

It also stated that Canadian Universities (INSERT:  Dalhousie University and then SIIT in Saskatoon) will play a role in military research and development. And Canada should be prepared to serve a longer term in Afghanistan.

Last but certainly not  least, the document stated that “Canada’s military needs to enhance its ability to operate alongside US forces”.

The USA and Canada both profess and maintain that they are Christian nations.  Am I too naive in believing that it is an oxymoron in striving to achieve Peace by killing people?

Let Canada return to its former role as Peace keepers, when we were acknowledged as one of the most highly respected nations on this planet.

Leo Kurtenbach, Box 268, Cudworth, Sask., S0K 1B0.  Phone 256 3638.

===================

8.  LETTER I SENT TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

NOTE:  Canada got a new Chief-of-Defense on July 2.  Rick Hillier stepped down. I phoned to ask for new Chief General Walter Natynczyk’s email address and to lodge complaint about the Military Strategy.  You can call, too:  1 800 465-6890.  There’s no email address.  I am sending hard copy to him.

NOTE:  I received a reply to the email below.  See  2008-09-17  Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”

 

TO: (1)   Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada, Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A1

e-mail: info AT  gg.ca

Telephone (613) 993 8200  or  1 800 465 6890  (2)

General Walter Natynczyk

Chief of Defense Staff,  Canadian Armed Forces

101 Colonel-By Drive   Ottawa ON  K1A 0K2 tel.   Telephone:  613 992 5054

(3)  Peter MacKay – Minister of National Defence National Defence Headquarters

Major-General George R. Pearkes Building,  101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0K2

Phone: 613 996  3100    Email:   dnd_mdn  AT  forces.gc.ca

Dear Michaëlle Jean, Walter Natynczyk and Peter MacKay;

RE:  “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“,  posted on about June 19th, 2008

I am dismayed and appalled by the direction established through the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“.

It is not a strategy of defence.  It is a strategy of war.

I call upon you to reverse the strategy.

Concerning DEFENCE DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH U.S. DOCTRINE:

“.. the two nations’ armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.”

The U.S. launches illegal wars.  It creates hatred in the world by appropriating the resources of other people.  It has the atrocities of Abu Ghraib on its record.  George Bush will eventually be tried for War Crimes.  And Canada aspires to compatibility of doctrine with the U.S.?  Are you out of your minds?  That’s about the worst strategy I can think of.

Concerning the CREATION OF A MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN CANADA:

“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry  

The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to  …”

It is not what it’s made out to be.  The actual flow of money out of the public purse is explained by Peter Mackay in a newspaper interview:  “The purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft is valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support.  Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract.”

The funding goes to Canadian industry through the offset agreements in contracts made with, significantly and for example, Lockheed Martin Corporation.  For all intents and purposes Lockheed Martin IS the American military.  It is the world’s largest war contractor (a.k.a. “defence” contractor).  It makes billions of dollars through the killing of people.

It has a public record of corruption.

Lockheed Martin is already well positioned in Canada.  It is not only becoming the Godfather of Canadian industry, dispersing money from the public purse to Canadian businesses.  Through offset agreements Lockheed has invested in Dalhousie University (also consistent with the stated intentions of the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY”).  It can only invest in Dalhousie if it has EXCESS profits.  Its contracts are with the Government of Canada.

Ipso facto, you know that Canadian citizens are paying too much for its contracts, in addition to becoming the enablers of the aggressive American war machinery.

Jean Chretien, I sincerely thank God, kept Canada out of the Iraq war.  We are in Afghanistan.  You are no doubt aware that Canadian troops there will be helping to guard the Central Asian gas pipeline for American interests.

Read the following clause from the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” and tell me, when the U.S. declares war on Iran, will Canada be there helping to fire the bullets that are sheathed with Depleted Radioactive Uranium on the people of Iran?:

“These operations will often be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Canada will continue to support and contribute to these key international bodies. In addition, the Canadian Forces will participate, where circumstances dictate, in missions with like-minded states as a responsible member of the international community.”

Given that we are making our military doctrine “compatible” with the U.S., I would say that the U.S. is a “like-minded state”.  I wonder what circumstances will dictate that we help the Americans to launch a killing and destructive war on Iran?   And whose interests will be served by the war?  Will we be on-side with the Americans and off-side with the United Nations?  (as would have happened had we participated in the Iraq “mission”.)

Warnings from Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 Farewell Speech are instructive:

“… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

There are viable and realistic ALTERNATIVES TO KILLING WARS .  Gandhi brought the British Empire to its knees.  His weapon of choice was non-violent resistance.  In war waged with intelligence and creativity, the killing and destruction is minimized and the wars are actually won in a comparatively short period of time.  Nor do they leave as large a legacy of hatred.   It is the killing that creates the hatred.

The Canadian Military, through the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” exhibits (I am sorry to say) very ineffective, obsolete, stupid and very expensive strategy.

From newspaper reports, “MacKay reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy”.  With the looming monster of inflation (fuelled by enormous U.S. war debt) $490 billion will easily become half a trillion dollars.  Can you imagine what could be done overseas with $500 billion dollars?  It would actually make a significant contribution to peace in the world.   Aaah!  But then the Canadian military-industrial complex along with Lockheed Martin Corporation, their magnanimous benefactor, would be on the ropes.

“… nonviolent resistance as a political force is still young, its possibilities not yet well enough known, and is thus seldom an incitement to the masses and is seldom encouraged by the media. For all that, those striving for human rights are dependent on our solidarity and the feeling is growing of an ever increasing threat through the power of dictatorships, the armaments race and the immobility of bureaucrats. 

Gandhi presented the principles of nonviolent resistance to the world, but the methods – corresponding to the various hierarchies – have to be very different, should they lead to success. Through the multiplicity of nonviolent resistance, so rich in ideas, it can be demonstrated that the most powerful effective opposing forces can be mobilized against every form of violence …”

We have not only the example of Gandhi.  The East Germans brought down a fascist regime by successfully employing the tactics of Gandhi, creatively moulded to their situation and the opportunities-at-hand.  None of them had any money.

Consider what the “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“, our alignment with the American doctrine of war, will mean financially for Canadian tax-payors.

The Outstanding Public Debt of the United States as of 03 Jul 2008 at  04:41:28 PM GMT is a number so large I don’t know how to read or interpret it: $9,470,470,394,065.00

The estimated population of the United States is 304,288,339 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $31,123.34.   A family of four in the U.S. shoulders responsibility for Government debt of $125 thousand dollars.  That’s just for today.

The American National Debt has continued to increase an average of  $1.66 billion per day since September 28, 2007.  The debt is the consequence of American Military Strategy.  The numbers are up to where Canada used to be in the neighbourhood of 60% of GDP.  In 1980 the United States had its debt-to-GDP ratio around 40%, or where Canada was in fiscal year 2004-05.

But since then American Government debt has taken off – it is now above 60%.

It is a terrible mis-allocation of resources.  Always at the expense of future generations.

The “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY” reflects obsolete thinking.  It is a dangerous document for Canadians and for future Canadians.  If it is not stopped Canada will be a danger to other people in the world, too.  This is not too hard to figure out.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley  (contact info)

2008-06-18 “Canada First Defence Strategy” gives “interoperability” and “compatible doctrine” with the Americans. Tax-payers fund the establishment of the American military-industrial-congressional complex in Canada.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jun 182008
 

(Please go to 2008-06-19 for a more rigorous analysis of the “Canada First Defence Strategy“.  This posting is really follow-up to that.)

In June 2008 the information about the new “Canada First Defence Strategy” was posted to a Canadian Forces website: (Link no longer valid:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/index-eng.asp).    (“modified dates” 2009-04-03 and 2010-03-12.)

If it was reported at the time, it was under-reported in Canadian media.

– – – — – – – – – – – – – – – —

INSERT:

At Dec 2010, on the Canadian Forces webpage under “Complete Documentation” (of the Strategy), I cannot find a date on the   (Link no longer valid)   “Full PDF version 5.30Mo “.

I recommend the excellent information on Tamara Lorincz’s website  http://www.tamaralorincz.ca/ , discovered in late 2010.  Excerpt appended.

In December 2010 I phoned Tamara Lorincz in Halifax in relation to the protest over the Government’s planned purchase of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin at a cost of $16 billion.  We had a great conversation discovering our shared knowledge of Lockheed Martin!

From the conversation with Tamara:  “Lockheed Martin has 21 external lobbyists in Ottawa.  Even the oil and gas companies don’t have this many.”

– – – — – – – – – – – – – – – —

Back to the original email sent in 2008:

Understand “the money” behind the strategy, the construction of an economy that becomes dependent upon the waging of war – which becomes incentive to war, American style.

2008

This letter to the Globe and Mail addresses the Canada First Defence Strategy and offset agreements in Government contracts with Lockheed Martin Corporation.  It explains how the Canadian economy is moving toward the war economy.

SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOLD TYPE.

Email:  letters AT globeandmail.com

Re:  Two face jail time in census protest, July 5, 2008

For the information of the G&M staff:

I did not fill in my 2006 Census form. Part of the Census work was contracted out to Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s number one arms dealer that makes billions of dollars through wars and violence.

I am not breaking the law.

If my case is properly argued, I will be found “not guilty”.  The Statistics Act says that I, the citizen, must comply but it doesn’t end there. It sets out conditions for the Government. I also have responsibilities as a citizen.

StatsCan says “Most of the 65 people charged for not filing the 2006 census have now complied“.

Yes, most of the protestors have complied.  One person sitting in isolation, without people to impartially explain the Statistics Act, intimidated by the court system, without adequate financial resources or time or knowledge or experience, will fill in the form. They get a reduced fine and no jail time in exchange. They hold out as long as possible.

My trial is January 7 and 8, 2009   so I have time. (INSERT:  there were delays, the trial didn’t start until January 2010.) I am not isolated;  I ask for help.   I am very grateful for the support received, I know I could not stand on my own.  I cannot afford lawyer bills which might run to more than ten thousand dollars.  So I will represent myself in court, if absolutely necessary.  I do not have the skills to defend against the day-and-a-half of prosecutor’s arguments, but there is time to figure that part out, too.

Others share my concerns.  In 2003-04 there was fierce protest generated by news of the Lockheed Martin Census contract.  In response Statistics Canada reduced the involvement of Lockheed in the Census.  2006 Census work is just one of the contracts awarded to Lockheed Martin.  In 2004 they were awarded a multi-year contract worth $56 million to look after the medical records of the Canadian military.  In January 2008 “the purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft was valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support“.  That’s a sampling.

Lockheed Martin figures prominently in the new Canadian “defence” strategy (June 19), which requires some explanation.

The language of the strategy leads one to believe that Canadian industries will be the beneficiaries: 

“A Military in Partnership with Canadian Industry The Canada First Defence Strategy will also have significant benefits for Canadian industry. The infusion of long-term stable funding it provides will enable industry to reach for global excellence and to be better positioned to compete for defence contracts at home and abroad, thus enabling a pro-active investment in research and development and opportunities for domestic and international spin-offs as well as potential commercial applications.” 

There is a lot of money to be had.  Minister responsible, Peter Mackay: “…reveals details of $490-billion defence strategy to modernize military“.  

Who gets the money?  Tax-payors pay it. The billion-dollar contracts are awarded to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed works with Canadian industries: “Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits – well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude.”  (Source:  Michael M Fortier, Minister of Public Works, Government press release, January 2008.) 

Also:  “Dalhousie University is announcing a multi-million dollar research contract with Lockheed-Martin. This contract is the result of government policy, which requires a foreign company to invest in Canada before it can enter into a government contract.” 

These are called “offset agreements”.  They will in time duplicate the American military-industrial complex, in Canada.  Some say that has already happened. 

The only way that Lockheed Martin has excess money to dole out, is if the government contracts are exorbitant. The contracting-out of the Census and other purchases have nothing to do with the efficiency of Lockheed Martin because it is the private sector doing the work.  It has everything to do with transnational corporate access to the public purse through Government contracts and contacts.  In the U.S., Lockheed Martin spent more on lobbying Congress than any of its competitors, spending $9.7 million in 2002. Only General Electric and Philip Morris reported more lobbying expenses. In the 2004 election cycle, Lockheed contributed more than $1.9 million. 

The June 19, 2008 “Canada First Defence Strategy” says that Canada needs to have “compatible doctrine” with the U.S., along with  being “interoperable“.  Lockheed Martin is an obvious vehicle through which to become interoperable. 

80% of Lockheed’s money comes from the Government of the USA.  The biggest chunk of the 80% is from military contracts.  (It should be noted that Lockheed is diversifying into other Government service areas.  The Canadian census is one example.  Lockheed is also set to perform “data capture” and other services for the 2011 Census in the United Kingdom, depending upon the resistance in the UK.  It does US census work.  The medical records of Canadian soldiers have already been mentioned.) 

Canadian defence strategy is to become “compatible” in “doctrine” with the U.S..  The problem with the “doctrine” of the Bush Administration is that killing creates hatred.  Hatred breeds violence. Violence becomes terrorism. It is known that dropping bombs on people is counter-productive.  But lucrative for Lockheed Martin.  

The killing-combat model (doctrine) only escalates problems.  It does not mobilize the tremendous power of people, as Gandhi did.  A crowd of thousands, eventually millions, will overcome the various forms of violence, given time. It is the fastest road to peace.  The killing ways of “combat” add to the hatred, prolong the conflict, is transferred from one generation to the next and will destroy the earth.  In its long history, the killing ways have never accomplished peace, only destruction.  This planet is and has been our one and only home. 

Another individual who understands that we must discover alternatives to the killing ways is George Soros. George Soros is a self-made billionaire.  He helps bring freedom-fighters from various countries to the U.S. where they are trained in resistance.  They return to their countries to help overthrow oppressive regimes.  Soros works with local people “on-the-ground”.  It is about empowerment, the best weapon.

Becoming compatible with “the doctrine” of the Bush Administration, its buddies in Halliburton Corporation, Lockheed Martin, the contracting-out to mercenaries, etc., Canada too is setting up to cash in on “combat”.  Is that what we want for “defence” strategy – –  opportunities to make money?  (Really, it is a transfer of money out of the public purse to the military industry that has record profits because of illegal and immoral war.)

The Canada First Defence Strategy states: “It will also allow the Government to develop a stronger, mutually beneficial relation-ship with industry.”  The role of Governments is the relationship with human beings and other species, not corporations.

Canadians need to determine

– how much it will really cost Canadians and

– who benefits from this $490-billion defence strategy to modernize the military under Minister of Defence, Peter Mackay.

But getting back to Lockheed’s contract for Census work, the reason I will be on trial in January:

In the G&M article, Census branch director-general Peter Morrison is quoted:

“Mr. Morrison called the response to the census a “resounding success,”especially on Canada’s native reserves.”

The response to the 2006 Census (May) was a disaster that caused huge cost overruns. You may remember all the “Count Me In” advertising.  By July, 2006, ten thousand people from B.C. alone had still not filled in their Census forms. A portion of the overruns should be included in the costs when the “low-bid” from Lockheed Martin is considered.

The part of the statement related to First Nations (a “resounding success,”especially on Canada’s native reserves.”), of and by itself might be true.

But in the context of the court cases it is very misleading.   From newspaper reports in January 2008:  “Charges won’t be pursued against natives on reserves because their compliance rates used to be considerably worse, says Anil Arora, director general of the census program branch at Statistics Canada.”  The head line of the newspaper article is: “No charges sought for 35,000 natives who ignore Census.”

First Nations’ compliance was being handled well by StatsCan:  “Statistics Canada seeks co-operative approach as compliance climbs“.  There has been a change.  The January 2008 article names Anil Arora as branch director-general; the July 5 news report identifies Peter Morrison as branch director-general.

The frank and honest approach of Government builds respect.  Misleading statements bring disrespect and distrust.  So does Lockheed Martin’s record of court convictions and fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars.

If Lockheed Martin was a person, they would be in jail.  If they could not hide behind the corporate person, their conscience would bother them.

I am a person and so eligible for the jail cell. I have a conscience which is clear.  With effort and help I will, in justice, stay out of jail!

Sandra Finley

Saskatoon

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =  = = ==  = = ==

APPENDED

TAMARA LORINCZ  ON THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY

http://www.tamaralorincz.ca/

. . .    I want to be free to speak out against the injustices that I see and to take action as my conscience leads me. “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. civil rights leaderMy passion is to make the world a better place, but in a non-partisan way.  I will continue to work for peace, social justice, children, women, international solidarity, the environment and climate change. I will continue to organize campaigns and events to get information to the public that the government often denies them, because I believe that an informed citizenry will eventually make responsible decisions. People will act when they know.

I must also share with you that I knew that I did not have full support from the NDP federally and provincially because of my outspoken opposition to Canada’s war in Afghanistan and my objection to the troubling rise of militarism in our country and the growth of weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin in our province.I asked for and received a copy of Nova Scotia NDP Premier Darrell Dexter’s  (Link no longer valid: speech to the arms dealers) at the Atlantic Defence & Security Conference on September 9, 2009 and was saddened by his support for the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is the producer of nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, Hellfire and PAC missiles, and fighter jets among many other horrible weapons. The provincial government (started under the NS Progressive Conservative Party) and Nova Scotia Business Inc. have an (Link no longer valid)  economic growth strategy for Lockheed Martin in our province. This is a company that sells its weapons to our governments and then pockets our tax dollars. This war profiteering is crippling our economy and bankrupting us morally. Please read U.S. General Smedley Butler’s book War is Racket, 1935 (available at Outside the Lines bookstore).

The federal government is now spending $20 billion on the Department of National Defence (that doubled in 6 years from $10 billion) and under the ((Link no longer valid:  Canada First Defence Strategy) released in June 2008, another $490 billion will be spent on the military over the next 20 years.  Canadians were never consulted on this strategy and never asked if we want our tax dollars spent this way. Our federal politicians – our representatives – did not do their job to bring this to the attention of the Canadian public. Look at the  (Link no longer valid – http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/txt/72-eng.html)   federal Public Accounts Vol. 2 Table 1. Find out more about the (Link no longer valid: troubling rise of militarism) in Canada.By contrast, the federal government gives only $25 million to the Status of Women and gives only $46 million to the CBC (under Canadian Heritage + CRTC $1 billion) and only $1 billion annually to Environment Canada, the lead agency on climate change. Go to Canadian Treasury Board and look at the main estimates   : Environment Canada’s budget will drop from 2008 of $1.4 billion to 2011 to $891 million .

Our governments should be investing our tax dollars to help our country transition to a sustainable, low carbon economy, to create a more equitable and vibrant society, and to support child care, education, and health care.

If we cut military spending and ended the war in Afghanistan and had more progressive tax policies, we would have the money we need to invest in renewable energy, create a national child care and early learning program, reduce tuitions, and hire more doctors and nurses. We have spent $18 billion dollars on a failed combat mission in Afghanistan that has killed Canadian soldiers and innocent Afghan civilians –Why has our military transformed into Fight with the Canadian Forces? Why are we fighting at all? Why are are so few politicians questioning this?What kind of Canada have we become? I think our country has lost its national moral compass – no action on climate change, chronic homelessness, growing gap between the rich and poor, and a war in Afghanistan. How did this happen? Our federal and provincial governments are so dominated and influenced by patriarchy and by lobbying by elite, corporate interests that they too often ignore women, the common good and the public interest and this makes me grieve.

I believe that the growing militarism in our country and in Nova Scotia is one of the greatest challenges we face along with climate change and poverty. We are never going to achieve a sustainable world with the waste of resources on war and weapons.

The Earth Charter, the value system for sustainability established in 2000 by global consensus and adopted by UNESCO, comprises 16 principles into the following four categories: respect for the community of life, ecological integrity, social and economic justice, and democracy, peace and non-violence. Principle 16c states that we must “Demilitarize national security systems to the level of a non-provocative defense posture, and convert military resources to peaceful purposes, including ecological restoration.”On April 4, 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the great civil rights leader and youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize said in his speech “Beyond Vietnam,” one of the most profound and important speeches of his life, said “I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

He closed by saying, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”

In an interview this year, Howard Zinn, the great American social activist and historian, was asked what the biggest problem is in the U.S. today and with the Obama administration. He answered – militarism.

We need to transform our military and foreign policies to create genuine peace in the world and transform our economy and society to give real prosperity for everyone. We need greater moral courage to do what is right for people and the planet and we need real leadership to make it happen.I hope that someday our country will put an end to these injustices of poverty and climate inaction and can face the truth about our foreign and military policies. I also hope someday that our country will have a public inquiry and atone for its illegal and immoral war in Afghanistan and its shameful, covert involvement in the coup in Haiti, the most impoverished country in the Western hemisphere, against the democratically elected president, priest for the poor, Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004.

Things will only change when Canadians realize how much power they have to hold our governments to account, to ask more questions, to think critically, to seek the truth, and to take action. Very few politicians lead, they follow. It is the people who lead and must lead now. Canadians need to care more about the social and environmental impacts of our actions at home and in other countries. Our country also desperately needs electoral reform – Find out more at Fair Vote Canada. We should also learn from the international best practices and strong social democracies of Norway and Sweden – countries that treat their citizens and the natural environment much better.

Finally, I find hope these days in the brave acts of resistance and solidarity in the women’s movements (such as Codepink) and the indigenous movements (such as the Indigenous Environmental Network ). In 2008, the first indigenous president of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, gave a profound statement to the 7th Session Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, outlining his country’s 10 commandments to save the planet, humanity, and life. I wish we had such political courage and will among our elected officials in Canada.President Morales’ words are the echoes of Dr. King’s – they resonate in my soul and they are my mission.

For me, it is not about a political party – it is about the issues and doing what is right for the planet and for kids.”But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.”

Lasantha Wickrematunge, co-founder Sunday Leader newspaper, Sri Lanka, assassinated 2009In solidarity for peace, earth and justice,

Tamara Lorincz

Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaBOLIVIA’S TEN COMMANDMENTS TO SAVE THE PLANET

1. In order to save the planet, the capitalist model must be eradicated and the North pays its ecological debt, rather than the countries of the South and throughout the world continuing to pay their external debts.2. Renounce and put an end to war, which only brings profits for empires, transnationals, and a few families, but not for peoples. The million and millions of dollars destined to warfare should be invested in the Earth, which has been hurt as a result of misuse and overexploitation.

3. Develop relations of coexistence, rather than domination, among countries in a world without imperialism or colonialism. Bilateral and multilateral relations are important because we belong to a culture of dialogue and social coexistence, but those relationships should not be of submission of one country to another.

4. Water is a human right and a right for all living things on the planet. It is not possible that there be policies that permit the privatization of water.

5. Develop clean energies that are nature friendly; put an end to energy wastefulness. In 100 years we are doing away with the fossil fuels that have been created over millions of years. Avoid the promotion of agrofuels. It is incomprehensible that some governments and economic development models can set aside land in order to make luxury cars run, rather than using it to provide food for human beings. Promote debates with governments and create awareness that the earth must be used for the benefit of all human beings and not to produce agrofuels.

6. Respect for the mother Earth. Learn from the historic teachings of native and indigenous peoples with regard to the respect for the mother Earth. A collective social consciousness must be developed among all sectors of society, recognizing that the Earth is our mother.

7. Basic services, such as water, electricity, education, healthcare, communications, and collective transportation should all be considered human rights; they cannot be privatized but must rather be public services.

8. Consume what is necessary, give priority and consume what is produced locally, put an end to consumerism, waste, and luxury. It is incomprehensible that some families dedicate themselves to the search for luxury, when millions and millions of persons do not have the possibility to live well.

9. Promote cultural and economic diversity. We are very diverse and this is our nature. A plurinational state, in which everyone is included within that state – whites, browns, blacks, everyone.

10. We want everyone to be able to live well, which does not mean to live better at the expense of others. We must build a communitarian socialism that is in harmony with the mother Earth.

Read also Judy Rebick’s article Bolivia re-invents democratic socialism with Indigenous people in the lead

 Older Entries  Newer Entries