Third Part. "The New Fascism" In Canada And The Western World

Telling half-truths, shrouding decisions in secrecy, privatizing military development and production, and purposefully misleading Canadians are all, apparently, parts of Canadian government strategy – a strategy receiving increased impetus with the birth of the reactionary Stephen Harper minority government. Before getting to the falsely named “Missile Defense Shield” of which Canada is an embedded part, we should look at the history that has brought Canada, against the obvious wishes of the Canadian people, to that ugly position. It could begin on April 4, 1949 when fifteen nations signed the treaty creating NATO – the U.S. dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO was, in fact, the military arm of the Cold War against Russia. On June 26, 1945, fifty nations had signed the United Nations Charter, but Winston Churchill had already sent a telegram to U.S. president Truman on May 12, 1945, referring to an “iron curtain” coming down across Europe. And in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946 he made his famous “iron curtain” speech, recognized as announcing the Cold War. He was not, at the time, prime minister of Britain, having been defeated by Labour on July 25, 1945. Nonetheless, as Opposition leader and hero of the Second World War Churchill continued as spokesman for the capitalist Right. As such, he challenged every move of the British Labour government to take actions that might lead to a rapprochement with Russia. For Churchill and those he represented, the Second World War had been an interlude in the conflict with Socialist ideas. So it was fitting Churchill gave the Fulton, Missouri speech. The Cold War, in fact, had begun with the Russian Revolution in 1917 and lasted until the break-up of the Russian empire in the late 1980s. It was, quite simply – and globally – a conflict between capitalist ideology and socialist ideology. After the Second World War a great political tug-o-war went on for power over countries liberated from Nazi domination. In most books published in the West, like the book called NATO, Facts and Figures (Brussels, NATO, 1976) the Soviet Union is identified as the creator of all tensions and conflicts. Of course, such a claim is false – as we will see. But we all need to shrug off the indoctrination of the past fifty years and see that the Cold War began in 1917 and did not stop – even during the Second World War. Churchill’s Fulton Missouri speech did not launch the Cold War; it re-launched that War. Before the outbreak of the Second World War strong forces in the U.S. and Britain preferred Hitler and Mussolini to any Left leaning leadership. When Oswald Mosley and his English ‘blackshirts’ (the British Union of Fascists), for instance, marched in London through the 1930s and attacked leftish groups - whom young sculptor Henry Moore, for instance, supported - British police stood by unconcerned and British judges very rarely found the Mosley’ites guilty. The U.S.A. and Britain gave up Spain to fascist government at the end of the 1930s in the so-called Spanish Civil War in order to destroy a leftish but not extreme, democratically elected government. Far from being a civil war in fact, it was described later by one of the leading Nazi generals of the time as the only war the Nazis ever won. Canada’a famous surgeon, Norman Bethune, and the equally celebrated volunteers of the Canadian Mackenzie Papineau regiment, went to Spain to support the legitimate government against Franco’s fascist assault. Bethune then went to China to assist the Mao revolutionary forces against Japanese aggression against China. As Mao began to win, the reactionary leader Chiang Kai Shek fled to Taiwan where the U.S. set about making it a fortress – the “real” China which it “recognized” as “China” until doing so became ridiculous. But that is the U.S. in Asia. We are concerned with Canada and the Western world. Even before the Second World War, the famous Englishmen who spied for Russia – Burgess, Maclean, Philby, and Blunt - all became supporters of the Soviet Union from seeing the rot in British democracy. In a statement which may parallel Canada now, Kim Philby wrote … “the real turning point in my thinking came with the demoralization and rout of the Labour Party in 1931. It seemed incredible that the party should be so helpless against the reserve of strength which reaction could mobilize in a time of crisis”. (Kim Philby, My Silent War, NY, 2002, p.xxx) Whatever the case then and now, a strong segment of Conservative Britain preferred the governments of both Mussolini and Hitler to any form of socialist or other kind of Left government. Not surprisingly, therefore, but falsified now, Russia was treated badly throughout the Second World War. The Russian contribution to victory in the Second World War was immense – much larger than the contribution of the USA which joined the war effort two years after it had begun. In Western countries the population, however, is invited to believe the USA, in fact, “won” the war. Paranoid in many ways, Stalin insisted the Allies refused to open a Second Front so that Russian strength would drain away in endless, destructive battles against the Nazis. In truth, Russia carried the burden of the war, lost something like 25 million lives, and suffered enormous destruction. It was – constantly – a betrayed ally whose demands after the war were resisted strongly, whatever we may think of Soviet Communism, especially under Stalin. Staggering as it may seem now, while Russia alone was the major fighting front against the Nazis, the British broke the key Nazi military secret code (as early as 1941) and kept the fact from the Russians. As Miranda Carter reports in her book about Anthony Blunt: “For the rest of the war, information relevant to the Soviets – particularly on German troop manoeuvres … was disguised, or even withheld….” One of Blunt’s leaks to the Soviets was to inform them of an intended German assault upon Kurst (information being kept from the Russians by the British). Blunt’s spy information saved thousands of lives of our “Russian allies”. Miranda Carter admits that some of the English believed “we ought to be giving much more to Russia”. (Anthony Blunt, London, MacMillan, 2001, p.276) Then, of course, the whole development of the atomic bomb was kept secret from the major ally taking the brunt of the Second World War. The “spies” who were feeding atomic information to Russia were, in fact, feeding information to a major ally suffering enormous military and civilian losses. Rare are the writers who will grant the ambiguity and contradiction of having a major ally denied the fundamental support an alliance is meant to provide. Perhaps a little of Stalin’s paranoia may have had a sound basis. Churchill worked unstintingly on “the Grand Alliance” between the United States and Great Britain, helping to shape the relation that now sees Tony Blair as an office boy and toady to George W. Bush and U.S. policy. Canada joined NATO in 1949. In fact, strong anti-Communist Louis St. Laurent, later prime minister, urged the organization forward and Lester Pearson became one of its “three wise men” who recommended spreading NATO influence into politics and non-military matters. Indeed, a North Atlantic Assembly of parliamentarians was set up in 1954 to meet annually so governments could know – (and follow?) – NATO-made policies. In international affairs Canada was trapped into a U.S.-dominated, NATO-constructed set of foreign policies. At home, the same process of entrapment occurred. Claiming a constant threat from the Soviet Union, the U.S. chipped away at Canadian sovereignty. During the time of Pauline Jewett’s position as Foreign Affairs critic for the NDP (the 1980s), the NDP argued strongly for Canada’s withdrawal from NATO, with very good reason. The Party does not follow that policy today. When John Diefenbaker became prime minister in 1957, it is said that the St. Laurent Liberals had prepared but not finalized NORAD (the North American Defense Agreement), which, in effect, tied Canada to the U.S. and made this country subservient to the U.S. in Air Defense. The story (never clear) is that civil servants pushed the treaty at Diefenbaker to sign, saying it was a done deal, only needing his signature. It was announced less than six weeks after he became PM, and was haggled over until May, 1958. The two air defense forces are under a falsely named “joint command” which always has a U.S. senior officer. “Joint” indeed. The destruction of Canadian military sovereignty as a result is probably best suggested by the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the first hard test of NORAD’s meaning. The agreement of both governments was theoretically necessary before formal alerts or actions could be taken. But the U.S. (John F. Kennedy) was furious Diefenbaker would not go on high alert immediately when the U.S. did. The divided Canadian cabinet argued and held apart from the U.S. decision for some days. But, secretly, Minister of Defense Douglas Harkness gave the order to the Canadian military to follow U.S. policy. That (alleged) act of treason was never confronted and Harkness left political life unscathed. The downhill path continued. When the Soviet empire fell to pieces, NATO, ostensibly, had no reason to continue. But since it was, in fact, a front-organization to disguise U.S. military policy and activity, it was redesigned to fight “rogue states” and “terrorists” and “insurgency” anywhere in the world. It is now, in fact, the latest extension of the U.S. Monroe Doctrine which states the U.S. has direct interest and the right to intervene. First articulated in 1823 about Central and South America, the doctrine has been continually expanded until with the newly-born NATO after the fall of the Russian empire, the “doctrine” now covers the planet, and the U.S. has dragged all the countries it can into the NATO “family”. That is one strong reason among a number that the European Union countries seem incapable of making an independent Middle East policy or to demand an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Two other highly visible effects of the collapse of the Soviet empire unfold before our eyes. No longer needing to focus on what the private corporate class and its Right governments in the West saw as the dangers of international Socialism, they can now pit themselves against what they call “socialist” qualities inside Western nations. And so we live amid constant attacks upon publicly-owned corporations, social services, workplace and safety regulations, universal education, healthcare based upon equality, and progressive tax systems that require private corporate wealth to contribute to general well-being. In fact, the private corporate class across the Western world has turned from the attack against Socialist states to class war within individual countries. Gaining in confidence, the private corporate class and its Right governments now attack the basis of democratic election and democratic process, as I have already argued in an earlier column. In the U.S. allegations of corrupt balloting to elect George W. Bush are maintained by serious observers. We may expect to see Right forces both in the U.S. and Canada increasingly involved in ballot tampering and other forms of election fraud in the future. In Canada, moreover, the Stephen Harper minority government refuses to call Israel to account for the deaths of Canadians in Lebanon and for its attack upon a U.N. post. The latter may be an attempt to discredit the United Nations and to drive it out, assuring dominance of U.S./Israeli policy for the region. The U.S. and NATO have long been in covert and overt competition with the U.N. for the role of “peace keepers” (?) in the world. Stephen Harper’s refusal to condemn Israel for the (calculated?) attack on a longtime U.N post testifies to the fact that he is part of the reactionary group for which international law and convention are sentimental nuisances to be ignored or brushed aside as a part of the larger plan being acted upon by “The New Fascism” in the West. In Great Britain the Labour Party has been slowly turned into a reactionary party supporting the worst U.S/private corporate policies of war and domination. In Canada the distinct “Red Tory” Canadian conservatism often mirrored in the Progressive Conservative Party has been slowly marginalized, and the “Conservative Party” has been turned into a reactionary party of the private corporations, mimicing and supporting the worst aspects of U.S. Republicanism. In Italy, through the recent terms of Berlusconi, Italy threw itself at the feet of George Bush. In France, the Right forces of the Chirac government tried to bully a pro-private corporation, European Union constitution upon the French population – and failed. It tried to force destructive legislation upon labour, and was forced to withdraw it. In that country the class war is open and being fought in the streets. Germany has gone Right, and its new leader is happy to be photographed in smiling relation to George W. Bush, though the corporate attack upon labour in that country has been muted to avoid the defeat of present government. “The New Fascism” has been emboldened by forms of economic takeover and integration in which large private corporations exist in several countries at once (or in cooperative relation) and have significant power over governments, journalistic freedom, and – increasingly – curriculum in education. A part of that integration is built upon treaties and agreements and shared “defense” production involving gigantic military expenditures. Unknown to most Canadians, for instance, Canadian military products are in active use in the war being conducted by Israel against Lebanon. The Canadian government allows the completely unrestricted delivery of Canadian-produced military materials to the U.S. The U.S. considers Canada a part of its “national” sourcing. Where Canadian war products end up is, apparently, none of Canada’s business. And so Canada is part of U.S. lawless and brutal aggressive policy everywhere on the globe. “The New Fascism”, demonstrably, in its military activity, is an operational fact often kept secret from the population by corporations and governments involved. That situation (among others) will be examined in the next column. [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 8, 2006]