The Marxist-Leninist Daily

The more the Harper government integrates Canada into the United States of North American Monopolies, the more it declares that exceptional circumstances permit it to violate international laws and well-established conventions. There is no such thing as sovereign decision-making power over crucial questions of war and peace and other fundamental aspects of life when Canada is under U.S. military command and homeland security and belongs to NORAD and NATO. One of the latest examples of the Harper government's recourse to exceptionalism is Bill S-10, An Act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions came into force in 2010 and has 111 state signatories as of June of this year. It prohibits all use, stockpiling, production and transfer of cluster munitions. Section 21 of the Convention makes provisions for a specific exception, namely when state parties find themselves in joint military operations with states that are not a party to the Convention. Section 21 provides a clarification of the duties of Convention signatories under such circumstances. Section 21 was allegedly included so as to achieve the widest possible adoption of the Convention.

"1. Each State Party shall encourage States not party to this Convention to ratify, accept, approve or accede to this Convention, with the goal of attracting the adherence of all States to this Convention.

"2. Each State Party shall notify the governments of all States not party to this Convention, referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, of its obligations under this Convention, shall promote the norms it establishes and shall make its best efforts to discourage States not party to this Convention from using cluster munitions.

"3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties, their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party.

(d) To expressly request the use of cluster munitions in cases where the choice of munitions used is within its exclusive control."

Despite making some allowances, it is clear the spirit of Article 21 of the Convention is for signatory states to not only themselves uphold the Convention but to discourage at every possible opportunity the use of cluster munitions by any non-signatory state.

Bill S-10 is the means by which the Harper government is proposing Canada ratify the Convention in a manner that makes it exempt from upholding its aim -- the elimination of the use of cluster bombs. A Senate bill, it was tabled in the upper house on April 25 and is currently at second reading. Section 11 of Bill S-10 specifically addresses the issue of "interoperability," such as the integration of Canada's military with that of the U.S. or with other NATO forces. Such "interoperability" has been a buzzword in the push for a North American Security Perimeter and also within NATO as the aggressive alliance seeks to enlarge itself.

Bill S-10 treats Article 21 of the Convention as an "exception." Section 11 of Bill S-10 effectively permits any contravention of the Convention if Canadian Forces are operating with "allies." Obviously, the most notorious of those "allies" is the United States.

While the discussion of Bill S-10 is taking place in the Committee with genteel parliamentary decorum, the issues at stake regarding Section 11 are important for all Canadians.

According to the Parliamentary Legislative Summary, Canada currently has 12,600 cluster munitions, withdrawn from active service as of 2007. But this does not mean Canada has abandoned the use of cluster munitions. Foreign Minister Baird told the Senate Committee on October 3 that there are currently "about 100" Canadian Forces personnel whose activities are directly covered by what he calls the Section 11 "exception." These are Canadian Forces operating under US military command.

In a recent open letter from 23 legal scholars addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it was pointed out that Article 21 of the Convention, the "interoperability" clause, does not provide for "exceptions" but is meant for clarification.[1] Commentators have called the draft ratification in Bill S-10 "the worst in the world" amongst those States which have ratified the Convention, and have argued that Section 11 of the bill could itself constitute a violation of the Cluster Munitions Convention.

Canadians have every reason to be concerned about the arrogant pressure being exerted by the Harper government to undermine international law and make the Canadian forces further subservient to the imperialist ambitions and practices of the U.S. Military.

Section 11 of Bill S-10 should be struck or completely rewritten in keeping with the spirit of the Convention.

Canada should get out of NATO, and sever joint military agreements with the U.S., both overt and covert.

Canada should be a force for peace in international relations, boldly asserting that there are alternatives to the use of force to resolve disputes between and within nation states.

To fulfil the mandate of the United Nations to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," an anti-war government is necessary, not a war government that engages in aggression and crimes in the name of self-serving definitions of what constitutes prosperity, democracy and human rights.

For Your Information -- Section 11 of Bill S-10

11. (1) Section 6 does not prohibit a person who is subject to the Code of Service Discipline under any of paragraphs 60(1)(a) to (g) and (j) of the National Defence Act or who is an employee as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Public Service Employment Act, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) directing or authorizing an activity that may involve the use, acquisition, possession, import or export of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet by the armed forces of that state or that may involve moving that munition by those armed forces from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it;

(b) expressly requesting the use of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet by the armed forces of that state if the choice of munitions used is not within the exclusive control of the Canadian Forces; or

(c) using, acquiring or possessing a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet, or moving that munition from a foreign state or territory to another foreign state or territory with the intent to transfer ownership of and control over it, while on attachment, exchange or secondment, or serving under similar arrangement, with the armed forces of that state.

(2) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from transporting or engaging in an activity related to the transport of a cluster munition, explosive submunition or explosive bomblet that is owned by, in the possession of or under the control of that state.

(3) Section 6 does not prohibit a person, in the course of military cooperation or combined military operations involving Canada and a state that is not a party to the Convention, from

(a) aiding, abetting or counselling another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs 6(a) to (d), if it would not be an offence for that other person to commit that act;

(b) conspiring with another person to commit any act referred to in paragraphs 6(a) to (d), if it would not be an offence for that other person to commit that act; or

(c) receiving, comforting or assisting another person, knowing that that other person has committed, or has aided or abetted in the commission of, any act referred to in paragraphs 6(a) to (d), for the purpose of enabling that other person to escape, if it was not an offence for that other person to commit that act.

1. Open Letter to Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird, Re: Bill S-10 -- The proposed Canadian Legislation to Implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions. To view letter and signatories, click here.

A Wasted Nobel (Excerpts)

If something was lacking to fully discredit the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by the Norwegian Parliament, it was the decision to award this distinction to the European Union. This award was established in the Will of Swedish magnate Alfred Nobel to reward "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." [...]

With the awarding of the Nobel Peace to Barack Obama (2009), it could be perceived that the Norwegian Parliament was more concerned with its country befriending the United States -- let's be friends! -- than with really rewarding those who fight for peace. Now it has done the same with the European Union, which in two successive referendums the Norwegian people have refused to join. How can an organization that, at present, has declared war on its people by imposing a brutal adjustment policy that sacrifices its people to save the bankers be rewarded? Can the condemnation of millions of people to unemployment, prostitution, extreme poverty, the shattering of their hopes be rewarded as a peaceful gesture? Or is it a joke or an insult to the intelligence of the international community. Who could forget that the European Union has ratified and supported the criminal U.S. blockade against Cuba, in 1996 sanctioning a "common position" designed to strengthen the island's suffering in line with Washington's directives? What about the support the EU is giving to the U.S. imperialist military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria, or its scandalous silence before the Rwandan genocide, or its complicity with racist colonialism by the state Israel and its criminal policy towards the Palestinian nation, or their indifference to the plight of the Sahrawis, or supine response to the death and destruction sown by the United States in the war in the Balkans? As [1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner] Adolfo Pérez Esquivel pointed out, this award seems destined to conceal and/or justify military operations that the EU, through NATO, carries out in the most remote corners of the planet, always as the White House's caboose.

Amid the deep economic crisis that has weakened it, the Greek government requested postponing arms purchases from Germany and France. The request was flatly rejected by Berlin and Paris. The adjustment must be made in wages and government spending in general, but not in the military budget and, above all, in the amounts allocated to acquire weapons from European countries, who today are rewarded for their contribution to peace! In fact, France, Germany and Britain, together with the United States and Russia, are part of the exclusive club of the five biggest arms dealers in the world. Strange way to promote the abolition or reduction of standing armies, as Alfred Nobel wanted.

Norwegian parliamentarians urgently need someone to teach them the difference between war and peace. They should memorize the Swedish industrialist's Will, because in view of this background, as summarized above, to reward the EU can only be seen as a grotesque act of submission to the military agreement between the U.S. and the EU and a "carte blanche" for NATO to continue committing all kinds of crimes and mischief aimed at strengthening the global imperialist domination.

People Heroically Persist in
Opposing "Austerity Measures"

Vehement Rejection of German Chancellor's Visit

The visit to Greece of German Chancellor Angela Merkel on October 9 was met by some 300,000 protesters brandishing banners reading "You are not welcome, Imperialisten Raus" (Imperialists out) and "No to the Fourth Reich." Underscoring how the Greek people view the current German Chancellor, four people dressed in World War II-era German military uniforms and riding on a small jeep, waved black-white-and-red swastika flags and raised their hands in the fascist salute. Other banners read "Merkel out, Greece is not your colony" and "This is not a European Union, it's slavery." The protest also took place in defiance of a ban on public gatherings and marches in most of central Athens from 9 am to 10 pm, "for reasons of public safety and to preserve the social and economic life of the capital."

Some 6,000 police officers were deployed for Merkel's six-hour visit, including anti-terrorist units and rooftop snipers.

In the northern city of Thessaloniki, some 700 protesters also rallied outside the German consulate.

The protests expressed the people's vehement rejection of the brutal austerity measures imposed on them which Merkel is championing. They also pointed to the fact that Greece's current financial situation can be traced to the theft of Greece's gold by Germany during World War II. The gold has never repaid and is still owed to the Greek people with interest. German Weekly Die Zeit has calculated the financial damage inflicted on Greece by Germany during the war to be 70 billion euros. The 1953 London Agreement postponed the settlement of reparations to Greece until the time Germany would be reunited. However, a new treaty signed in 1990 excluded the possibility of reparations.

Second General Strike in Two Months

On October 18, the Greek people held their second general strike to oppose the austerity agenda in two months, following a general strike on September 26. In Athens, at least 80,000 protesters took to the street in two separate demonstrations as part of actions across the country to protest new so-called austerity measures the government is negotiating with Greece's international creditors. Some 17,000 people protested in Thessaloniki. The strike grounded flights, shut down public services, closed schools, hospitals and shops and hampered public transport in the capital. Taxi drivers joined in for nine hours, while a three-hour work stoppage by air traffic controllers led to flight cancellations. Ferries between the islands stayed in port.

Photos of general strike held in September -- demonstrations took place in over 70 cities and towns throughout Greece as well as workplace pickets. Tens of thousands of workers, unemployed, pensioners, immigrants, self-employed and small traders took part and the actions were characterized by the participation of large numbers of youth. In Athens alone over 100,000 people marched to the Greek Parliament in actions organized by two trade union centrals which represent public and private sectors workers. A banner stretching the width of the street called on everyone to "Resist."

Dire Situation Worsens

The austerity measures demanded for 2013-14 by the Troika -- made of up the EU, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank -- are worth 13.5 billion euros ($17.3 billion Cdn). The Troika claim these cuts are required to prevent the country from going bankrupt and potentially having to leave the 17-nation eurozone. The Troika claim to have been very generous because Greece has already been given two bailouts worth a total 240 billion euros ($310 billion Cdn). The Greek government, which is cooperating with the international robbers, is also seeking a two-year extension to its "economic recovery program," due to end in 2014. Without the extension, it would need to take 18 billion euros worth of measures instead of the 13.5 euros it is currently negotiating, news media report.

The four-month-old coalition government is imposing further austerity measures with debt inspectors from the Troika. The demand of the moneylenders is for a further 11 billion euros in cuts to pensions and health care, while increasing taxes to take in an additional 2.5 billion euros.

French Professor Salim Lamrani, recently wrote, "In Greece, after the application of nine austerity plans, we witness a massive increase in taxes including the VAT as well as higher prices and lower wages (cuts of up to 32 per cent of the minimum wage). Pensions have also been reduced and the legal retirement age has been raised. Essential public services, such as education and health care have been destroyed and welfare has been eliminated. Strategic sectors of the national economy (ports, airports, railways, gas, water, oil) have been privatized. Production has fallen by 20%, unemployment has soared and the debt crisis has only worsened. Indeed, it is now higher than it was before the intervention of international financial institutions in 2010."[1]

The Troika's schemes to pay the rich have worsened the living conditions terribly. Massive cuts to wages, pensions, benefits and social programs have increased poverty on a massive scale. By the end of next year, the Greek economy is expected to be around a quarter of the size it was in 2008. With a 25 per cent unemployment rate, Greece has, along with Spain, the highest unemployment rate in the 27-nation European Union.

"[About] 180,000 businesses are on the brink [of bankruptcy] and 70,000 of them are expected to close in the next few months," said Dimitris Asimakopoulos, head of the GSEVEE small business and industry association.

"In 2011, only 20 per cent of businesses were profitable. So these new tax measures present small businesses with a choice: Dodge taxes or close your shop," he added.[2]

"It's so bad families can no longer afford to even bury their dead. Bodies lie unclaimed at public hospitals so that the local municipality can bury them. [...] We once had a life that was dignified. Now the country has gone back 50 years and these politicians have to be made aware that enough is enough," an undertaker was quoted as saying.[3]

As concerns Spain, Professor Lamrani points out that, "After the Greek disaster, which was caused by the austerity policies of the Troika, Spain in turn finds itself at the edge of the abyss. The same neoliberal shock therapy has been forcibly applied to the Spanish people, with the same disastrous consequences. According to the economic journal La Tribune, the government of Mariano Rajoy has imposed on its citizens 'a colossally rigorous austerity plan' that includes a projected 102 billion euros in spending cuts by the year 2014, a drastic reduction in the number of government workers, budget cuts in education and health, lower wages, higher taxes including the VAT, as well as a reduction in family allowances, unemployment benefits and pensions, among other draconian measures. All of this in a country hit by a record unemployment rate of 25 per cent and an explosion in its poverty rate. For its part, the European Commission, far from being concerned about the social and human consequences caused by these measures, 'welcomes the adoption of the multi-annual plan in Spain.'"[4]

1. "The European Budgetary Pact," Salim Lamrani, Huffington Post, October 14, 2012.
2. "Samaras in Brussels as Greeks Protest," Andy Dabilis, Greek Reporter, October 18, 2012.
3. "Greek poverty so bad families 'can no longer afford to bury their dead,'" Helen Smith, Guardian (UK), October 19, 2012.
4. Salim Lamrani, "The European Budgetary Pact," Huffington Post, October 14, 2012.

Greece-Germany: Who Owes Who?

Part 1
London 1953: Cancellation of the German Debt

Since 2010, in the stronger countries of the eurozone most political leaders supported by mainstream media have flaunted their so-called generosity towards the Greek people and other weaker countries in the eurozone that are currently in the limelight (Ireland, Portugal, Spain ). In this context, measures that further destroy the economy of recipient countries and involve social regression on a scale unprecedented over the past 65 years are called 'rescue plans,' To this we must add the ripoff of the March 2012 plan to reduce the Greek debt -- a plan that involves a 50% reduction of debts owed by Greece to private banks whereas these same debts, if negotiated on the secondary market, had lost up to 65 to 75% of their value. While the government's debt to private banks was reduced, there was an increase in what it owes to the Troika resulting in new measures of phenomenal injustice and brutality. This agreement to reduce the debt aims at burdening the Greek people with permanent austerity; it is an insult and a threat to all peoples in Europe and elsewhere. According to the IMF research unit, in 2013 the Greek public debt will amount to 164% of GDP, which shows that the debt reduction announced in March 2012 will fail to provide any actual relief of the debt burden weighing on the Greek people. It is in this context that Alexis Tsipras [head of SYRIZA opposition group in the Greek Parliament] visited the European Parliament on 27 September 2012 and underlined the need for a genuine reduction of the Greek debt, referring to the cancellation of a large portion of the German debt through the 1953 London agreement. Let us take a fresh look at this agreement.

The 1953 London Agreement on the German Debt

The radical reduction of the debt owed by the Federal republic of Germany and its fast economic recovery so soon after WWII were achieved through the political will of its creditors, i.e. the United States and its main Western allies (United Kingdom and France). In October 1950 these three countries drafted a project in which the German federal government acknowledged debts incurred before and during the war. They attached a declaration to the effect that "the three countries agree that the plan include an appropriate satisfaction of demands towards Germany so that its implementation does not jeopardize the financial situation of the German economy through unwanted repercussions nor has an excessive effect on its potential currency reserves. The first three countries are convinced that the German federal government shares their view and that the restoration of German solvability includes an adequate solution for the German debt which takes Germany's economic problems into account and makes sure that negotiations are fair to all participants."[1]

Germany's pre-war debt amounted to 22.6 bn marks including interest. Its postwar debt was estimated at 16.2 bn. In the agreement signed in London on 27 February 1953 these sums were reduced to 7.5 bn and 7 bn respectively.[2] This amounts to a 62.6 % reduction.

The agreement set up the possibility of suspending payments and renegotiating conditions in the event of a substantial change limiting the availability of resources.[3]

To make sure that the West German economy was effectively doing well and represented a stable key element in the Atlantic bloc against the Eastern bloc, allied creditors granted the indebted German authorities and companies major concessions that far exceeded debt relief. The starting point was that Germany had to be able to pay everything back while maintaining a high level of growth and improving the living standards of its population. They had to pay back without getting poorer. To achieve this creditors accepted:

- First, that Germany should in most cases repay debts in its national currency (mark), and only marginally in strong currencies such as dollars, Swiss francs, pounds sterling.

- Second, while in the early 1950s, the country still had a negative trade balance (importing more than it exported), they agreed that Germany should reduce importations: it could manufacture at home those goods that were formerly imported. In allowing Germany to replace imports by home-manufactured goods, creditors agreed to reduce their own exports to this country. As it happened, for the years 1950-1, 41% of German imports came from Britain, France and the United States. If we add the share of imports coming from other creditor countries that participated in the conference (Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) the total amount reached 66%.

- Third, creditors allowed Germany to sell its products abroad and even supported such exports so as to restore a positive trade balance. These elements are all present in the aforementioned agreement: "The payment capacity of Germany's private and public debtors does not signify only the capacity to regularly meet payment deadlines in DM without triggering an inflation process, but also that the country's economy could cover its debts without upsetting its current balance of payments. To determine Germany's payment capacity we have to face a number of issues, namely,

1. Germany's future productive capacity with special consideration for the production of export commodities and of import substitution;

4. economic and tax measures that might be required to insure a surplus in exports."[4]

Moreover, in case of dispute with creditors, German courts were declared competent. It was said explicitly that in some cases 'German courts may refuse to enforce a decision of a foreign court or of an arbitral body,' for instance when the enforcement of the decision would be contrary to public policy' (Agreement on German External Debts, Article 17, (4)).

Another significant aspect was that the debt service depended on how much the German economy could afford to pay, taking the country's reconstruction and the export revenues into account. The debt service/export revenue ratio was not to exceed 5%. This meant that West Germany was not to use more than one twentieth of its export revenues to pay its debt. In fact it never used more than 4.2% (except once in 1959). In any case, since a large portion of the German debts were paid in deutsche marks, the German central bank could issue money, or in other words monetise the debt.

Another exceptional measure was that interest rates were substantially reduced (between 0 and 5%).

A benefit of huge economic value was granted by Western powers to West Germany: article 5 of the London agreement postpones the payment of war debts and reparations (WWI and WWII) owed by the Federal Republic of Germany to attacked, occupied or annexed countries (and to their citizens).

Finally we have to consider the dollar grants the United States made to West Germany: USD 1,173.7 million as part of the Marshall Plan from 3 April 1948 to 30 June 1952 (i.e. about USD 10 billion at today's value) with at least 200 million added from 1954 to 1961 (about USD 2 billion today), mainly via USAID.

Thanks to such exceptional conditions West German economy was able to recover very fast and eventually absorbed East Germany in the early 1990s. It is now by far the strongest economy in Europe.

Germany 1953/Greece 2010-2012

If we attempt a comparison between the way Greece is treated today and the way Germany was treated after the Second World War, the differences are obvious and the injustice is flagrant. Here is a non-exhaustive list:

1. Proportionally the debt reduction granted to Greece in March 2012 is far smaller that the one granted to Germany.

2. Social and economic conditions associated with the plan (as well as with previous 'rescues') do not support economic recovery whereas they largely contributed to restore the German economy.

3. Greece must privatise its assets to foreign investors whereas Germany was prompted to control key economic sectors along with a fast-expanding public sector.

4. Greece's bilateral debts (to countries that participated in the Troika 'rescue') have not been reduced (only debts to private banks) whereas Germany's bilateral debts (starting with those towards countries that had been invaded or annexed by the Third Reich) were reduced by 60% or more.

5. Greece must pay in euros while its trade balance with European partners (particularly Germany and France) is negative, whereas Germany paid most of its debts with strongly devalued deutsche marks.

6. The Greek central bank is not allowed to lend money to the Greek government while the Deutsche Bank did lend to the German government and ran the printing press (though moderately).

7. Germany was allowed not to use more than 5% of its export revenues to pay its debt while no limit has been set for Greece.

8. The new securities on Greek debt that have replaced the previous set of securities owned by the banks are no longer within the jurisdiction of Greek courts, but of courts in Luxembourg and the United Kingdom (and we know how sympathetic they are to private creditors) while the German courts were declared competent.

9. In terms of paying external debts, German courts could refuse to enforce decisions of foreign courts or arbitration bodies when they were contrary to public security. In Greece the Troika obviously will not have Greek courts invoking public security to suspend payment. Now as it happens both the huge social protests and the rise of neonazi groups are the direct outcome of measures imposed by the Troika and by the country's repayment of debts. Whatever the outcry in Brussels, the IMF and the 'financial markets' the Greek government could legitimately invoke the state of necessity and public security to suspend payment of debts and cancel the antisocial measures imposed by the Troika.

10. In the case of Germany the agreement contained the possibility of suspending payments while conditions were renegotiated in the case of a substantial change that reduced available resources. Nothing similar is mentioned in the case of Greece.

11. The agreement on the German external debt explicitly mentioned that the country could produce goods it formerly imported so as to achieve a trade surplus and support local producers. But the philosophy behind the agreements forced upon Greece and the rules of the EU prohibit such support, whether in farming, manufacturing, or services, since this would contravene 'fair competition' with other EU countries (Greece's main trade partners).

We could add that after the Second World War Germany received substantial grants, notably, as mentioned above, through the Marshall Plan.

We can thus understand why the Syriza leader, Alexis Tsipras, refers to the 1953 London agreement when he calls upon European public opinion. The utterly unfair way in which the Greek people is treated (as well as those other peoples whose governments enforce the Troika's recommendations) must raise a fair amount of public outrage.

But let us face reality: the reasons that led Western powers to treat West Germany the way they did after WWII do not apply to Greece today.

A genuine solution to the tragedy of debt and austerity will require massive social mobilizations in Greece and in other EU countries as well as the accession to power of a people's government in Athens. The new government (backed by popular support) will have to decide on a unilateral act of disobedience, such as suspending repayment and cancelling antisocial measures, to force creditors to major concessions and finally impose the cancellation of illegitimate debts. A citizens' audit of the Greek debt must prepare the ground on which such decisions will be made.

(Coming soon: Greece-Germany: who owes who? Part 2 -- From the Third Reich debt to the Greece of today)

1. Deutsche Auslandsschulden, 1951, p. 7 and following in Philipp Hersel, El acuerdo de Londres de 1953 (III), http://www.lainsigna.org/2003/enero...
2. 1 USD dollar was worth 4.2 DM at the time. West Germany's debt after reduction (i.e. DM 14.5 bn) was thus equal to USD 3.45 bn.
3. Creditors systematically refuse to include this kind of clause in agreements with developing countries.
4. Deutsche Auslandsschulden, 1951, p. 64 and following in Philip Hersel, El acuerdo de Londres (IV), 8 de enero de 2003, http://www.lainsigna.org/2003/enero...

* Eric Toussaint, associate professor at the University of Liège, is president of CADTM Belgium (Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt, www.cadtm.org). Author with Damien Millet of Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank, Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers, Montly Review Press, New-York, 2010, of AAA. Audit Annulation Autre politique, Seuil, Paris, 2012.

Harper Government's Exceptionalism

Harper Government's Exceptionalism

For Your Information -- Section 11 of Bill S-10

A Wasted Nobel (Excerpts)

People Heroically Persist in
Opposing "Austerity Measures"

Vehement Rejection of German Chancellor's Visit

Second General Strike in Two Months

Dire Situation Worsens

Greece-Germany: Who Owes Who?

Part 1
London 1953: Cancellation of the German Debt

The 1953 London Agreement on the German Debt

Germany 1953/Greece 2010-2012

Harper Government's Exceptionalism

Harper Government's Exceptionalism

For Your Information -- Section 11 of Bill S-10

A Wasted Nobel (Excerpts)

People Heroically Persist in Opposing "Austerity Measures"

Vehement Rejection of German Chancellor's Visit

Second General Strike in Two Months

Dire Situation Worsens

Greece-Germany: Who Owes Who?

Part 1 London 1953: Cancellation of the German Debt

The 1953 London Agreement on the German Debt

Germany 1953/Greece 2010-2012

People Heroically Persist in
Opposing "Austerity Measures"

Part 1
London 1953: Cancellation of the German Debt