Progressive Labor Party maintains that the primary contradiction in the world today is inter-imperialist rivalry, forecasting a period of increasing conflict among the world’s imperialist powers.
This analysis has been corroborated by a surprising source, Radio Canada’s scientific news program, “Les Années Lumière.” On April 24, University of Quebec professor Yves Bélanger revealed that Canada has changed from a defensive to an offensive military policy.
The key evidence is the government’s decision to replace its F-18 fighters with ultra-modern Lockheed Martin F-35s, at a cost of $16 billion. The decision remains top secret.
“It’s quite difficult to establish Canadian [military] policy,” Bélanger said. “We observe at present…a tendency to buy materiel that is conceived for combat,..not…for the defense of Canadian soil, and also conceived to be deployed.”
“I presume that the Canadian government’s intention is, ultimately, to give itself the capacity to intervene…in international missions…possibly… contributing to world stability.”
But dialectics teaches that the world is constantly changing. In the present context, “contributing to world stability” is a euphemism for preventing change. In particular, it means preventing rising imperialists like China from threatening capitalism’s established world order, or preventing occupied countries from resisting NATO forces.
“In the near future,” Bélanger continued, “Canada is going to buy close-combat….armored vehicles that are midway between the armored personnel carriers that Canada presently has, and tanks. These are vehicles…able to penetrate cities and to conduct combat in cities…likely to be equipped with cannons…to obtain a higher level of precision, [and] accuracy in terms of firing...”
“The result,” Bélanger said, “is that Canada will…[have] a capacity which better corresponds to the kind of combat configuration…in a city like Kabul or Kandahar.”
He also said, “It requires big transport planes, and the Canadian government has just purchased [Boeing] C-17s, which…should make it possible to participate in rapid deployment operations.”
So, Bélanger said all this shows “that the government’s intention is to permit Canada, today, to stand out…in intervention missions...”
To make all this clear, Bélanger added that, in “the case of re-establishing peace, you intervene, and you impose, by force, a settlement of the conflict.”
Obviously, whether the bosses “maintain peace” or “re-establish peace, that “peace” is always synonymous with the exploitation of the working class. Nevertheless, there is now clearly a qualitative difference in the military role Canada intends to play in the future.
So why has the Canadian government decided to change its military orientation? No belligerent dictator has seized power, nor has there been any internal change that explains this development. The answer must lie in the evolution of the world imperialist system. Canada’s ruling class does not want to be left out in the coming re-division of the world.
The Radio Canada program also indicated that Canadian “democracy” bars any citizen input on military policy. Interviewer Janick Tremblay said, “We just tried to find out more about the…F-18s, and it was not possible to get an interview. So…it is improbable to speak about strategic orientation, especially in an electoral period.” [Canada had a general election on May 2.]
“This is a very sensitive subject,” Tremblay said, “including in academic circles, where one finds many research chairs financed by the federal government, specialists who are usually available, but who refused to be interviewed.”