Letters oF co ~Why + Letters is B.C. Hydro using PCP after Agriculture Canada ban’? Agriculture Canada has just registered new pesticides for use as wood preservatives or anti-sap stains for the B.C. lumber market. The new pesticides replace pentachloro- phenol or PCP which will be de-registered as an anti-sap stain at the end of 1990. PCPis being banned because it is a poten- tial human carcinogen and because of its high dioxin content. For some strange reason, they are going to allow B.C. Hydro to continue to use PCP on utility poles. If Agriculture Canada has seen fit to ban PCP in one situation, why are they continuing to allow its use in another? In Canada, studies have shown that over 60 per cent of poultry and pork samples tested contained PCP. Also, PCPis frequent- ly detected in drinking water. Burning PCP- contaminated wood waste poses a signif- icant problem because the buming produces dioxins. In Merritt, ground water is found to be contaminated by PCP near mill sites. In the Merritt school district, a study by the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. cited significantly elevated mortalities for five different types of cancers, in particular non-Hodgkins Lym- phona. Pentachlorophenol wood chip contam- ination was found at the Kamloops pulp mill in the 1980s. A report states elevated pen- tachlorophenols from the Kamloops mill ef- communities. fluent have been detected in Ashcroft’s and Savona’s water supply in parts per billion. Yet no one has ever informed the residents of either city. The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada believes that PCP should be banned KAMLOOPS PULP MILL ... PCP from pulp mill effluent detected in down r iver completely and have therefore decided to appeal B.C. Hydro’s pesticide permits. Greg Melnechuk, Safety Officer, PPWC Kamloops U.S.-NATO the powder key in the Gulf I compared your editorial “Bush’s Xmas present” (Tribune, Aug. 20, 1990) to Wall Street Journal editorials concerning the U.S. attitude to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The WSJ ("‘Marshalling forces," Aug. 9) notes that “a great opportunity has dropped into the laps of George Bush and his NATO allies .. to pacify one of the world’s most troublesome regions.” The Trib’s analysis is the same: “Saddam has handed George Bush his Christmas present early.” Both attribute to Saddam the cause of an opportunity for U.S. policy. But millions of ‘workers in the Arab world and elsewhere see Saddam’s actions resulting from British and USS. imperialist policy in the region. The editorials place the U.S. attitude in the following context: “... the world shows signs of being a different place, and Iraq Only claiming what is theirs The familiar phrase “Indian land claims” contains a bias towards the non-Indian, implying that the abor- iginal people are claiming land that _ belongs to someone else. To state the obvious, the non-In- dian holds the land by force of supe- rior arms, not by divine right or civil law. Wright Balfour, Vancouver seems to have badly underestimated the change. Nothing can justify the U.S. in- vasion of Panama ... The actions of the Iraqi government are no different” (Tribune). “The boldness of Mr. Bush and West means, in short, that the world changed suddenly a few months ago and Arab dictators missed the signal. Their big friend, the Soviet Union, lost a Cold War and suddenly has become desperate for Western economic aid” (WSJ). Unlike the WSJ, the Tribune does not provide a cause of the world political change. Despite the omission of cause and effect analysis by the Tribune, both edit- orials share the same broad outlook. This leads to other similar conclusions. The WSJ editorial “Opportunity for Mr. Bush” (Aug. 8) notes: “The embarrassing pre-Saddam votes in the Democratic-con- trolled Congress to gut the defence budget need to be revisited ....” The Trib writes: “Arms programs jeopardized by the post- cold war climate can now be given the green light.” I strongly disagree with this con- clusion and the Tribune’s view that Iraq’s actions have given Bush “... a pretext for military intervention in the Middle East.” In the “Economic threat” (Aug. 3), WSJ editors write: “The Iraqi invasion ... is... a push toward both inflation and recession. But this only continued the recent trend.” The Trib editors write: “Regional tension may also result in an oil shock, tumbling the _ North American economy into the long- awaited recession the neo-conservatives have been trying to engineer. This is why world pressure must mount on Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and all economic measures taken to condemn such aggres- sion.” The Tribune justifies “world” pressure against Iraq to save the North American economy. I think that the Tribune should always avoid chauvinist, neo-colonial at- titudes harmful to the interest of workers everywhere. Class struggle was last “suspended” dur- ing the fight against Nazi Germany. The conditions of the working class today and a truthful evaluation of Iraq’s threat to North American security do not allow the con- clusion that classes should co-operate against a common enemy. The arguments marshalled to justify class co-operation against Iraq, provide a green light for arms spending a la Reagan and help create a win- dow of opportunity for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East are unconvincing. Astonishingly, the Tribune writes: “... military intervention by a hypocritical U.S. administration ...” is “equally adventur- ous.” This greatly miscalculates the military and political consequences of war between the U.S. and Iraq. Such a war could cause casualties and destruction on a scale far larger than Panama and foster desperate anti-imperialist struggles. We must clearly oppose imperialist plans against Iraq today to prevent more reaction- ary and militaristic policies tomorrow. Stop- ping Saddam is a minor issue compared to the far greater threat posed by U.S..NATO imperialism. D. Wrenka, Ottawa Steel union still has to prove itself John MacLennan’s column “Steel strike could be a hallmark battle” (Tribune Aug. 20, 1990) is a useful call to arms and is a repeated urging of unity in the labour movement. There is little question that Steel should be supported even if it is an international. Stelco has killed too many workers and made excessive profits, But there are serious reserva- tions about that union because of its past actions. This is the same union whose “hallmark” is raiding and destroying the left as the CP well knows. Nor is it necessary to go into the list of unions, many of them Canadian na- tional unions, that it broke or swal- lowed or tried to; and it was not just people like Charlie Millard or Larry Sefton who did it. More recently, where was Leo Gerard when Local 1005 battled the international head- quarters at the intemational conven- tion. over dues .and...democracy? Whose side was he on? Whatis Steel’s — position on democracy and the slate system? And those who take refuge behind Steel’s haloed “autonomy” are talking mythology. It is encouraging, however, that Steel has a mutual strike pledge with Canadian unions, the Canadian Auto- workers, the Canadian Union of Post- al Workers and the Canadian Paper- workers Union. But where was Steel when the CPU broke away from the international in 1974 and needed fin- - ancial support during those early cru- cial months? Where was Steel when CUPE’s jurisdiction over provincial government employees was being denied by the Canadian Labour Con- gress in 1974-75? Equally important, CUPW, the union that Canadians love to hate be- cause of media distortion and ignor- ance, will soon face a strike that likely will be unequalled in bitterness be- cause of management intransigence and government interference. They will need solid support from other unions, including Steel. Steel has been involved in some heroic struggles —in 1943, 1946 and 1978 —and one should support them. Hopefully, their image of being a lap- dog for the international and their avowed self-interest will be broken through their association with Can- adian unions. Perhaps they will see the light rather than the right. If not, those Canadian unionists who are placing their faith in Steel as being some sort of leader to rally around may once again find nothing more substantial than feet of clay. Foster Griezec, Chair Labour Studies, Carleton Univ. Ottawa Pacific Tribune, September 17, 1990 + 5