EDITORIAL The case for peace Nicaraguan vice-president Sergio Ramirez’ visit to Canada is extremely timely. It will help focus Canadian attention more forcefully on the quest for peace now underway in Central America, a goal supported by most Canadians and officially by Ottawa. During his discussions with the Canadian government, he put the case to Canada, urging our country to take an active role in helping the peace process succeed. Ottawa should make every effort to “give peace a chance,” as Costa Rica’s President Oscar Arias put it to Ronald Reragan some days ago. The Sandinista government, one of the five signatories to the peace plan signed in Guatemala City on Aug. 7 and due to take effect on Nov. 5, views the chances for peace from a very real perspective. Reagan’s contra war against Nicaragua has cost that country some 30,000 killed and countless wounded. It’s economy, on a war footing since 1981 when the illegal war began, has suffered over $1 billion in direct damage — a calamity for an impoverished people struggling to overcome a colonial past. 3 In the weeks following the signing Reagan has repeated his condemnation of. the Sandinista government and, ominously, has publicly requested Congress pass $270 million in contra funding to press the war. The next weeks, therefore, are critical to Central America’s chances for peace. Vice-President Ramirez has put the case for peace. He has urged Canadian participation to assist both in the implementation and monitoring of the Arias plan. He has reported his government’s steps to date to fulfill the plan’s conditions. President Reagan has put the case for war. He has asked for millions more to fund his contras. He would condemn Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras to continued armed conflict. The choice for Canada should be clear. _ Message from Britain With this issue, the Tribune concludes its three-part series on privatization in Britain. Coincidentally, the final article is appearing just as Premier Vander Zalm has announced his government’s sweeping privatization plans. Like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Vander Zalm has trumpeted privatization as a policy to “create economic development and opportunities for all British Columbians.” But as the experience after eight years in Britain demonstrates, privatization has created no economic development — except in the financial services sector. On the contrary, it has brought about the loss of thousands of jobs throughout the economy, particularly in public services. And those services have declined markedly — in health care, in public transport, n local government services where private contractors have been brought in. The only benefits have gone to the investment houses who have handled the share sales and the corporate shareholders who have gathered up the shares in Britain’s public assets at bargain-basement prices. Britain also has some other lessons, as the last article this week shows. Mounting an effective opposition to privatization requires the mobilization of the broadest possible alliance of trade unionists, community groups, political parties, consumer organizations and others who don’t want to see public assets and services handed over to the private sector for profit. It requires initiative from the labour movement and strategies that include a wide range of economic and political actions. But the labour movement in this province has done that before and can do it again. We intend to do everything we can to assist in that process. NOT A IN ORDER TO PROTECT AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE PERSIAN(Gulf