ae
Sa
=

|? LILI BUCA I

ro,

Push to the summit

At THIS moment is appears that

4 summit meeting of the big
Dilters On the Middle East war
ane will take place soon, and
Mihi’ the framework of the UN

“Urity Council rather than’ else-
Where,

The fact that such a meeting will
Ke place has already had a tremen-
st effect upon world opinion

y.. U8 the past days. It has eased
a tensions and fears and given
Ope that the danger of nu-
War, intensified by U.S. and
: h military intervention in
a @Non and Jordan, can be ex-
Sulshed before it spreads.

dlear
Britis

Deeply desiring the preservation
oe and the outlawing of all
Bec Weapons testing and manu-

te, the common people every-
Regi never lose sight of the
des in at certain atomic-minded cir-
pee US. do not seek nor want
ya ae meeting . . . anywhere.
tha de en’ ago John Foster Dulles

“ae oe RPry. clear when he an-
rap i: he “would have to be
vith th uD any ‘summit meeting

e Soviet Union.

‘ soviet Premier Nikita Khrush-
Num Proposal for an immediate
Brit s meeting following US. and
Midat armed intervention in the
thip® e East threw the “brinkman-
Peanin Strategists into a dilemma.
in ’ & the loss of “moral’ support
Cou an military aggression, they
they, t reject oiit-of-hand Khrush-
the, PFoposal. The next best thing
Be old do was to propose a
itite Kk Place, the kind they felt
Prom tushchey would decline. His
“lout st acceptance upset all their
Rist 1ons. Now the U.S. strate-

ate faced with making hurried
the: stations for a summit meeting

to, “Ye turned heaven and earth
Void,

In. :

of ech circumstances the danger
Which Incident”—some provocation
Cc). 22 Serve momentarily as an

€ or pretext to scuttle such a

a

Pacific Tribune

Phone MUtual 5-5288
. Editor _ Tom McEWEN
sing Editor — HAL GRIFFIN

Subscription Rates:
One Year: $4.00
Six months: $2.25

Ro Published weekly at
®m 6 — 426 Main Street
Vancouver 4, B.C.

Bs. 0

i Cunfeadian and Commonwealth

{he y. ©S (except Australia): $4.00

tha cae. Austrajia, United States

1 other countries: $5.00 one
year.

summit conference, even within the
U.S.-dominated confines of the UN,
is very great.

As everyone knows it is very dif-
ficult indeed to talk about genuine
peace—with one’s nuclear-equipped
armies invading the territory of a
people, whose prime struggle is
their own national independence
and right of self-determination.

Of course for the U.S. and
Britain there is a matter of
“saving face” as the Chinese call it.
Such may be considered by imperi-
alist warmongers and diplomats as
important, but the common people
would prefer peace with a “lost
face” rather than the horror of
atomic war and its attendent night-
mare of John Foster Dulles’ “face”
ever before them.

Welcoming the summit confer-
ence at the UN to find ways and
means to peace in the Middle East
and throughout the world, the
people will be doubly alert to U.S.-
inspired “incidents” designed to
blast their hopes, and continue the

Dulles nightmare of nuclear “brink-

manship.”

‘Lest we forget

ORTY-FOUR years ago on
August 4, 1914, the guns of the
First World War spat forth their
defiance of civilized behaviour,
leaving in their four-year wake a
trail of devastation, destruction and
death.

In that war to “save the world
for democracy” sixty thousand of
Canada’s young manhood paid the
supreme sacrifice; tens of thousands
came back wounded, disabled, and
unwanted, destined to endless hos-
pitalization, cheese-paring pensions’
boards, bumming on the skidroads
of Canada’s growing cities, queue-
ing up in endless lines in the hunt
for a job, or a bowl of charity
soup.

Having made the “world safe for
democracy” and Canada a place “fit
for heroes to live in” they were soon
to find that imperialist slogans in
wartime do not produce working
men’s pork chops in peacetime—a
lesson we still seem slow to learn.

Expanding German imperialism
under Kaiser Wilhelm was out for
more “lebensraum” and a new
division of imperialist “spheres of

influence.” Ironically enough, the
issue that touched off the First
World War on August 4, 1914, and
now again in 1958, was the Middle
East, and the German threat of a
“Berlin to Baghdad”  railway—
which would have put Kaiser Bill
right into the heart of Arabian oil

yurces, and incidently into the
lieart of what was then largely a
British-dominated colonial mono-
poly.

With Kaiser Bill it was “Me und
Gott” the “Fatherland” and oil.
With British imperialism it was the
“Motherland” calling to “save
democracy.” For both it was the oil
resources of the Arab world and
the prime issue of all imperialist
rivalries—who will have the “di-
vine” right to exploit and oppress
the millions of subject peoples in
the colonial world of imperialism.

For the common peoples of all
lands the First World War meant
death, sacrifice and suffering, with
nothing to show for it save a new

crop of war millionaires — and
cenotaphs.

“Lest we forget . . .” in August
of 1958.

Tom
McEwen

ye current discussions on the
present Middle East war crisis,
a lot of people often express
amazement at U.S. domestic and
foreign affairs “stupidity.”

“Why is it” they say, “that the
U.S always gets itself into diplo-
matic, military or political jack-
pots, while the Soviet Union on
the other hand always expresses
what ordinary people here and
alsewhere think and want?”

Many answers are forthcoming,
some close to hitting the nail on
the head, some very wide of the
mark. Not a few influential Cana-
dian papers, like the Vancouver
Sun recently, seem to think the
main trouble is John Foster
Dulles. Just get rid of that Wall
Street genius of “brinkmanship”
and all would be well!

It would be fine if it were so,
but such a “solution” only heaps
one illusion upon another, and
fails to take into consideration
that the five or six hundred
monopoly royalists who dominate
America (and seek to dcemiinate

the world) can raise a new crop
of Dulleses faster than a Fraser
Valley farmer can breed hogs.

The answer has to be sought
elsewhere; in the invisible bil-
lionaire government of the U.S.,
among the oil, steel, armament
and financial royalists who design
policies—and whose billions elect
governments pledged to carry out
such policies. In such government
the Eisenhowers and Trumans
serve as valuable rubber stamps,
but the Dulles’ breed are the
master cogs in the machinery of
U.S. imperialist expansion and
domination.

The United Nations Charter ex-
pressly forbids interference in the
internal affairs of one state by
another. That high ideal was the
prime victory for the common
people of all lands, emerging
from the death and destruction
of the Second World War.

How has the U.S., its billion-
aire government and its “brink-
manship” policy executors re-
garded that high ideal?

By spearheading military inter-
vention and bloody aggression in
Korea in 1950 to uphold the cor-
rupt regime of Syngman Rhee,
and without so much as a “by
your leave” of the United Nations
(that was dictated later).

By spearheading military inter-
vention in Lebanon in 1958 to up-
hold the corrupt regime of “pro-
Western” Camille Chamoun,
whom the Lebanese people loathe

with unconcealed intensity (U.S.
aggression also without any “by
your leave” of the UN). And Tory
Britain tagging along in Jordan
on the same hollc® pretexts—but
with the same objectives in view
—to hold on to the vast oil riches
of the Middle East for the oil
kings of Wall Street and the
SCity

The question therefore is not
why U.S.-Dulles policies appear
insanely stupid and Soviet poli-
cies the reverse, but how to
“contain” this drive to war, im-
plicit in U.S. policies, which
could destroy the whole world
and send the remnants of a
human civilization back to a new
dark ages.

That question can only be
answered by a_ united people,
determined to hold the hands of
the warmakers; determined that
a summit meeting shall take place
whether Dulles likes it or not;
determined that U.S. and British
troops be pulled out of Lebanon
and Jordan immediately; deter-
mined that the Charter of the
U.N. shall be upheld, in letter and
content, and that people every-
where in capitalist, colonial and
semi-colonial countries, shall
have the right to choose their
own forms of government and
life.

The solution does not come by
getting rid of Dulles, but rather
by getting rid of the social evil
he so well represents.

August 1, 1958 —