As bombs drop

on VIETNAM ...
... Shares go up

on WALL STREET

By MARK FORDHAM
(London Morning Star) -

T one time, American spokes-
men would go into long
and involved arguments to

prove that their planes were
only after “military targets,”
when they bombed Vietnam.

We don’t hear so much of
these arguments these days. And
one reason is that reports show
the type of weapons used can
serve only one purpose—that of
mass terror against anyone who
happens to be beneath the raid-
ing planes. :

Such a .weapon is the anti-
personnel -bomb, which has
figured more and more in raids
on North Vietnam.

Let Life magazine describe it: ;

The CBUS’s, or Cluster Bomb
Units, are “canisters which burst
in the air, scattering 300 base-
ball-sized explosive which deto-
nate on impact, each spraying
hundreds of pea-sized pellets at
high velocity over a wide area.

“The pellets are coated with
napalm and stick when they hit.”
- We know such weapons are
used. And we know that some-
‘one in America must be making
them.

Opponents of Johnson’s war
have been increasingly active in

America picketing the firms.

which make these diabolical
weapons, to such a degree that
the Pentagon has tried to keep

secret the names of firms given
such contracts.

Some firms have found the
business tdo much to stomach.

The American journal, Metal-

working News, speaking of the
anti-personnel-bomb production,
says: . ;
’ “Reportedly: some diecasters
have shied away from the pro-
ject. If the air force knows the
reasons, they are not being dis-
cussed.”

But some firms have taken the
job on. After all, it pays them
well. The Honeywell Corpora-
tion of Minneapolis is in on the
project. :

This firm has marked up.a 50
percent increase in business in
three years. Last year, its after-
tax profit was $45 million.

There are equally good profits
to be made from the aircraft
which drop the bombs. Remem-
ber that a plane which is shot
down is good business too.

The Grumman Aircraft Com-
pany which makes the A6A In-
truder plane flying from Ameri-
can aircraft carriers in the Paci-
fic, is one of the companies re-
commended by Wall Street ex-
perts to shareholders who want
a good, guaranteed return for
their investments. ;

Estimated profits this year are
likely to be over 15 percent up
on 1966 and 60 percent up on
1965.

In May 1966, the New York
Times reported that out of 516
industrial and other firms under
review, 151 had profits higher
than at any time in their history.
The average was 10 percent up
on 1965.

Significantly aircraft firms
showed an increase of 55 percent
and chemical firms an increase
of 14 percent.

With the war in Vietnam cost-
ing an estimated $22 billion to
$25 billion a year, advancing
by leaps and bounds while wel-
fare programs at home are
slashed, then clearly the possibi-
lities for profits are immense.

Defense department experts
suggest that it costs $400,000 to
kill one guerilla fighter. No one
has explained whether this really
means a National Liberation
Front fighter or just any Viet-
namese.

But for American Big. Busi-
ness, particularly in the field of
arms manufacture, prospects are
rosy. :

As a spokesman for Hayden
Stone and Co. one of the oldest
brokerage houses on Wall Street
said in February:

“Whatever storm signals may
be flying with respect to the
market’s vulnerability for 1967,
no basic earnings deterioration
can be anticipated for the de-
fense group.”

Wide range of topics
at Stockholm parley

Support for the Stockholm
Conference on Vietnam (July 6-9)
is growing in many countries.
The organizers of the confer-
ence have announced that pre-
parations for the world-wide as-
sembly are well under way.
The following -commissions
wil be set up at the conference:
(1) International law and_ the
war in Vietnam

(2) The face of the war

(3) The struggle for indepen-
dence and development in
. Vietnam
(4) Peace initiatives—real and
deceptive

(5) The growing isolation of the
USA in the world, due to
their policies and actions in
Vietnam

(5) Material aid for Vietnam

(6) Coordination of activities
for peace and independence
in Vietnam.

The following reports and pa-
pers will be presented to the
conference:

—An opening address by Pro-
fessor D. F. Fleming on Ameri-

June 2

ean foreign policy in the Far
East.

—Vietnam and _ international
law, by Dr. William L. Standard,
chairman of the Lawyers’ Com-
mittee on American Policy to-
wards Vietnam (USA).

—The use of napalm, poison-
ous gases and other weapons of
mass annihilation, by Dr. John
Takman (Sweden).

—The escalation of the warin
Vietnam, by John McDermott,
co-editor of Viet-Report (USA).

—A brief account of the so-
cio-economic, political, religious
and ethnic composition of Viet-
nam in relation to the present
war in Vietnam, by Dr. Ivo Va-
siljejev of the Oriental Institute
of the Academy of Sciences
(Czechoslovakia).

—A historical analysis of the
struggle for independence Up to
the signing of the 1954 Geneva
Agreements, and from 1954 to
1965, by Professor Philippe
Devillers, of the Institute of Po-
litical Studies of the University
of Paris (France).

—A report on attempts to

3, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 10,

reach a political settlement in
Vietnam from 1954 to date, by
Mrs. Peggy Duff, secretary-
general of the International Con-
federation for Disarmament and
Peace (Great Britain), assisted
by Ajit Singh (India).

—The Vietnam war and the
political and moral isolation of
America, by Prof. Gunnar Myr-
dal of the Institute for Interna-
tional Economic Studies, Univer-
sity of Stockholm (Sweden).

—Brief reports on changes in
governmental policies, major op-
position parties, important pub-
lic bodies, the press and peace
movements in:

(a) countries allied to the USA
(collected by the Interna-
tional Confederation for
Disarmament and Peace)

(b) non-aligned and neutral
countries (collected by the
International Institute for
Peace, Vienna).

—A factual report on the ex-
tent of aid, to the Vietnamese
people, compiled by the Interna-
tional Institute for Peace, Vien-
na.

THE ONTARIO LEGISLAT
‘IN. SESSION

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

By BRUCE MAGNUSON
Ontario Leader, Communist Party

conference has been set for sometime in lal
ber—a fact which may push the next elect!
to sometime early next year—it is instructive to re
legislative debate dealing with the motion to con
a conference.
_ Particularly instructive in this regar
tion to the debate by Attorney-General A. A. +0)
contribution was singled out for: universal opposit!
much abuse in the capitalist press. Here is 4 part
contribution: ith
Wishart: “What are the problems? They af “i
provinces. The great problems are with the provin
_ Donald MacDonald (NDP Leader): “And the ©
palities.”. “vil
Wishart: “That is one of the problems of the i
Who builds the means of communications, the M¥cy
The provinces. We have, and I acknowledge, 4 trans
highway in which a large share of assistance was oa
the federal government. But that is completed
highways now are built by the provinces. rovl
“Who develops the natural resources? The P eve
the lands and forests the mines, the economlt. ., 0)”
ment. Who builds the public buildings? The Pf" nd
cept the post office, customs. Health, educatiO™ ine
creatures of the provinces, the municipalities, 4" and
ponsibility of the provinces. They are a problem | cell
great problems of today are not the problems th
government, but the problems of the provinces: Tom?
“When we sit down in the Confederation or {4
mind:
tem?
: etl

into 4

0
thére and frame fiscal arrangements. B rs
that conference on Confederation, perhaps J
overshadowing, but shedding a light upon that
cussion, there will be the awareness, and in ©
mind there will be the knowledge, that the money» é
to be achieved, as we usually get them in govern
taxes, must be in large part funds available to the
which in truth have the problems which require
resources for their solution. We cannot get ®
this fact, and we must face it.

“So in considering our relatonship, in C°
Confederation, whether or not we write a new Cw
I think we must amend it by some means OF other.
relate it to the realities of this day and as t
tinue to be. And I say that we could sta
British North America Act has stood us in g00
had its faults, its defects and we must have
change it as best we could. at

“Certainly we should bring home the right, af
change it. We are mature, we are capable, We 2 rly,
up nation. The provinces are capable. We are
think, to sit down*as provinces and say, this
We will reach agreement, we will fram
thus we may start entirely fresh. And I W n

oint: the federal government, the central 80)
ongs to the provinces. The provinces do not bé
central government. That is essential to
provinces— in!

Elmer Sopha (Lib. Sudbury): “Cartier di
with that.” cont?

Wishart: “The provinces originally created gail
tion. It is the provinces who must come toget er ave
say, ‘This is the type of federation we Sh@) . ies
changed powers to meet the changed responsib!
exist today.’

“I say the problems of today are c
of 100 years ago. Let us open our eyes 4
Our neighbors to the South perhaps set US
They, as sovereign states, sat down together an 0
are soverign entities, we are sovereign states a io!

J. B. Trotter (Lib. Parkdale): “We are 'Y"°
opposite.” 5

Wishart: “And they still call themselve.,
they say, ‘We will delegate to the central gove f
tain of our powers, but we retain our sovereign a
did. I am fully aware that through the
amendment certain of those powers which me
the state were taken and allocated to the a
ment of the United States. But perhaps—at
out this thought—perhaps we have to take
possibly somewhat similar, that we 10 prov!
da, come to the Confederation of Tomor