Published Weekly at
ROOM 104, SHELLY BUILDING
119 West Pender Street
Vancouver, B.C.
by the
PEOPLE’S PUBLISHING CO.
MArine 5288

SEQSEDALISSSERESEECOUSSECENOSESSECCAERESESSIESERECHECRSELSELEESESES E5431

Editor

EVAACN: BERGERAC De 228058 Se Manager
EDITORIAL BOARD

Nigel Morgan Maurice Rush Minerva Cooper Al Parkin

Subscription Rates: 1 Year, $2.00; 6 Months, $1.00
Printed by East End Printers, 2303 East WHastings Street, Vancouver, B.C.

Authorized as second-class mail by the post-office dept., Ottawa

a 28

OMS MCE WIN) oo. ight ae 4 es

The Pattern Emerges

T HE government’s announcement on March 4 that four
of the persons spirited away by the RCMP nearly three
weeks ago in the “espionage” roundup, are now definite-

ly and publicly charged under the Official Secrets Act of

1939, raises the case at least to a level commensurate with

judicial dignity and procedure. The accused (or some of them)

are now in a position to secure legal aid and advice in con-
ducting their defense—a right denied them for 21 days.
This new emergence of the case into open judicial view
is hardly likely to change the press and radio fulminations
against the USSR. That pattern, with the connivance of those
high in authority at Ottawa, was formulated in London and

Washington months ago. It can be expected that if anything

the tempo of anti-Soviet hysteria will grow rather than dim-

inish.

In recent days we have the blast of Foreign Secretary

Byrnes of the USA against the Soviet Union, in respect to

that country's occupational policies in Iran and Manchuria. -

Coincident with the Byrnes’ blast, came the news of alleged
student “demonstrations” in Chunking, demanding the “oust-
ing of the Red Army” from Manchuria. It would be too much
to presume that these student demonstrations (if there were
such demonstrations) are not part of the Bevin-King-Byrnes
game of atomic diplomacy.”

It does not require any great effort to see the pattern
of an international anti-Soviet ferment being worked out
under the hegemony of Anglo-American reaction. At home
these imperialists are faced with a people clamoring for post-
War reconstruction and progress .. . better homes, the right
to work, decent wages, and a much greater measure of eco-
nomic and social security.

Abroad, they are faced with the problem of markets, and
the need to trim costs to the bone to keep up their high level
of profits. In capitalist parlance “trimming costs’’ means star-
vation wages and worsening conditions for the wage earners.
The sweep of millions of the worlds’ peoples towards So-
cialism as a new way of life becomes a nightmare to the
reactionaries. _ ,

Bevin’s “love” for the Soviet Union, manifested by his
“yearning for a 50-year instead of a 20-year pact with the
USSR, is badly discounted by his initiative in the perfection
of an espionage’ ramp against the Soviet Union. Mr. King
has done his part of the job well, which was to launch the
“spy scare” and allow anti-Soviet prejudices and hysteria to
take precedence over governmental responsibility and the
tights of Canadian citizens before the law.

Byrnes now takes the ball and tosses it far and wide,
trom Manchuria to Iran and back, utilizing every pretext to
stir up anti-Soviet hostility and pave the way for the next
move on the chess-board of reactionary politics. The desire
on the part of the Anglo-American reactionary bloc to scuttle
the Yalta and Potsdam concords is all too clear. This done,
then the door is fully open” for new adventures against the
integrity and growing influence of the Soviet, and against
those peoples of Europe who have chosen governments un-
suitable to the tastes of the “atomic diplomats.”’

On March 5 Mr. Churchill called for “an Anglo-American
military alliance’ against the Soviet Union. Asserting that
(like a good Philistine) ‘“‘a shadow has fallen upon the scenes
so lately lighted by the Allied victory,’’ Churchill rolled the war
drums with charactertistic vigor. To suit the diabolical pur-
pose, of which he is at one with Bevin, King, Byrnes, et al,
Mr. Churchill resurrects the old canard of Russia and its
Communist International as menacing the peace of the world.
Thus the “espionage scare” is now complete and the role cf
the principle actors clear.

The people who have been arrested in Canada and held
on espionage charges, are now (regardless of their guilt or
Innocence) but incidental to a much greater crime—that of
fomenting war against a valiant Ally against the First
Socialist State . . . against the Soviet Union.

Canadians must keep their “eye on the ball’’ . jobs,
homes, security, peace, and realize that these can only be
won through and by the closest fraternal friendship and
unity between the peoples of Canada and the USSR.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — PAGE 4

f

Mr. Facing-Both -Ways _

pave LEWIS, CCF national

secretary, has written an in-
teresting policy article for the
CCF papers. Comment on the
article is made difficult by. the
fact that in the British Colum-_
bia CCE News for Jan. 31 a
lengthy version of the article
appears, while in the February
14 issue of the smaller Ontario
CCF News not only have many
paragraphs been deleted seem-
ingly through lack of space, but
Space found to add a couple of
interesting new paragraphs.
The CCF should really make
up’ its mind what Mr. Lewis

. Wishes to say.

For example, in the Ontario
paper the final paragraph de-
elares that divergencies of Brit-
ish and Soviet policies are
caused by the difference be.
tween “democratic socialism”
and “Communism” and that
such divergencies are “inevit-
able.” That did not appear in
the B.C. paper.

A nasty remark about the
LPP appears in the B.C. paper
and not in the Ontario paper,
which, however, does find room
to include a paragraph lauding
Sir Archibald Clark-Kerr, the
special ambassador to Indone-
Sia, as “among the best of the
Foreign Office diplomats.”

It is all very confusing and
space considerations do not
seem to be the sole reasons for
these discrepancies, for the
smaller Ontavio CCH paper
seems to have pointed all the
additions by Way of new
thoughts on Mr. Lewis’ part.

What discerning CGF mem-
bers in B.C. and Ontario can
gather from their National Sec-_
retary’s remarks is ' that the
CC¥’s conscience is troubled
about Mr. Bevin’s foreign pol-
icy. Mz. Lewis condemns the
blitzing of the Javanese village
of Bekasi by British troops, but
consoles himself with the
thought that only a little blood

was spilled in a “minimum o8
fighting.” (How much spilled
blood makes a crime?) He be-
lieves that the USSR is bound
to feel “eynical” about his
“democratic protestations” in
the light of India and Pales-
tine, but is dissatisfied with So-
vieti policy in Eastern Europe
and implies that Europe will
not be rebuilt without closer
ties between Britain and its
Western European neighbors,
which the USSR vigorously ob-
jects to as a resurrection of the
old “Western bloc.”

Mr. Lewis appeals for reason
and denounces emotion in look-
ing at the world picture. Then,
in a fine spirit of partisanship,
he sets out to defend Mr. Bevin
—-who, after Mr. Lewis’ article
appeared, pointed to the Soviet
Union and “Communism” las
the main threat to world peace.
Lewis says that Bevin was
right in Jaya, right in Greece
and presumably right in Iran.
Mr. Bevin uses only a “mini-
mum of force” to accomplish
his policy (this was before the
Indian and Egyptian massa-
cres). Mr. Bevin is trying to
do a “democratic socialist” job,
and should not be criticized un-
duly. But, Mr. Bevin’s view-
points are opposed to those of
the USSR’s. That is admitted.

(Lest the reader gets even
more confused, we hasten to ex-
plain that the foregoing is an
attempt to distil Mr. Lewis’
Views as objectively as possible.
If there is confusion, it is ere-
ated by Mr. Lewis.)

Finally Mr. Lewis believes
that “two major considerations
govern the situation’”’—first,
that peace depends on unity and
understanding between western
powers and the Soviet Union;
second, that basically the USSR
can have no other interest than
peace and is, therefore, a pow-
erful force for peace in the
world.

But Mr. Lewis, facing-both-

Ways, Cannot have 7 ; y
If Bevin is pursuing’
socialist policies 7
Java, Greece, Heypi
ever else the flag
there can be no un
derstanding betweer
and the policy of
They are mutually «
is idle for the CG? ¥
reassure] his perte |
bers by saying: that
do a “minimum o:-
and are the victir. §
luck.” If he is bek
policies (which he s_ |
are officially those ¢ _
then he must take = F
the horns and cease oe
what is in reality an m
foreign policy by
asservations ~about §&
peace policy of the #8
ion. at
Yes, there can be YA
understanding betwe ie ¢
and the Soviet Unic. .
affairs, but only if |||
eign policy changes} Al
traditional Tory po -~™
Near and Far Basi Vall
Western Europe to VI
is absolutely in lin «2
concept of the Uniti f
That means a rever;:
in’s policy and if th
bring any pressure
change that policy, s
better. j
But no good purp
served by abject apo: bp
Bevin policy. Britt; {i
policy has not chang |
the fundamental trui f
Lewis should have §
either positively or }
Until the people
change that policy
not improve, but will &
Mr. Facing-Both-\
ally faces one way—#
rection of traditiona § be
ist policy. And inc #Wd
we hope the (GCF edi: # c:
gether to let us EE i
their national secre’),

did write in his orig: : w
FRIDAY, MARC fic.

i