SRNL IONS aera ay | Bara Tage ne “Better get back into uniform and join your “new rearmed Friends ! "4 ry, Down with "EISENHOWER! Va t’en chez vous!” Bisenhower! Go Home! That was the answer that Canada’s youth gave to the Wall Street gauleiter in Ottawa the other day. Young Canadians from Quebec and Ontario braved the police and military cordons to let U.S. General Eisenhower know that there will be: “No conscription here for Yankee generals!” A poster borne by the youth anti-war - demonstrators, had on it a caricature of Eisen- hower, and the words: “He wants you for Yankee cannon fodder!” rf » + Reporting on the Yankee general’s Ottawa visit, Robert Taylor of the Toronto Daily Star wrote: “... it will be for General Eisenhower to say-whether Canada should also have con- scription.” No! That is not true! The question of conscription will be decided by the youth, by the people of Canada — not by a Yankee gen- eral! Canada, and Iceland, are the only count- ries of the Atantic Pact that do not have mili- tary conscription. Why? Because the people of French Can- ada, in their overwhelming majority oppose imperialist militarism and its conscription of « conscription A bas la conscription their youth. Because the youth of Canada do not want to serve as cannon fodder for Yankee warmakers and profiteers. Hisenhower came to Ottawa to dictate military conscription for Canada’s youth. The Wall Street warmongers want Canadian divi- sions to march with Nazi divisions to bring imperialist war and devasation to Eurtpe. For, as President Truman said when he saw ‘isenhower off on his European trip: Eisen- hower will do for Europe what MacArthur has done for Asia! Across Canada-a mighty popular move- ment is arising from the grass-roots against conscription, against: the sacrificing of our precious youth as cannon fodder for Ameri- can imperialism., ; The. slogans of youth demonstrators in Ottawa expressed the heartfelt ‘feelings of ‘Canada against conscription. Prime Minister St. Laurent has’ stated that there will be no conscription now. But later? Yes—if jtits necessary. In other words, when all the propaganda agencies of press, ra- dio and platform, using the now familiar hys- teria technique, have done their work. The answer of Canada’s people must be: A bas la conscription! Down with conscription! ~~ Coldwell and China MJ COLDWELL, CCF national leader, told “an audience in the Chateau Laurier in ‘Ottawa on January 26 that the St, Laurent government should be condemned for its fail- ure to recognize the People’s Republic of Chi- aa long before the outbreak of war in Korea. If Coldwell means by this that the CCF group in parliament intends to fight for Cana- dian recognition of the Chinese People’s gov- ernment, then this is a welcome statement for, in this one respect, at beast, it will bring the CCF national leadership back into accord with the feeling of most CCF members and suppor- ters across the country. However, the record cannot be ignored. One of the reasons for the failure of the St. Laurent government to recognize the Chinese People’s government was M. J. Coldwell’s own | shameful somersault on the issue of recogni- tion at the CCF national convention in Van- couver last year. For some time before that convention M: J. Coldwell had publicly stated that the CCF . favored recognition of People’s China. But at Vancouver, in policy-making interviews given before the convention officially opened, Cold- well announced that he had changed his mind, “We should not recognizé the new Chinese government under duress,” he stated. By dur- ess he meant, not illegal American seizure of the Chinese territory of Formosa — he was in favor of giving: Formosa to Japan — but the fact that North Korean forces were in South Korea. There was no question then of any ‘Chinese volunteers being in Korea, but Cold- well nonetheless insisted that Canadian recog- nition of China should be withheld until “North Korean forces are back behind the 38th paral- lel.” : ‘ Coldwell’s new change of mind must be attributed to the strength of. public sentiment for recognition of China and in particular to the sentiment of the CCF rank-and-file, which should thereby be encouraged to try changing Coldwell’s mind on other vital issues of war or peace, : - sentence he ever wrote, TOM McEWEN As We See lt A few years ago, in an heroic effort to lighten the ‘white man’s burden” in the African colonies of British imperialism, the “socialist” government of Clement Attlee launched a great peanut- growing project. With millions of acres of land and an abundant supply of “apartheited” (segregated) slave labor, this peanut project should have been an unparalled ‘success. But’ not so. It would appear from recent editorial comment in the London Economist and other organs of high finance and business; that, aside from adverse climatic problems of peanut raising, the Africans themselves didn’t take too kindly to the imperialist peanut vendors. In short, they didn’t like the taste of Marshall-planned “socialist” peanuts; so, for the peanut growers it became a case of “peanuts to you old chappie, what!” : We of the Pacific Tribune find ourselves with a similar dislike for a certain species of peanut— and find ourselves deluged with peanuts for saying so. Recently, Jack Scott of the Vancouver Sun worked himself into a lather of well-feigned indig- nation. He had tendered us a mouldy peanut from his well-stocked bag, and instead of respond- ing in the manner of a meek and well-behaved captive journal, we had, like an ill-behaved “lousy” (the term is Jackie’s) bear, bitten the hand that held out the peanut. It all happened this way. Some weeks ago Scott cooked up one of his specialized political peanut souffles—and poured it on the unsuspecting head of his “friend Jay’. A real “friendly” gesture indeed. Jay’s mistake, (in Jackie’s opinion) was that he had become a strong exponent for peace—but not according to the rules set down by the warmongers and their FBI—RCMP auxiliaries. From there on, with ~ all'the slipperiness of peanut butter, “Jay” “was tagged as a “Red” of the Moscow hue! “Why did you do ater Quite naturally, “Jay” and others, whose opinions on the fight for peace differ drastically from Scott’s, decided to “call the shot” on the stale contents of Scott’s peanut bag, which they did without mixing any metaphors. Now, according to Scott’s souffle in the Vancouver Sun of January 23, such objection is strictly lese majeste. Like a true Marshall- planned peanut vendor, Scott operates on the “principle” that no matter how much the rancid, stale odor of his peanut bag may offend the sensitivities of others, any resentment publicly expressed is down- right bad taste. “Did the Communists accept the peanut?” wails Scott ,bubbling over with injured innocence? “They did not. They went for the hand.” Ingrates! Can’t those dammed Reds and “fellow-travellers” ever learn that they are expected to take all the slanders, lampoons, mis- representations,. lies and peanuts, offered them by the presstitutes of the war camp, without protest. It is nothing short: of heresey. And to make matters worse, Scott thinks that the Communists might not be totally adverse to the taste of his periodic peanut souffle, were it not for the PT, but “the Tribune lets him know” the true ingredients of the peanut souffle. ; , ; : We have always admired Scott’s ability to write an interesting 20 inches of reading matter when he has chosen such world-shaking issues for his pen as the house cat having kittens, life in an auto trailer, or a brief sojourn: in a nudist colony. “Integrity” ef such issues can be assessed at bargain-basement prices, certainly much lower than estimated by Gordon Martin. Scott even agrees with us that Martin’s assessment on the overall value of this sterling quality “runs a little high”, to which we reply, Amen. But when Scott gets on his political peanut route, he does the job he is paid to do—lend the literary aura of an alleged “progressive” to the red-baiting, provocative, lying propaganda of the modern press charlatan of the cold-cum-hot war camp. y “Still”, says Scott, “a fellow doesn’t want to get bitten twice. There'll be no more peanuts, boys.” That is possibly the sanest We hope the sanity will continue. We don’t - like Scott’s stale peanuts. e American imperialist credo _—- ey. HE FOLLOWING is taken from an editorial which appeared in the Los Angeles Times, October 2, 1950, headlined: “It’s No Time for Us to be Modest”: “The United States has won another war — that, in naked ; simplicity is the matter which confronts our leaders in the associated fields of diplomacy, economics, ‘philosophy and armed might, a “Despite the fiction of carrying out a UN ‘police action, we have _ a clearer claim to write our own ticket than in 1918 or even in~ '1945. For we have not only become the mightiest of military nations, we also stand as the fountainhead of the world’s diplomatic leader- ship, of the world’s wealth and even of the world's thought. “Who else dominates the seven seas and the air above them? - Whose diplomats control every positive move of the 57-member United Nations and of the left-out nations, such as Germany, Japan and Spain? Where is there a continent or even an island which is not on our aims list? And what else, except made-in-American democracy, is the over-riding philosophy and aspiration of the known universe? ; z : / “It is not a time to be modest . . . Somebody’s got to be boss . What are we waiting for?” AC me Son puna gl re, ie i TRIE UINIBY hs LP eteressninisecviy Published Weekly at Room 6 - 426 Main Street, Vancouver, B.C. By THE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD. Telephone MA. 5288 : i! MOM MCE Wen jee vrei hee ele. Cs BAG Editor _ Subscription Rates: 1 Year, $2.50; 6 Months, $1.35. Printed by Union Printers Ltd., 650 Howe Street, Vancouver, B.C. Authorized as second class mail, Post Office Dept., Ottawa PACIFIC TRIBUNE — FEBRUARY 9, 1951 — PAGE 8 ~