_ By NELSON CLARKE
fe drive is on to drag Canada
er down the blind path
th is NORAD into the bot-
less swamp which is Nixon’s
fl system.
0 Bay, Ontario is to be-
p the “back-up” centre for
rth American Air Defense
mand. This was revealed by
it. General F. R. Sharp, the
dian deputy commander of
2AD in testimony before the
amons Defense and External
Committee on May 6.
s suspects that General Sharp
have been blurting out
ing a little too soon. Def-
inister Cadieux was quick
ay that this proposition was
ing considered ‘“‘now,” but
also quick to add that
did not preclude it being
sidered in the past or in the
ture.” His reference to “the
is mysterious. Has it
y been decided?
fr. Cadieux is more definite
about Canada taking part in the
orne Warning and Control
n (AWACS) which is a
Wy and very costly new sys-
| which puts complex new
ir detecting systems on tuili-
planes. “If you ask my per-
il opinion, I believe we
luld (participate),” says our
lense” minister.
he next stage is Canadian
pation in the ABM system.
@ again we are indebted for
information to the talka-
nmeral Sharp. Asked by a
éral member of the Commit-
Shouldn't ABM’s be under
: ” Sharp replied, “From
irely military point of view,
answer is yes.”
ll of this is dressed up in the
jument that we must go fully
mg with every nightmarish
ime dreamed up in the Pen-
h, or we will have to turn
‘our air space and our ter-
Ory to the United States mili-
‘This is an argument that
ly way we can protect our
gnty is to surrender it. It
| lie. Canada could declare
d and the skies above it
ar free zone. We could call
the United States and
Oviet Union to respect and
tee this declaration.
ii the meantime, the resist-
© in the United States to the
M system is mounting by
ps and bounds.
t is extending even to the
employees themselves.
- week 1,500 workers from
different government agen-
in Washington put, their
down on a petition call-
for a rejection of the system.
he pressure of peace senti-
in the United States is
that at the latest head
43 Senators were oppos-
the ABM, and 36 were sup-
ing it. Six were “leaning”
ds opposition. Six were
ining” towards support.
arguments against the
in top political circles in
nited States range from
ery sensible proposition
it will escalate the arms
Pat a time when the future
Mankind depends on taking
first steps towards nuclear
ment, through to the ar-
t that the ABM’s simply
work. Even some dedicat-
Cold warriors are claiming
the U.S. Minuteman rock-
“Which they believe (or pre-
0 believe) are needed as a

No ABMs
or Canada

“deterrent” to “strike back”
after a Soviet attack, are suffi-
ciently protected now. Some of
these divisions may reflect little
more than which section of
monopoly capitalism makes
money out of producing ABM’s
and which doesn’t. Nevertheless,
even these considerations are
part of the contradictions in the
situation which can be taken
advantage of.

Senator Edward Kennedy has
had a report prepared by experts
who, besides arguing that the
ABM system “is unlikely to per-
form according to specifications
in the event of nuclear war,” and
“is highly susceptible to pene-
tration,” declared “deployment
of Sentinel-Safeguard would
probably start a new round in
the arms race and would serious-
ly impede the conclusion of an
arms control agreement.”

This report makes it quite
clear that Canadian sovereignty
is very much at issue in the ABM
system, and significantly adds
that it is “easy to see... why
the prospect of an anti-ballistic
missile deployment along our
northern border has stirred deep
anxieties in Canada, anxieties
that may not only contribute to
the disaffection with the alliance
but further complicate relations
with the U.S.”

It is apparent that the op-
ponents of the ABM in the Unit-
ed States senate are looking for
help in their fight from the Tru-
deau government.

Indeed a_ strong statement
from the Prime Minister of Can-
ada now could very possibly tip
the balance, and inflict a serious
set-back on the cold war policies
of President Richard Nixon.

So far this statement has not
been forthcoming. All support-
ers of peace in Canada are urg-
ently challenged by that fact to
redouble their efforts to make it
necessary for Trudeau to speak
out.

It must be noted here that in
contrast to the New Democratic
Party’s waffling on getting out
of NATO about which we wrote
last week, their spokesmen are
quite forthright on the ABM
issue.

Andrew Brewin speaking in
the House on April 23 said: “I
would urge the government to
make it clear that Canada wish-
es no part under NORAD or
otherwise in such an ABM sys-
tem ... We in Canada have ap-
proved, as has the United States,
a non-proliferation treaty. This
pledges us to take measures to-
ward the cessation of the nu-
clear arms race at an early date.
I say that this proposed ABM
system would be contrary to the
intent and spirit of that treaty.”

He continues with an interest-
ing observation on the current
state of American politics, and
the contradictions to which I re-
ferred to above:

“Why, then does the Ameri-
can government plan to proceed
with this expensive and prob-
ably useless system? I think
that James Reston and other
distinguished Americans have
given us the clue. He has said
that the anti-ballistic missile is
really aimed not at all at the
Chinese but at the military-
industrial complex and its Con-
gressional spokesmen. The deci-
sion made is a political compro-
mise. Such a charge is difficult
to prove, but it has been made
by responsible Americans. Sure-

From the people :

who brought you Vietnam:

o a @ a B
The anti ballistic missile system.
An ad from Sane in last Sunday's New York Times under the above cartoon called for action
against the ABMs. Saying that Nixon’s plans can be stopped in the Senate, they add, “But it will take

the kind of grass roots effort that did so much to change the political climate on Vietnam last year.
Our marching song has come again.”

The ad hits on the head the

ly Canada can take an indepen-
dent line on the basis of the
merits of the matter. What is the
use of talking about indepen-
dence if we do not have inde-
pendence of mind, if we are go-
ing to be dragged into systems
of this sort for no good reason
but simply as part of the on-
going mad momentum of which
Mr. McNamara has spoken?”

A good example was set for
New Democrats—and everyone
else in the peace movement—
when 22 Saskatchewan NDP
MP’s and MLA’s joined with 90
of their fellow citizens in pub-
lishing a large advertisement in
the Regina Leader-Post.

statement of Prime Minister
Trudeau: “Where in space coun-
ter-missiles would meet mis-
siles, and degrees of radioactive
fall-out . . . are largely acade-
mic.”

“It’s not academic to us,” says
the ad. “Chicago, Detroit, Seat-
tle and New Jersey didn’t want
ABM bases near them. Neither
do we.”

Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky,
former science adviser to Eisen-
hower is quoted:

“The flash of the two-megaton
warhead on the Spartan missile

. could blind people on the
ground. Many people could be

blinded because of a decision
cranked into a computer years
before or because of a decision
made by a junior officer.”

U Thant’s grave warning is
recalled: “If plans currently un:
der discussion for the develop-
ment of a new offensive and de-
fensive weapons systems should
be implemented, they could lead
to a massive new escalation
both in military expenditures and
nuclear weapons.”

The ad calls on people to
make their views known to the
Prime Minister “today.”

Many more such actions are
needed—and urgently.

Communists run
Duclos for president

Jacques Duclos is the candi-

date of the Communist Party of
France in the presidential elec-

tion to be held June Ist. This
election follows the recent
referendum defeat and resigna-

tion of Charles de Gaulle.

Former general secretary of
the CPF, and now a French
Senator and leader of the group
of Communist deputies in the
National Assembly, Duclos was
last week unanimously named
as French presidential candi-
date by the Central Committee
of the CPF. Their action was
taken after the Socialist Party
refused to discuss the elabora-
tion of a common program,
selecting as their candidate
Gaston Defferre, an anti-unity
and anti-communist politician,
without consulting any of the
other parties of the left, notably
the CPF.

In its call to the people of
France to support Duclos as
the candidate representing the
unity of the forces of the work-
ers and democrats, the Central
Committee stated, “After the
severe defeat inflicted April 27
(date of the referendum) on the
Gaullist forces, an entirely new
policy is needed. Eleven years
of Gaullism have weighed on
our national life. The working
class, the laboring farmers, the
intellectuals, the’ middle classes
of the cities, have paid~ the
price for a policy which com-
pletely favored the great cap-
italist companies, the policy
which Pompidou, candidate of
large finance capital, wants to
continue .. . The French Com-
munist Party advances Jacques
Duclos for your electoral sup-
port as the only candidate for
the presidency of the Republic
who stands for a_ profound

change .. . For this it is neces-
sary to nationalize the banks
and the monopolized branches
of industry.”

The Central Committee of the
CPF called for the election of
Duclos “for an advanced eco-
nomic and political democracy,
opening the way to socialism.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MAY 16, 1969—Page 7