Sl lin 06 OER UML WRN MU

eee a

f ee
| EDITORIAL

: ionsevative forces in the 17,000-member Onta-
| Dlatant om Association have resorted to the most
Bil 94 rm of blackmail in their efforts to defeat
J Oya 2 Vhich now bans extra billing. Despite all
: tate oaimers that “‘life threatening cases will be
} Week? as the rotating strike goes into its third
.» People are being turned away from wards,
at = are being denied treatment, and the public
| pte OMA is targetting more than Bill 94
>, law that clearly has the support of most
| ee. It has set its sights on the Ontario
Sim the Plan (OHIP) and, in fact, has
| eeessip tit opposes the concept of first rate, fully
| le medical care as a right for all citizens.
| se forces argue that their “right” to charge

|
’ Ne
| eet arms control proposals, tabled at the
| . arms talks, have created a dramatic win-
| there ©pportunity for agreement in an area where
Ronald + been little reason for hope of late. Even
. Reagan has been unable to find anything
Wee Ve to say about the latest offer, made two

a by Mikhail Gorbachev.

Mele: bal of the Soviet proposal is that strategic
below, Recs be cut to 1,600 on each side (well
ie € SALT II limit of 2,400) and that individ-
ar warheads carried by those launchers not
ton 6 4 total of 8,000 (there is currently no restric-
| ty. . Warheads). Along with these cuts in offen-
la ‘ Systems, both sides would agree to limit
ae weapons development to “laboratory
gy ches”. only. This would be formalized by both

Medicare real target of
Ontario doctors’ strike

patients what the traffic will bear is greater than the
public’s right to expect the best possible health care,
irrespective of income. They hypocritically raise the
bogey of “personal freedoms” and “democracy,”
suggesting the “rights” of 17,000 doctors somehow
supersede the rights of nine million Ontario citizens.

Current OMA thinking carries with it dangerous

implications. Privatization of health care in the U.S.

and fantastic fees enjoyed by many MDs there,
while the country’s public health system crumbles,
is a clear warning of where OMA “freedom figh-

ters” want to go.

Ontario’s Liberal government, having finally
passed Bill 94 on June 20, should get on with the
business of enforcing it.

Move on arms proposals

The linkage between these two ideas is crucial. If
nuclear deterrence is to be stabilized at much lower
levels, by cutting offensive missiles and bombers,
then defensive weapons —and that is what the US.

"calls its Star Wars “shield” — must be restricted.

The Reagan administration would like to separ-
ate these, to reduce Soviet ICBM’s — which are the
USSR’s main line of defence — while going ahead
full-tilt with Star Wars development, where the U.S.
enjoys a clear lead. Such is not a formula for peace,
but for a renewed arms race.

The Soviet Union has now put forward a com-
prehensive program which foresees strategic
nuclear disarmament by the year 2000, along with
drastic cuts in theatre nuclear weapons and conven-
tional forces. The major element still missing is the
political will on the part of the U.S. and NATO to

GREEDOM

TE
Editor — SEAN GRIFFIN
Assistant Editor — DAN KEETON

Business & Circulation Manager — MIKE PRONIUK

Graphics — ANGELA KENYON

Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5
Phone (604) 251-1186

Subscription Rate: Canada — $16 one year; $10 six months
Foreign — $25 one year;

Second class mail registration number 1560

8 period of at least 15 years.”

‘for Teaffirming the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

address these proposals seriously.

pytchard Clements, Vancouver, writes:
j Par, etion on June 22 of the Socialist

ofge of Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez
in a to a second majority government
Ns years has been welcomed by The
Zales» Cork Times as a victory for Gon-
3 charismatic” personality and
tales catism.” Voicing support for Gon-
Rote contrist policies,” the Times also

€d that while the prime minister had
Val Ously called for the immediate remo-
5 of Some 12,500 American troops on

Tefe h soil during the March pre-
0]

ho ~2dum NATO contest, he “has been
ti ding talks with the Reagan administra-
Duenbae a gradual reduction in the
mes tese talks on Spain’s controversial
ingi bership in NATO are yet another
taby tion, obscured by the Times’ respec-
thar, low-key enthusiasm for Gonzalez,
on A Socialist prime minister is intent
itary tther cementing Spain’s close mil-
mi and political ties with the giant US.
ns lary-industrial complex. Having per-
in Nally led the pro-NATO Spanish groups
ther © March referendum to a victory,
by confounding the predictions of
st Observers, and after winning a second
| to Jority in parliament, Gonzalez appears
Confidently positioned to develop his
8anite policies in the years ahead.
eens continued membership in
ki O is the key to the Reagan adminis-
bal On’s effort to link Spain into U.S. glo-
ber, Political and military strategy, and the
try fits to the Spanish armaments indus-
» 4nd its political supporters are substan-
Rey The April-May 1986 issue of the
pert on the Americas published by the
Aines: American Congress on Latin
€tica (NACLA) noted: ‘‘Spain’s

Cn;
ag NATO (in early 1982, imme-

Letters

diately prior to the election of the first
Gonzalez government) has brought about
a jump in military expenditures and
investments in military industries, along
with greater dependence on war material
from the United States. Acquisitions
which have become increasingly sophisti-
cated and technologically advanced
include the McDonnell Douglas F-18A
combat aircraft. The most recent Foreign
Aid Bill, approved by the U.S. Senate on
June 12, 1985, granted the Gonzalez
government $415 million in military aid,
placing Spain fifth among recipients of
U.S. military aid, behind Israel, Egypt,
Turkey and Greece.”

The NACLA report added: “Spain is
also interested in selling weapons to the
United States” in order to improve its bal-

ance of payments deficits. “Its leading ©

weapons producers have hired the firm of
Robert Basil International to represent

them and push their products on the U.S. °

market. A pullout from NATO would cer-
tainly hurt their chances.”

Spain is also being used as an arms
conduit to supply those repressive Third
World regimes with which the Reagan
administration does not want to be too
closely identified for fear of adverse inter-
national opinion. NACLA reports that
the Spanish weapons industry, which is 90
per cent state-controlled, “has concen-
trated on light arms and hardware of the
sort in demand among Third World coun-
tries engaged in local wars and domestic

repression: rifles, munitions, pistols, mor-
tars, transport vehicles, medium-sized
boats (such as corvettes and patrol boats),
armored cars and aircraft. Customers
include Argentina, Colombia, Honduras
(which has acquired the C-101 Avio jet
trainer/strike aircraft), Mexico, Paraguay,
Chile, Jordan and Iraq. South Africa has
bought handguns from Spain. Yet the
Gonzalez government has refused to sell
arms to Nicaragua because ‘the country is
at war.’ ”

The NACLA report concluded, “If
Spain accepts its role as a secondary link in

the (U.S.-imposed) world system, this car-.

ries ideological consequences of its own.
Politicians and the press never tire of
emphasizing that Spain is no longer a
‘Third Worldist’ country and has entered
‘modern times.’ Some (Spanish Socialist
Party) theoreticians have even argued that
the European left should abandon its ‘guilt
complex’ toward the Third World. After
all, they say, dependency theorists who
blamed Third World poverty on domina-
tion by the North have been proved
wrong. The Franco era’s rhetoric of His-
pandiad (an alleged special Spanish rela-
tionship with former colonies of Spain)
has given way to a technocratic discourse
that seeeks its points of reference in New
York, Bonn and Tokyo. That leaves the
developing world — even Latin America
(where the Spanish presence is strongest)
— the dual role of investment field and
battlefield.”

The Spanish people are themselves,
however, not exempt from the consequen-
ces of the increasing militarization of the
Spanish economy, which is being carried
out in conjunction with an austerity pro-
gram similar to those imposed on develop-
ing countries by the International Mon-
etary Fund and its dominant member, the
United States. In November, 1984, The
New York Times estimated that the
“industrial restructuring” of the Spanish
economy undertaken by Gonzalez would
create, by 1986, a loss of 17,368 jobs in
shipbuilding, 12,545 jobs in iron and steel,
and 11,900 jobs in textiles and clothing. In
total, the Times estimates that over 60,000
jobs would be lost in Spanish industries
because of the austerity measures intro-
duced. by the Gonzalez government.
Meanwhile, Spain’s -present unemploy-
ment rate is officially listed at being over
20 per cent.

There is a solid core of progressive
opposition in Spain to Gonzalez’ Reagan-
ite policies however. Usually dismissed in
the Western press as naive, backward-
looking and anti-American, the extent of
this opposition can be gauged from the
fact that 40 per cent of the Spanish people
did vote against membership in NATO in
the March referendum — a substantial
number by any calculation. The imme-
diate future will be a severe test for the
anti-Gonzalez forces in Spain. Their
responsibility will be to put forth a serious
and attainable alternative to Gonzalez’
dual program of militarization and auster-
ity, while convincing the Spanish people of
their ability to form a responsible and cap-
able government. As Gonzalez’ Socialist
Party becomes further ensnared in the
contradictions of its own policies, the task
of the opposition should be made easier.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JULY 2, 1986 e 3