Canadian delegation at CPSU Congress

Delegation f the Communist Party of Canada at wreath laying ceremony in Moscow (I-r) CPC industrial
secretary William Stewart, Communist Party leader William Kashtan, Della Kashtan, and leader of the

Communist Party of Quebec, Sam Walsh.

Good prospects for relations

‘The keynote speech to the 26th Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Feb. 23, con-
tained a key reference for Canadians. It dealt with
Canadian-Soviet relations and the USSR’s willing-
hess to expand them in the future. The following
comment on this subject details several areas of
traditional bilateral cooperation between the two
States. It was given to the Soviet news agency APN by
Eduard Balaban, executive-secretary of the Soviet
*side of the Soviet-Canadian Mixed Commission for
Economic, Industrial, Scientific and Technical
Cooperation.

* * *
Soviet leader Brezhnev’s report noted that the
USSR stands for the broadest cooperation with

capitalist countries — with governments, the busi-

ness community, cultural and public organi-
zations. «.

‘The potential is good for developing our rela-
tions with Canada,” he said. ‘‘The door for further
expansion of cooperation will remain open.”’ This
assessment was made on the 25th anniversary of a
Soviet-Canadian Trade Agreement signed in Feb-
Tuary, 1956. <

Concluded at the ucight of the cold war, the
agreement showed a realistic approach by both
parties and their efforts to extend trade and eco-
nomic cooperation on the basis of equality and
mutual benefit.

Since 1956, contacts between the two countries

have expanded greatly: While in 1955 the trade

turnover was 4.1 million roubles ($6.9-million at
the current exchange rate), it reached a figure of 1.1
billion roubles ($1.6-billion) by 1980.

Canadian grain exports to the USSR feature

prominently in this picture. During the life of the

agreement the USSR purchased $7.4-billion worth
of Canadian grain and fiour. But the entire trade
pattern has expanded greatly in manufactured
goods as well. =
The 1970s makred an important stage in So-
viet-Canadian trade relations. Following an ex-
change of heads of state in 1971, a favorable politi-

with Canada says Brezhnev

cal climate took shape in bilateral relations. This
resulted in along-term agreement on the promotion
of economic, industrial, scientific and technical
cooperation and was instrumental in the transition
from simple commodity exchange to more com-
plicated, long-term, large-scale forms of
cooperation.

While earlier Soviet exports to Canada were
mainly raw materials and semi-finished goods, the
1970s saw Canadians buying more Soviet ma-
chinery and equipment. Between 1976-80, for
example, Canada purchased $133-million worth of
such goods compared to $4.5-million worth be-

‘tween 1966-70. Canada today buys Soviet autos,
tractors, machine tools, forges and various other _

similar items.

Canadian sales of machinery and equipment to
the USSR have also grown: In the past five years
the USSR has purchased $200-million in ma-
chinery for forestry, oil fields, gas pipelines as well
as trucks, industrial fittings, snowmobiles and
swamp vehicles.

This growth of interest in one another by Cana-
dian and Soviet business circles and a gradual
establishment of mutual understanding between
them was also an important and continuing result
of the past period. This can be seen, for example in
the visits of 11 business delegations to the USSR in
the past four years.

This situation can provide an excellent basis for

extending cooperation between Canada and the

USSR providing the obstacles set up by the pre-
vious Clark government to scale down relations are
removed. (The short-lived Tory government insti-
tuted a wide range of economic sanctions, includ-
ing the grain boycott, as well as sports and cultural
restrictions — Ed.)

Canadian business circles have come out in
favor of the removal of artificially-imposed trade
restrictions, having seen the advantages of
mutually-beneficial trade with the USSR. The So-
viet Union, as Brezhnev’s speech shows, is also
interested in the broadest possible contacts with
Canada.

Protests against Chilean junta

Canadians will again be protest-
ing against the fascist military
junta in Chile with pickets and
petitions this week. Prompting
this latest series of events is a
planned inagural of Chiie’s new
‘‘constitution’’ on March 11 and
plans by dictator Pinochet to
move into the Moneda Palace in
Santiago, the building in which
former president Allende was
murdered on Sept. 11, 1973.

nipeg.

In Toronto, a picket will be set
up at the Chilean consulate at 330
Bay Street between 12 noon and 2

-p.m. In Vancouver on the same
day a demonstration is planned at
the offices of Chile’s airline, Lan
Chile. A Calgary march was held
on March 7 and other protests
were held in Montreal and Win-

Protest organizers point out
that the new Chilean constitution

is the world’s first fascist constitu-
tion since World War Two and
their materials, based on findings
from the latest United Nations’
Special Rapporteur’s Report,
show that it negates all civil and
human rights, bans political activ-
ity, installs Pinochet in power
indefinitely and broadens his per-
sonal scope of action. Pinochet
will hold the presidency until 1989
and can remain so until 1997

International focus

By TOM MORRIS

Where have all
the flowers gone?

One of the things Ronald
Reagan plans to do when in

Canada (besides finding out
‘ that ‘‘Canada is composed of

reasonable, reliable people’’)
is plant a tree.

This time-honored ritual
couldn’t come at a more oppor-
tune moment. A memorandum
signed between Canada and
the U.S. last year aimed at
fighting growing pollution
levels is in danger of being a
hollow document because of
Reagan’s anti-environmental
views. :

Since taking office he has
alarmed Ottawa with appoint-
ments of people to office with
well-known anti-environment,
pro-industry records.
Reagan’s new budget calls for
big cuts in clean-up programs.
In short, the U.S. president is
exactly what is not needed if
you happen to be concerned
about massive pollution of air
and water — most of it coming
north from the USA.

It might be a good idea to
monitor the progress of
Reagan’s tree as it receives its
share of sulfur dioxide drifting
north from his country. Then,
if either he or the tree lives that
long, we might send it to him in
a few years as an example of
what’s happening up here.

How not to sell
a lousy line

‘External Affairs Mark
MacGuigan has got to be one of

the most shameless double-
talk people to hold that port-
folio in a long time. His per-
formance last week in the
House when _ responding
toquestions on El! Salvador
certainly gives him a good shot
at the prize.

Moments after his briefing
with U.S. Secretary of State
Alexander Haig in Washington
a few weeks ago, MacGuigan
behaved like a little boy shown
his first card trick. He told the
press he sympathized with the
U.S. decision to back the jun-
ta. Since then, under heavy
questioning, MacGuigan was
caught. :

‘*We have no means of judg-
ing the internal situation in El
Salvador’, he told the Com-
mons, March 2. He then said
Canada opposes the importing
of arms from all sectors. And

- then, ‘‘ ... we stand for a polit-

ical, not military solution in El
Salvador.”
Lovely. Then the man blurts

-out, ‘I would certainly not

condemn any decision the
U.S. takes to send offensive
arms ...”’ And that garbage
passes for government policy
on a powderkeg issue.

But the Extemal Affairs
minister wasn’t through. *‘I am
not aware that we have any

’ serious obligations in that part

of the world, in Central Ameri-
ca, which is not an area of
traditional Canadian interest,”
he tells the members amid
hoots of laughter and cries of
‘*shame’’.

That lucid comment must

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 13, 1981—Page 9

have sent shudders through
every Canadian embassy and
consulate in Latin America
and caused eyebrows to raise
among Canadian corporations
and banks doing business in
the region.

McGuigan’s problem is ob-
vious: he supports Haig,
Reagan and the dirty and
dangerous U.S. escalation in
El Salvador. He buys the
phoney ‘Soviet arms ship-
ments’’ junk the CIA and Pen-
tagon are peddling. McGuigan,
for lack of an independent for-
eign policy, embraces
Reagan’s line.

Selling this in Canada, how-
ever, isn’t so simple. Even an
astute diplomat would have
trouble riding two horses at the
same time — and McGuigan
hasn’t even learned to ride one
well.

A time to build
anti-apartheid fight

_ Recent actions in the United
Nations show that, while much
of the world’s spotlight is being
trained on events in Central
America, the struggle in
Southern Africa continues to
mount.

On Feb. 20 the United Na-
tions Special Committee
Against Apartheid convoked
an International Day of Strug-
gle Against Racial Discrim-
ination and called for applica-
tion of sanctions against Pre-
toria. The day selected is
March 21.

The Committee’s declara-
tion says the day coincides
with the 21st anniversary of the
Sharpeville massacre when
dozens of people were killed
by South -African security
forces.

A week of solidarity with
South African workers pro-
claimed by the UN General
Assembly as part of its pro-
gram of the decade of struggle
against racism will also begin
March 21.

The UN Special Committee
also calls on the world com-
munity to support the Interna-
tional Conference for Sanc-
tions Against South Africa in
Paris, May 20-27 organized by
the. UN and the Organization
of African Unity.

These and other events offer
yet another opportunity for
Canadians to remind our
government of its obligations
when it comes to the struggle in
Southem Africa. It’s well-
known that Canada plays a
double role on this issue —
condemning apartheid in
words and supporting it
through trade, economic
investment and. diplomatic
ties.

Leaders of the liberation
movements have repeatedly
urged concrete suppoft in
world wide efforts to isolate
the racist regime, to make it
unacceptable, to refrain from .
trading with it, having any
sporting or other ties.

Bit by bit this simple
strategy will seep into the
thinking of more and more
people who hate racism and
see the South African model as
racism institutionalized in its
most refined form. :