Trade equal term on By LESLIE MORRIS a Can Canada hope to develop its trade with other countries dy taking advantage of their difficulties and making a good Ing of it? Will other countries stand for such cavalier treat- Ment?. _ This question arises out of the present conditions of pe Canada-Chinese trade in grains—or rather, the exchange of pnadian surplus grains for U.S. dollars which China can ill afford. Bd a « Quite apart from the ugly fact that the government of Canada, the private and publicly-owned radio and TV stations and the commercial daily papers are all busily slandering People’s China and all together refusing to recognize China’s political ex- istence while going ga-ga over the sale of our grain, there are aspects of the present deal which Canadians, and especially west- ern farmers, should stop to think about. : A recent United Press. dispatch from London says: “Figures assembled by Commonwealih experts Uiscloseq today that crop disasters have forced Communist “Aina to buy massive amounts of grain on world markets— me at inflateq prices (our emphasis)—to feed its tremen- °Us population.” * 2 * __. It goes on to say: “The Commonwealth Economic Com- Mitte, in its latest grain bulletin, said the Peking regime has “Ported more than 6,000,000 metric tons of grain since it began large-scale purchases from non-Communist sources last Year, a metric ton equals 2,205 pounds.” Cash on the barrel head was the method of payment. Ching Paid cash (and high prices) for the first shipments of “ain, and only since then has been allowed to buy on credit. Viously a hard bargain was driven by the Western coun- *s: first the test of hard cash, and only then, credits. t All the payments have been met as they came due. And, ° raise the dollars to pay for the grain, China has had to 4}, Ue her imports of manufactures, including, in all likeli- inet machinery for carrying through her great program of ‘dustrialization. vi * * * 4g Canada sold China 186,700,000 ‘bushels of wheat and 49,200,000 bushels of barley, at high world prices. This was Med as a great achievement by the Diefenbaker govern- went and especially for Alvin Hamilton, the ministerof agri- ture. It no doubt contributed to the heavy Tory vote on rairies in the June federal election. Elevators got rid €ir surpluses and often the farmers’ field granaries were indtiea, The Port of Vancouver worked day and night load- he grain to China. Ts this a fair and stable basis for Canadian-Chinese trade? on China’s crop disasters, the consequences of bad weather fae Not the economic system, going to continue? Can Can- 0 "0 farmers look forward to a continuation of this situation °r a moment put any political trust in the architects of a de Policy built on sand? Obviously not. i The fact is that the Diefenbaker government, while refus- the to recognize the existence of the Chinese government, and in woby continuing the shameful policy. of following meekly cultj ashington’s footsteps, took advantage of China’s diffi- 1s and made a great and pious virtue out of so doing. ester Pearson, the Liberal leader, was so put out at the < al advantages the Tories stood to gain by this deal, that of and his fellow Liberal MPs staged filibusters in the House °mmons attacking the shipments to China. * * * the We have come out of this situation not at all well. aan ain is being shipped, and China obviously needs it. Bu ing litical, moral and plain economic terms, the weal was “fensible, for the following reasons: 5 the * It diq not include the independent Canadian action of ~ Political recognition of China. inst * It is impossibly one-sided trade, grain for U.S. dollars, ad of Canadian grain for Chinese goods. nee * It is limited to grains whereas China wants indus Es Which are on the American prohibited list and conse- fy Ntly also on the Canadian, Canada taking its foreign policy to m Washington. We saw what happened when China offered by t Y Canadian Ford cars and was prevented from doing so Re U.S. State Department. S Datt It is only a temporary arrangement, and sane : mo *tn for the future. No self-respecting governmen " ar : ‘tg, C&ttainly no socialist state, would ever agree to ae ee on any such basis as the emergency Canada-China eal. bog. Lastly, it is sheer opportunism, not to say immoral, ‘ &y UP a country and its people at the point of an Sn aa the, sell surplus grain at high prices, to demand cas a © present this as a political victory and a pattern for trade. tra politi Wor} a * * * hut Nothing of the sort. World trade, between equals, aod ‘ae ly advantageous, cannot be conducted on any suc tq. 8S this. It has to be multi-lateral, going in all BuEeneDs the Not on one track and in a lop-sided way which give ain advantage to-one side. ‘bout Be dians, and especially Canadian farmers, should think this. e No hp Canada-China grain-for-U.S.-dollars exchange is a } %y,,.2¢ all for the kind of trade we must enter into with a 4 "les, for their benefit and ours. NUCLEAR WAR ‘SUICIDAL’ Foulkes, ex-military aide says No nuclear defence possible’ A man who was Gen. Foulkes’ aide-de-camp when he was Chief of the Canadian Genera! Staff, and who resigned from the armed forces three years ago after sev- enteen years of service, last week publicly dis- agreed with some recent conclusions. by Gen. Foulkes in a series of ar- ticles on defence policy. In a letter to the press W. H. Pope, of Ottawa, who was the New Democratic Party candidate against the mini- ster of national defence in Calgary North in the last Federal election, wrote in part: “The recent articles on de- fence policy by Gen. Charles Foulkes in the Sun were very worthwhile. I agree with much of what he has written. “His criticism of our mari- time forces’ futile attempts to defend us against missile- carrying nuclear submarines is excellent. His insistence on Canada increasing the prior- ity accorded our peace-keep- ing forces for UN service is highly realistic. “However, in his first article Gen. Foulkes implies that a fundamental revision of Canadian defence policy is made necessary because ‘‘the Canadian public as represent- ed by its political parties has declared against . . . a policy of nuclear strategy.” “He adds that, ‘Very little was revealed on just how the various parties would solve the problem of a Canadian non - nuclear policy within alliances based upon nuclear City’s outside workers re-elect leadership The seven-man executive of the Civic Outside Workers union has been elected by acclamation. Returned to office were: Bruce MacKin- non (President), Jack Phillips rt JACK PHILLIPS (Secretary), Don Guise (Busi- ness Agent), Alex Ellis, Mel- vin Mercer, and Herman Bar- tels (Vice - Presidents) and Reginald Bailey (Trustee). Trustee Bailey’s term of office will be three years; all other posts are voted upon annually, The results represents a significant victory for the union’s leadership, which has been subjected to a barrage of red baiting, trial by news- paper, and meddling by city council. As the union news bulletin points out, the vote ‘“demon- strates that the decisive ma- jority of the membership are united behind the construc- tive policies of our union.” strategy! “As a New Democrat I would like to take issue with both these statements. My reasons for rejecting nuclear weapons for Canada’s armed forces are based neither on my estimate of public opinion nor on my knowledge of my party’s policy. WAR SUICIDAL “I reject nuclear weapons for Canada because I am con- vinced that they would be utterly useless: neither nuc- lear-armed Bomarcs, nor nu- clear-armed rockets on inter- ceptor planes, nor nuclear depth charges on frigates, nor anything else, would prevent the total destruction of Can- ada should thermonuclear war occur. “And they would add noth- ing to the deterrent to such awar. .. It cannot be stress- ed too strongly that any de- fensive weapons designed for use in the event of thermonu- clear war are useless, for thermonuclear war is suicide. “.. . Defence, the protec- tion of one’s country against thermonuclear attack, makes no sense because it is im- possible. “Throughout his articles Gen. Foulkes shows that he is at least half way through the thought barrier: he al- most accepts the basic fact of this new age that all-out war would be suicidal and that there is therefore no sense in preparing for it, for suicide. “He himself asks: ‘How much defense is _ possible?’ and then answers. “Not much. “When Gen. Foulkes has thought about this a little longer, I hope he will realize that the answer is simply: ‘None!’ “And I hope he will then write another series of articles in which he bases his arguments solely on cold mili- tary logic without adopting, as an erroneous premise, his own estimate of political ex pediency.” ; P.T. STAND The Pacific Tribune agrees with Pope’s criticism of Gen. Foulkes’ articles and his con- clusion that “thermonuclear war is suicide.” We are also grateful to Gen. Foulkes for pointing out the entire strategy of NATO is based on nuclear weapons and that by not accepting nu- clear weapons Canada may, require fundamental revision of defense policy. The Pacific Tribune has maintained all along that the pressure on Canada to be- come a nuclear power arises from our membership in the NATO military alliance. That is why we have pressed for Canada to withdraw from NATO. No other position is possible if we are to stop the spread of nuclear arms to Canada. That is also why we have criticised the New Demo- cratic Party. We have main- tained that the NDP cannot take a consistent position against nuclear arms _ for Canada and at the same time support Canada’s membership in NATO. Sept. 29, 1962—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 11 Siar sill «iain al