British Columbia

Panama invasion: canal,

not drugs,

The bloody U.S. invasion of tiny
Panama had nothing to do with estab-
lishment of democracy in that poverty-
stricken country. Nor had it anything to
do with U.S. President George Bush’s
so-called war on drugs. It had even less to
do with the killing of a U.S. soldier who
illegally entered a Panamanian military
installation.

These were only the excuses. The real
reason was to install a puppet govern-
ment under U.S. control and thus make
sure that the Panamanians never do get
control of the Panama canal in 1997, as
provided in a treaty signed by former
president Jimmy Carter.

Gen. Manuel Noriega’s “crime” was
not that he was a dictator. The U.S. has
installed and propped up one dictator
after another in Central and South

America. The bloody military dictator-
ships in Chile and El Salvador are but
two examples.

Furthermore, according to U.S. sour-
ces, Gen. Noriega had been on the CIA
payroll while he allegedly was a dictator.
Noriega’s “crime” was the unforgivable
sin of turning against the U.S. and refus-
ing to take any further orders from the
CIA, the Pentagon and the White
House. He was going it alone.

Nor was Noriega’s “crime” that he
was a drug runner. It’s no secret that the
CIA itself has been in the drug business
for some time, and not only in South
America, using the profits to finance its
illegal activities all over the world. The
U.S.-financed and -trained contras,
whose job is to terrorize the people of
Nicaragua and overthrow its govern-
ment, are in the drug business. You don’t
have to go to South America to find the
world’s biggest drug runners. They’re
right in the U.S. and they’re part of the
big business establishment.

The government being installed in
Panama will be no less corrupt or less

the motive

dictatorial than any other government
installed by the U.S. in any other Central
or South American country.

For the U.S. to invade another coun-
try to capture and bring a citizen of that
country to the U.S. for trial is a most
blatant violation of international law.
That’s why it was opposed by the Organ-
ization of American States. That’s why it
was condemned by the United Nations.
That’s why only a few countries in the
whole world supported the U.S..—
among them, Britain and Canada.

In 1986 Mulroney said that Canada
does not “approve of third party inter-
vention anywhere in Central America,
whoever the third party may be, regard-
less of its legitimate interests in the area,”
adding that Canada shares with Latin
America, “the principles of non-interven-
tion in the sovereign affairs of other
nations, and of adherence to the princi-
ple of international law.”

That was before free trade and before
Canada joined the Organization of
American States.

The day the U.S. invaded Panama and
after he had a phone call from President
Bush, Mulroney said: “The United
States ... in the particular circumstances
acted properly.”

Prime Minister Mulroney’s servile
statement in support of the U.S. invasion
not only makes a complete mockery of
Canada’s supposedly independent for-
eign policy. It also makes a mockery of
the whole concept of non-intervention in
the affairs of other countries. It is a com-

_ plete reversal of Canadian foreign policy.

Was Canadian support of U.S. foreign
policy a secret clause of the free trade
deal?

The U.S. military assault with its
overwhelming fire power killed and
wounded thousands of Panamanians
and inflicted tremendous damage to
property that runs into billions of dol-

lars.
The U.S. should be compelled to get

out of Panama and to pay for all the
damage it caused. It should be compelled
to compensate the wounded as well as
the relatives of the people it killed. The
people of Panama should be allowed to
elect their own government and presi-
dent in elections free of U.S. control.
And let the Panamanian people them-
selves decide what to do with Gen.
Noriega.

Tenants map strategy

LIBBY DAVIES
Continued from page 1
The mayor was responding to North
Vancouver city council’s demolition ban,
enforced after a rash of evictions had
tenants demanding action. North Van-

couver district council and Victoria’ city.

council have since followed suit, and Bur-
naby, after hearing from tenants, is consid-
ering that option.

The demonstration at city hall demanded
that Vancouver council implement:

e A ban on demolitions “until a program
of housing protections” is in place.

© Scrapping the city’s secondary suite
review program, which has pitted neigh-
bour against neighbour and is “leading to
the loss of more affordable housing. It’s
been a bust,” S..>yler charges. ~

e A rent review system, with the power
to stop or roll back increases, instituted by
the city if the province does not take action.

The recommendations were adopted by
the Vancouver and District Labour Council
last Tuesday after a presentation by Com-
mittee of Progressive Electors Ald. Libby

-Davies: COPE has consistently backed the
tenant demands in council.

Shayler says a rent review process is pref-
erable to the old system abolished when the
Social Credit government changed the
former Landlord and Tenant Act into the
Residential Tenancy Act during the rash of
restraint-oriented, anti-democratic bills
introduced in 1983.

Under the old legislation the now defunct
Rentalsman’s Office could review and roll
back some rent hikes. But landlords were
allowed to raise rents by fixed percentages
yearly, irrespective of the condition of their
buildings, he notes.

“A true rent review system can deny any

to fight rentincreases

JOHN SHAYLER

rent increase and roll back unfair hikes. But -
it’s easy to make such a system wishy- |
washy, so we want one that works.” ;

There is currently no system for control- .
ling rent increases. :

“So what tenants must do now is organ-
ize and put pressure on individual land:
lords,” Shayler notes.

The most common scenario has tenants
forming associations in their apartment
buildings when hit with evictions or soaring
rents and lack of maintenance. In some
cases, mass-scale demolitions have led to
neighbourhood wide groups, such as the
Concerned Citizens for Affordable Hous-
ing in Kerrisdale.

The point is, tenants are organizing in-
unprecedented numbers: ““We’ve seen more
neighbourhood organizing than I’ve seen in
a while.

“The last few months we’ve been busy
going to tenants’ meetings. People are ¢al-
ling us asking, ‘If there’s a rally, let me
know,’” Shayler relates.

Shayler says tenants from Vancouver
and Victoria will soon meet and plan strate-
gies for actions to put pressure on the pro-
vincial government to implement controls
on demolitions and rent hikes.

“If we’re going to put pressure on Victo-
ria, we’re going to have to put these people
together on a broader scale,” he acknowl-
edges, while pointing out the logistical prob-
lems of organizing a province-wide move-
ment.

“We give information. The logistics are
that we cannot go to all these groups (in
their respective cities).” fe

Tenants will hold “strategy talks” over
the next week to discuss the best method of
putting pressure on the province, he says.

Students, faculty demand freeze on tuition:

Years of government underfunding
have students, faculty and administrators
joining forces to call for a provincial royal
commission into post-secondary educa-
tion financing and for a freeze on tuition
fees.

The Canadian Federation of Students-
Pacific Region, the College-Institute Edu-
cators Association of B.C., the British
Columbia Association of Colleges and
NDP MLA and education critic Barry
Jones made the call at a press conference
Jan. 11.

And on Jan. 18 the Simon Fraser Stu-
dent Society was set to hold a public forum
on tuition hikes as part of its week-long
Freeze the Fees campaign ending Jan. 23.
Last month the Vancouver and District
Labour council endorsed the Simon
Fraser student campaign.

The CFS initiated the call for a royal
commission because of annual tuition
hikes at B.C. colleges and universities over

the past decade, federation researcher
Jean Karlinski said.

“It’s tied to government funding, but
rather than looking at alternatives (to tui-
tion hikes), tuition gets jacked up (by uni-
versity and college administrations),” she
said.

A chart accompanying a brief the CFS
presented to Advanced Education Minis-
ter Bruce Strachan last month shows tui-
tions have risen 200 per cent on
average — with a high of 278 per cent at
one institute — for college students since
the 1980-81 academic year.

Meanwhile, universities have jacked up
course fees by an average 147 per cent for
the period ending in the current academic
year, the chart shows.

The brief observed that operating
grants for colleges and institutes rose by
only 36 per cent since 1981-82, while for
universities the figure was just under 27
per cent. '

And students are bearing more and
more of the burden of education financ-
ing. In that period, “tuitions have quad-
rupled over the rate of inflation, while
government grants have barely kept up
with inflation,” said Karlinski.

She said statistics show B.C.’s participa-
tion rate in post-secondary education is
well below the national average.

And while there are no complete demo-
graphic studies on student populations in
the province, it’s clear that higher fees
mean less access for young people from
lower-income families, she said.

The effect of tuition hikes since 1979-80
has meant students’ share of education
costs has risen to 14.5 per cent from seven
per cent for colleges, and to just under 20
per cent from nine per cent for university
students, the CFS brief states:

President Ed Lavalle of the College-
Institute Educators Associations told the
press conference that “Labour strife at our

colleges, overworked faculty and crowded
classrooms are just some the indicators of
the crisis in financing and planning facing
our system.”

The faculty union has joined the CFS in
calling for a freeze on fees until the pro-
posed royal commission tables its report,
and Jones has pledged an NDP govern-
ment would immediately freeze tuitions.

The province has addressed some con-
cerns in its Access for All program arising
from a special committee’s hearings last
year, but the program fails to address the
need of potential students whose financial
circumstances prevent them from receiv-
ing a post-secondary education, the CFS
states in its campaign material.

The federation points out that a freeze .
on tuitions for the upcoming academic
year would cost less than $9 million, while —
the Access for All program plans to spend
$700 million during the next six years.

2 Pacific Tribune, January 22, 1990