Bs Golicy ‘became; w

‘Reject nu

Cont'd. from pg. 3m,

The Toronto Globe
Mail in its own way and from
its own standpoint dealt with
this question as it affects Can-
ada in a revealing editorial on
Jan. 5.

It said: “Knowing that
membership in NATO requir-
es us to accept nuclear arms,
Should we continue in the al-
liance or withdraw? In prin-
ciple, we owe it to the United
States to accept nuclear war-
heads for the Bomarc missile
and the Voodoo intercepter
aircraft or to make our posi-
tion clear by withdrawing
from NORAD.”
NEUTRALITY

The Globe’s answer was

that Canada should accept our .

“responsibilities and obliga-
tions with respect to NATO,
but that in light of the U-S.
failure to consult us during
the Cuban crisis doubt is cast
upon the validity of the NO-
RAD agreement. Therefore,
this right of consultation
“should be firmly established
On the political !evel before
We can be expected to accept
Our full responsibility for
Joint defense under NORAD.”
If we stand this argument
0n its feet, if we put first
National interests and world
Peace, instead of “obliga-
tions” to an aggressive ally,
then it becomes plain that re-
fusal of Canada to equip its
forces in either NATO or NO-
RAD with nuclear weapons
Collides with the aims of both
‘Made-in-USA” alliances, and
Moves in the general direc-
tion of a foreign policy of
heutrality for Canada:

It was certainly not the in-
tention of the Liberal govern-
Ment befere 1957, nor of the

Ory government when it
took office to move in this
direction.

There is not the slightest
reason to doubt that when the
Diefenbaker cabinet agreed
during its early years in of-
fice to acquire Bomarc -mis-
Siles, Honest John rockets,

°0doo interceptors and CF-

94 strik e - reconnaisance
Planes for the RCAF in Ger-
Many, it took this decision in
he full knowledge that all
his equipment demanded nu-
Clear armament. In this sense
Norstad and Gerhart are
"ght about a commitment and

Sulkes, despite his “‘imper-
aeible breach of  confi-
ae is confirming the

Ctual facts of the situation.
Tees the same time the evi-
Bias shows that Green and

€r ministers of the govern-
ae are also right when
ee Point out that the gov-
ah ment did not then, nor

Ce, sign that actual agree-
a Which the United States

€gotiates with its allies to
Bay nuclear weapons avail-
if € to them, but under con-
ued U.S. control.

GRIM Locic oF NATO
bee other words, the Diefen-

€r government did not

8nd has not carried to the full:

Conclusion the grim logic of

Canadian participation in NA-
© and NORAD. Under the

errure of Canadian and

tie public opinion, it has

i to now drawn back from
1s final step.

_ Some people call this “dith-
eae They say the govern-
€nt has no defense policy.
mae it what you like, the

remains that what ap-
Pears to be the absence of a
hether the

Prat!

and”

a

Clear arms |

government so intended it or
not, a policy which has served
the interests of Canada, and
of peace.

The question of WHETHER
the government is now about
io ‘make up its mind,” is
secondary to the question of
HOW it is going to make up
its mind.

Some well informed news-
papermen have been saying,
perhzeps prematurely, that the
Diefenbaker government has
already made up its mind to
refuse nuclear arms. This is
the burden of an article by
C. Knowlton Nash _ writing
from Washington in the Fin-
ancial Post of Jan. 5. He says:
“Nuclear warheads will not
be coming to Canada...

“The Canadian answer is
‘no’ because Prime Minister
Diefenbaker firmly believes
Canadian acceptance of nu-
clear warheads at this time
would start wide proliferation
of nuclear arms...

“In addition to the question
of proliferation and disarma-
ment that currently occupy
Diefenbaker’s thoughts on the
warhead issue, there is also
the very real question of the
political effect.. So far as
Washington views it, a ma-
jority of officials here who
watch Canada, put most of
the blame for the Canadian
‘no’ on domestic politics .. .

“The only area where there
is a possibility that Canadian
forces might be equipped with
nuclear weapons may be in
NATO. The NATO authori-
ties have been encouraging
this with some enthusiasm,
but so far the answer has
raised, ‘no’.”

LIBERAL BETRAYAL

But, on the other hand,
“Mike” Pearson, the leader of
the Liberal opposition has
made up his mind, or has had
it made up for him by the
Peniagon, and such noisy
bomb rattlers as his chief de-
fense critic Paul Hellyer, the
MP for Toronto-Trinity.

Pearson came out flatly for
nuclear arms both on Can-
adian soil and in the hands
of Canadian forces overseas.

Pearson is not prime min-
ister of Canada, and his latest
_ pronouncement has not ~en-
hanced his chances unless the
government also now decides
to adopt the same stand.

On the day Pearson made
his new pronouncement of
Liberal policy in Toronto, the
Toronto Star carried a story
by its Ottawa correspondent
Val Sears reporting that “A
move to isolate the nuclear
weapons debate from election
politics by proposing a ‘bi-
partisan’ approach to the Lib-
erals, is being discussed by
Progressive Conservative stra-
tegists here.”

It would not be the first
time, nor will it be the last
that the two old parties have
ganged up against the Can-
adian people. Diefenbaker is
undoubtedly now placed un-
der the most extreme press-
ure from Washington, from
the militarists and reactionar-
ies in Canada, and from with-
in his own party to go alongs
with the line of “bi-partisan:
ship” by agreeing with Pear-
son.

But on the other hand he is
a cunning politician very an-
xious to cling to his highsoF
fice. He must know that bi-
partisanship” on this key -
sue, will put all the aces :
the next election in the hands

HUGH GAITSKELL, (above)
leader of the British Labor Party,
passed away last week after a
serious illness, leaving the party
with the difficult decision of elect-
ing a new leader which is ex-
pected to take place within the
next three weeks. Among leading
contenders for the post are Harold
Wilson, George Brown, Anthony
Greenwood and James Cailagan.
Greenwood is strongly favored
by many left wing members.

of the Liberals who might
well then be free to capicaiize
on the justified dissatisfaction
Over economic conditions
which is expressed in resent-
ment against the Tories.

CRITICAL MOMENT

This is a critical moment in
our history. Now Diefenbaker
needs to feel the pressure of
his mail running not two or
three against nuclear arms as
it was last fall, but four or
five to one.

More then that, Diefenbak-
er as well as Pearson need
to be firmly impressed with’
the fact that it is imposs/< le
to remove the nuclear arms
issue ‘from election politics.”
The people will not permit it
be so removed,

The New Democratic Party
as well as the Communist
Party stand firmly opposed to
nuclear arms for Canada. The
people of this country have
an alternative to any manoeu-
vre that would bring the old
parties together in support of
nuclear: armaments.

Those who will fight nu-
clear arms at the polls have
the backing of powerful forc-
es in the farm and_ labor
movements. The International
Affairs Committee of the
Canadian Labor Congress (de-
spite some pressure from the
extreme right. wing in the
labor movement) has just re-
iterated the stand taken by
the CLC convention last April
in opposition to nuclear wea-
pons.

The many peace move-
ments in this country which
have done so much to raise
up this central issue may now
be expected to carry their
campaigns to climax in ral-
lies demonstrations ,and other
actions across the country.

All these forces united to-
gether are strong enough to
win a majority of Canadians
to the understanding that
their deep desire for peace
can most surely be realized
by the rejection of nuclear
arms for Canada. They are
strong enough to defeat those
politicians who would betray
our country’s sovereignty
and imperil the survival of
our people to please the war-
makers of Washington.

Immediate aid for Sons
urged by BC Communists

Following up an earlier ex-
change of correspondence
with Attorney-General Rob-
ert Bonner regarding Sons of
Freedom Doukhobors, the
B.C. Communist Party last
week again demanded that
the “provincial government
take immediate steps to pro-
vide food and shelter and en-
ter into direct negotiations
with these unfortunate people
to resolve the social problems
involved.”

“Provocative, vulgar re-
marks like those attributed to
Mayor Rathie that he’s ‘not
interested in tramps’ only
serve to inflame the situation,
prolong the agony and cost
the taxpayers money,” prov-
incial leader Nigel Morgan
declared.

“Two months ago we pro-
posed that the provincial gov-

ernment appoint a Commis-
sioner, a modis vivendi, to
open discussions and work
through proposals for the re-
settlement of these misguided
people, the saving of many
thousands of dollars and the
avoidance of possible serious
trouble.

“We feel there is substan-
tial reason for believing this
could be done by the selec-
tion of a person in whom
these people and the govern-
ment have confidence—some-
one who enjoys the indisput-
able record of progress in this
difficult field that Magistrate
Evans of Nelson does,” Mor-
gan stated.

“We urge you to move
without delay to resolve this
problem in a lawful, orderly
and understanding way.”

UBC profs urge peace

Cont’d from pg. 1
Cuban crisis has been cited as
showing that in an emergen-
cy there is neither sufficient
time for governments not pos-
sessing nuclear warheads to
acquire them, nor even to en-
gage in consultations with
their allies. Hence it is urged
that in anticipation of future
emergencies our armed forces
must be equipped with nu-
clear weapons as soon as pos-
sible.

“Canada’s acceptance of nu-
clear arms would add little to
the Western deterrent. Mili-
tary experts agree that both
the U.S. and U.S.S.R. possess
nuclear striking power more
than sufficient to destroy one
another and that there is vir-
tually no defence against the
means of long range attack
now being completed.

“The continued production
and testing of nuclear weap-
ons, and their continued dis-
persion, far from _ providing
increased security, can only
heighten international  ten-
sion and the danger of war.
There is no valid reason to
believe that war can be held
off indefinitely by means of
a continued balance of nuc-
lear terror.

“In the long run the only
hope for real security lies in
the international control of
armaments under the UN or
some similar body. In the en-
deavor to bring about condi-
tions in which such interna-
tional control would become
feasible Canada could and
should play a more effective
role than she now does, both
as an independent critic of
the policies of the great pow-
ers and as an example of re-
straint in the arms race.

‘During the Cuban crisis
Canada _had no effective voice
in the deliberations which
took place. Our membership
in NATO and our previous
acceptance of U.S. leadership
resulted in no significant con-
sultations between Washing-
ton and Ottawa on this occa-
sion, and we have no reason

to expect that different pro-
cedures will be followed if
similar circumstances again
arise.

“Tf we are to have a part
in the determination of our
own future we must find
ways now to make our voice
heard before a new crisis de-
velops. The resolution of the
Cuban crisis demonstrates the
possibility of international
agreements and in some de-
gree offsets the pessimism
which has pervaded recent
discussions of East-West rela-
tions.

“The Canadian government
should exert more effort to
exploit these temporarily fav-
ourable conditions in the
hope of working toward solu-
tion of such problems as the
nuclear test stalemate, the
presence of Soviet and US.
bases on the territory of other
countries, and the status of
Germany.”

* + *

Professors associated with
the statement are Dr. J. B.
Brown, Department of Phys-
ics, Dr. S. M. Friedman, De-
partment of Anatomy, Dr. J.
K. Friesen, Dept. of Univers-
ity Extension, Dr. G. Hooley,
Dept of Chemistry, Dr. R. D.
James, Dept of Mathematics,
Dr. S. Jamieson, Dept. of Eco-
nomics and Political Science,
Dr. D. Kenney, Dept. of Psy-
chology, Dr. L. C. Marsh,
School of Social Work, Dr. D.
Murdoch, Dept. of Mathema-
tics, Prof. W. Nicholls, Dept.
of Religious Studies, Dr. W.
Robbins, Dept. of English, Dr.
-B. Savery, Dept. of Philoso-
phy, Dean N. Scarfe, College
of Education, Dr. E. Signori,
Dept. of Physchology, and Dr.
R. H. Wright, B.C. Research
Council.

It was also disclosed this
week that the Combined Uni-
versity Committee for Nuc-
lear Disarmament is sponsor-
ing a petition to the Govern-
ment in all Canadian univers-
ities, requesting rejection of
nuclear arms.

Hall barred at border

Gus Hall, leading Communist

spokesman in the United States,
barred recently by Canadian im-

migration authorities from speak-
ing at the University of McGill
campus, accused the Canadian
government of setting up a
“thought curtain’ between the
two. countries,

He had been invited to the

campus by the McGill Socialist
Society and was granted the right
to travel to Montreal by the U.S.
attorney general.

This brings to two the number
of leading Communist spokesmen
from the U.S. who have been ban-
ned from speaking here in recent
months. The other was Dr. Her-
bert Aptheker.

OU NY ry e