THE NATION Pearson's speech reflection of upset By TIM BUCK in cold war. calculations N the course of an address earlier this month, the minister for external affairs, Lester B. Pear- son, declared that the danger of war with the Soviet Union is less now than it was six . months ago. This was followed by a rash of propaganda in the capitalist press trying to blow up, and bolster up, what Pearson claimed to be the reason why the danger of war is, perhaps, for the time being less acute—that it was because of “the mobilizing of world opinion against Russia” in the UN Assembly. By that Pearson insinuat- ed that the activities of the Dominion government, par- ticularly as expressed in his own activities, have been a rather important factor in relaxing world tensions. That is not true, and if there is realiy less danger of war now than there was six months ago the “reason” is not as given by Pearson. It is true that the top policymakers of U.S. imperial- ism are seeking to bring about some shifts in policy. The changes they are aiming at immediately are those of emphasis rather than of line, but it is not excluded that their change of emphasis, if maintained, could open the way for a change of line. The change of emphasis is already indicated in statements and actions of President Truman, particularly by reducing Vandenberg and his Republican team on the foreign relations committee to five out of 13, and by the secretary, and assistant secre- tary of state with whom he replaced Marshall and Lovett. ‘i The reasons for the change include a lot of elements of course, but the major considerations were acknow- ledged in the authoritative U.S. News and World Report of January 14. That journal acknowledges frank- ly that the “cold war” didn’t go according to expectations. It added: “It’s surprising—and significant—how many things there are that the Russians were expected to do, but didn’t.” { : The editors mention a number of issues that the cold war strategists expected to lead to a shooting war’. They anticipated an excuse for @ shooting war would develop out of the Berlin crisis, out of a blockade they expected the Soviet Union to slap on Vienna, out of a Soviet invasion of Iran, or half a dozen other anticipa- tions fantastic as well as sinister. But instead of a shooting war U.S, imperialism has won for itself only discredit and weakened diplomatic position. : For example, the editors admit, concerning Berlin: “.... the airlift is regarded as only a temporary an- Swer. Sometime within the next few months, further efforts to settle the dispute probably will be made.” Concerning Greece: “In spite of U.S. military and €conomice aid the Greek government has not been able to subdue the guerrilla forces, which are now Bcknows ledged to be more numerous than when U.S. aid began. Concerning Palestine: “Things haven’t gone accord- ing to plan... Prophecies, of the military experts in particular, have had to be revised ... US. and Britain ' aS a result have to adjust their diplomacy, their military strategy to this fact of a strong Israel in the midst of Arab weakness . . . Problem for. British-U.S. diplomats is to walk the tightrope between Arab-Jewish hostility, Somehow mediate a peace, then wrap up the bases and the oil,”. The above are only three examples of admission of diplomatic defeat. The editors of U.S. News and World Report give half a dozen others. They explain that, un- der Marshall's: leadership (with the support of both Republican and Democratic. parties) U.S. imperialism, “Set out to test Russia, to get a showdown, to be tough. The idea was that in a showdown Russia would back up and deal.” But, the editors admit, “Russia countered with political offensives. With troublemaking, with a tendency to get tough on her own. In the showdown she didn’t back up.” ‘ \ “Then the issue became: shoot or talk ... Mr, Tru- man is indicating a willingness to.talk. He is dropping hints to Russia that U.S. would be interested in new 8estures from that side.” e Ae . Readers. .who have followed the argument to this _ point must be warned against assuming that U.S. monop- Olists have given up. U.S. News and World Report warns it readers against such an error. “Actual peace, however, is not in sight,” they point out. “Armament spending is to go on rising.” Peacetime lend-lease will be urged to arm the Marshall Plan countries. ’ “Military alliance with Canada, Britain, France, other nations is to be pressed,” oe 1 One reason why the latter points are emphasize is explained in the same issue by a prominent. journalist. warning Americans of what the author describes as: oS ee “Our unpreparedness for sudden peace.” The thesis of his article is explained in the key one-sentence para- graph: “Hence the paradox that the biggest economic _ danger faced by America is the danger of a sudden turn to peace by Russia.” In spite of lying insinuations that it was the Soviet Union that started the “cold war” or is pressing it, that statement reflects both the dilemma to which Marshall’s plans for war have brought U.S. imperialism, and the powerful interests which will continue to press for ‘a shooting war. . Lester Pearson, like his U.S. senior, wants to gain time. Their — not his — timetable has gone out of kilter. Peace-loving Canadians should not be deluded by his words into assuming that the danger is past. To end it we must strengthen still further the fight against Pearson’s and St. Laurent’s general scheme to get Can- ada into war. LONDON LETTER U.S. dictates British trade with Europe By MALCOLM MacEWEN —LONDON i JNDER United States pressure a committee with British and American members has been set up in London to control British exports to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. vot This allegation was made in the House of Commons recently by L. J.” Solley, Labor MP, who said that A. V. Alexander, the. minister of defense, was chair- man of the committee. Solley, opening the debate on trade with Eastern Europe, said: “This committee is blacklisting items which it is suggested must not go either to the Soviet . Union or to Eastern Europe. “It is being done under Section 17 of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, allegedly for security reasons. “Tt is infamous that a foreign country should seek to dictate to this country what sort of trade we are to do with Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union, and say ‘such and such an article is on the security list’,”” he declared. To show what the U.S. meant by “‘security,”” Solley quoted a Polish government statement that under this Act the U.S. had prevented Poland from purchasing cotton, synthetic rayon, condensers, radios, ball-bearings and other goods. Solley said the report of the Economic Commission for Europe showed that unless trade between East and _ West increased fivefold by the time the Marshall Plan ended, Europe would face a substantial drop in living standards. ; ‘ A. frank: admission that Britain has not fulfilled her obligations under the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement was made by the president of the Russo-British Cham- -ber of Commerce, Sir Greville Maginness. He pointed out that on the other hand the Soviet undertaking to deliver during 1948 750,000 tons of gram from the 1947 harvest has been fulfilled. The Russians did not exercise their right to withhold the last 200,000 tons, as they were entitled to do. “Disappointing progress has been made,” said Sir Greville in his address to the annual general meeting of | the Chamber, “‘in the conclusion of contracts for the supply to the Soviet Union of the machinery and equip- ment itemised in the agreement.” According to the latest Board of Trade figures the value of Soviet exports to Britain increased from just over £6 million ($24 million) in the first nine months of 1947 to nearly £22 million ($88 million) — in the same period this year. _ » British exports to the Soviet Union dropped from over £12 million ($48 million) to under £514 million ($22 million).:. . LABOR FOCUS. W hat caused split in labor's ranks? By BRUCE MICKLEBURGH “Pow come?’’ many workers are asking? How + come “Dr.”’ Pat Conroy and other CCL officials can trample on the CCL membership by urging the setting up of a rival organization to, the World Federa- tion of Trade Unions? How ‘come these bureaucrats announce an all-out ‘raiding program against the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (CIO-CCL) ? How come IWA provisional president J. Stuart Alsbury states in court that he knew there had been a 58 to 33 strike vote at the Iron River camp where he tried to follow Pat Conroy’s advice to “‘brush’ aside” the picket line? How come such loving up to the boss? How come a split in labor between the honest, militant sec- tions and the opportunists? How do people get that way? e f Workers call these people a lot of justified names. By nothing’ is explained by name-calling. One must understand to fight. Opportunism is the sacrifice of the long-term or over-all interests of labor for immediate interests which are often personal. . ‘Now the root of opportunism is imperialism. And imperialism is not just a name that communists like to use. It is the exact and scientific term to apply to the present stage of social development in Canada. where monopolies dominate the economic and political life of the nation. . Tim Buck shows in his book every unionist should have, Canada: the Communist Viewpoint, that 16 key directors’ of 5 Canadian banks hold 266 seats of the boards of directors “‘of the largest and most important . industrial, commercial and financial corporations in Can-- ada,” including “116 presidencies or vice-presidencies of the dominant corporations from Cape Breton to Vancouver Island.”’ Monopoly extracts not just ordinary profits from labor, but «super-profits. (H. R. MacMillan, even by his own books gets $1.22 profit for every dollar he pays in wages.) d Super-profits come from exploitation at home and abroad. Canadian billions invested abroad bnng a nich tribute from colonial and semi-colonial labor. The result is that labor militancy rises. struggle for socialism becomes the only way out. But the result also is that monopolists are able to use a small portion of their extra profits to temporanly save themselves by bribing a top layer of workers, That is the cause of opportunism. Labor is split by bribery. : @ It’s not as simple .as the song: “The boss came up to me with a five-dollar bill, And said get vou some whiskey bov, drink vour fill.’” It’s done in a thousand ways, from Pat Conroy’s The receipt of a doctorate side by side with Kelley of the infamous Dosco corporation; to the sure and certain reward of a post on the Workmen’s Compensation Board or Unemployment Insurance Commission; the legation post that awaits in Ireland or elsewhere: a Non- Partisan nomination; a license; a machine nomination to legislature or parliament; immunity from discrimina- tion, blacklist or jail; a fat bureaucrat’s salary—or the outright bribe. It starts by taking the easy way. at each stage (“‘let’s take 5 cents instead of fighting for 10°)—it ends scabherding at Iron River, There are many types of opportunists, The most dangerous is the right-wing social democrat of the type of Conroy, Charles Millard, Wm. Mahoney, George Home, Tom Alsbury or J. Stuart Alsbury—whether or not they offcially belong to the CCF. They peddle a pseudo-socialist, pseudo-radical, pseudo-labor demagogy to appeal to advanced workers who have broken away. from many “free enterprisé”” illusions. Their international and domestic strike-breaking is a foul perversion of the high aims of scores of thous- ands of CCF followers in the unions. : They echo their'master’s voice, and_ their master (Wall Street, Bay Street and St. James Street) ‘is bent on war. The special role of top CCF-CCL official dom is that of a war party in the ranks of labor. This understanding is basic to waging a correct fight for all labor’s aims. — It shows why labor's in- ternal enemy is not easy to dislodge. It shows the forces behind that enemy. It also shows why the ousting of that enemy is the key to uniting labor for victory over big business on the wage front, on the political front, and in securimg peace. PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JANUARY 28, 1949 — PAGE 9