U.S.-MERGHANT OF DEATH -Recent disclosure that Chiang Kai-Shek’s usurping clique on Taiwan had been handed $156 million in arms by the U.S. Gov- ernment in 1969 was followed within three days by State Dept. admission that over the past 19 years used military equipment originally costing $3.4 billion had been given free to foreign governments siding with U.S. policy. These free grants were only the-outer fringe on a massive trade which leads political writ- er George Thayer to designate the U.S. as “the world’s largest arms dealer.” (The War Busi- ness: The International Trade in Armaments. Simon & Schuster). U.S. Slice: “Between 1950 and 1968,” reports Thayer, “the in- ternational trade in arms grew from $2.4 billion to $5 billion. The trade in the West alone will reach an estimated $10 billion per year in the early 1970’s — double the 1968 figure. (Govern- ment) officials believe that the U.S. will supply 25% of this market.” Compared with the arms sales of its eight leading allied governments, “The annual U.S. effort is currently over twice as large as all of these combined.” Private dealers: U.S. arms sales, Thayer shows, are often covered with secrecy and fre- quently go to both sides in a conflict or to tyrannical regimes seeking to put down native re- bellions. They are conducted by private individuals, armament manufacturing firms, and the government itself. The largest private dealer is Samuel Cum- mings, head of International Ar- mament Corp., who “dominates the total free world market in ._ private arms sales.” “A turnover of ”$15 to $20 million would be a good year for him,” says Tha- yer, and he is estimated to have amassed from the trade “a per- sonal fortune . . . in excess of $10 million.” Cummings is also _ an arms broker, “and will act as PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, MAY 22, 1970—Page 6 the middleman between the gov- ernments.” Manufacturers’ activity: Many American munitions firms, not content with huge sales at home, maintain branch offices in key cities around the world. These offices, Thayer found, “‘are used for the purposes of lobbying, collecting technical data, enter- taining, financing, and sales co- ordination.” “Overwhelming,” “high-handed,” “crass,” are.some of the terms Thayer uses to describe the typeof lobbying carried on. Of some Lockhead agents, German officials ‘“‘report- ed that they were forced upon - occasion to bar their office doors physically to the aggressive salesmen.” Another way of U.S. muni- tions manufacturers spreading their business abroad is by licen- sing. The foreign firm, for a price, is licensed to use U.S. pa- tents and _ techniques. “The greatest number of licenses placed since World War II,” Thayer reports, “has come from U.S. manufacturers. Most have been placed with European firms, and, in their entirety, have created a volume of business that dwarfs the volume created by agreements of this nature be- tween all other countries.” Government participation: — When Ford Motor Co.’s general manager Robert S. McNamara became Secretary of Defence, he found, according to Thayer, the U.S. foreign arms trade suffering from ‘a chaotic supply system,” with many arms manufacturers unwilling to set up their own sales agencies. “The best solu- tion, he reasoned, was to have the government do the selling for them, thereby centralizing the effort, eliminating the dupli- cation of facilities.” As a result, the International Logistics Ne- gotiations (ILN) office was es- tablished, “to promote the de- fensive strength of our allies, consistent with our political and economic objectives.” Henry J. Kuss, Jr., in charge of the office, is “America’s chief arms sales- man.” As Thayer puts it, “He heads an organization that is the dominating force in a world- wide jungle of bureaucrats and politicians who are ruthless and competitive than the likes of Cummings, munitions manipulat- ors, gunrunners, mercenaries’? — a jungle in the creation of which the ILN operation “has been a major factor.”’ Since 1962, Thay- er records, the office has ”aver- aged sales of $2 billion a year.” The government’s finger in the arms trade goes deeper than act- ing as a “government - financed - sales force for private industry.” The costs of developing modern weapons are “‘so high that indus- -tries can no longer finance them without government help.” Thay- er sums up this aspects of the trade: “The financial burden on major powers is currently so large that in the U.S., for in- stance, it is creating a disjointed economy and a misdirection of priorities.” An American problem: While bestowing some censure on the Soviet-bloc and other countries for participation in the arms trade, Thayer asserts that ‘‘one cannot escape the fact that it was the U.S. which was respon- sible for these other nations be- coming such large and active traders.” Today’s arms race,-he concludes, “is essentially Ameri- can problem. No nation talks more loudly about peace, yet no nation distributes as many weapons of war... Nor has any nation been as vocal -in-its desire to eradicate hunger, poverty, and disease, yet no nation has so obstructed the fight against these ills through its insistence . that poor countries waste their money on expensive and useless arms.” The book is graced with ex- tensive notes on documentation, a helpful bibliography, and a thoroughgoing index. (Economic Notes) Montreal's demonstration for peaté) By ALAIN PATRIE MONTREAL — The demon- stration here against the Ameri- can escalation in Southeast Asia and the incredible martyrdom of four students at Kent State can only be described as passionate. More than one thousand McGill students on extremely short no- tice managed to conceive, or- ganize and carry through a solemn meeting and march. These ‘“‘campus bums”, as Nixon has so gratiously labelled them, have more civic sense and col- lective empathy for a world seeking peace than all the meal- ly-mouth rhetoric of a Nixon sermon. The parade moved from the Montreal campus through the main street leading to the Ame- rican consulate. In an eloquent attempt to convey the horror and tragedy, the students bore aloft four coffins to symbolize the four who had fallen in the struggle for peace and freedom. Many of the marchers held can- dies and hurriedly scrawled pla- cards as they surged through the evening traffic of our metro- polis. Some of the signs read ‘Viet -Nam, Cambodia, the World!”, another stated “Bullets Won’t Kill Dissent!” and still another, “Unite For Peace!” Montreal is unique as the only city in North America that can boast a statute which prohibits all mass demonstrations. Under pressure, the city administration submitted to this parade, but its mood was underlined with the appearance of tens of dozens of riot police, their helmets visored with plastic and their three foot clubs held across their chests. Facts and figures Incomes of A great deal of space is de- voted to discussing wages in the press these days, along with the claim that the workers must go without a wage increase. This includes the 25 percent of the working force that gets be- low the poverty level in income. * * * The average net income of professionals in 1967 was: Doctors: $27,347 ($29,354 in Ontario) — a 95.4 percent in- crease in 10 years. Engineers: $22,111. Architects: $22,111. Lawyers: $22,014, a 66 per- cent increase in 10 years. Dentists: $18,273, a 78.8 per- cent increase in 10 years. Financial: $15,864 (1966). Accountants: $14,517. Realtors: $9,928 (1966). Insurance: $9,226 (1966). * * * Only 803 Canadians had in- y, magnificent Small squadrons of police mot! cycles ranged at the fringes oll the milling students, now # again nudging them provocati’ | ly with their wheels. It is a !& | timony to the mood of, ull) that no untoward incident ha? | pened. ah To compound the situatid? | some of the wild-eyed Maoist Trotskyites and assorted “Cl | zies” did their best to infl the situation by setting fire garbage cans and flinging at windows. Their efforts W’ | to no avail. The mood and pul | pose of the march was tt! phant. Vow Vigil The next day as if to tax © indulgence of our city ‘fathet and test the no-demonstrati®? | bylaw anew, a small band a dedicated women from the V0® of Women held a demonstrati®? in front of the American cons? ate. Fifty courageous wome stood silent vigil for two houl® | And on their faces for all peo? to see was the poignant trage of mothers who raise theif) | loved sons not to be cannon fot | der for imperialism. The McGill Student Sociell subsidized 150 people from walks of life to a bus trip Washington for the mamm? demonstration that was held ; front of Nixon’s palace — th | White House. Re One of the eyewitness repo™ | | told how the Canadian~ deles® | | tion marched onto the EIlip® || before the cheering throngs when a banner inscribed “C4 ada Is Here” appeared, the cf cendo of heartfelt applause deafening. x the : comes between $100,000 and ( $200,000 in 1966. ee ; ex x. A total of 385,988 Canadiat had incomes in 1966 whi@ averaged above $10,000 — of a work force’of about > “| million. oe * * % Speaking about wage creases, 40 percent of Canadi@! executives got incomes of 9 $20,000 in 1969 compared 31 percent in 1968. Increases executives in 1969 were 10 to 11 percent compare 7 percent for workers. * * * of four with an average ant income of $5,200, pays out 34%) | percent of its income in axe leaving $3,431 on which to i It is estimated that a family otal four with an average incomé $10,400, pays out 34.9 pere of income in _ taxes, leav! a about $6,770 on which to HY" But a family of four with a? come of $52,000 annually, out 47.7 percent of incom’ taxes, but still has left $27" on which to live.