yews and comment...

TM JUST ABOUT BEAT/ HE'S
ETTING HO BiG FOR ME...AND
R ALL, YOU ARE TE FATHER/

CARRY HIM YOURSELF... AND
SIOP SQUAWKIN’... BOTH OF YOu!

10/1 /e®

AL IRRESPONSIBILITY

‘other leading item in the
at the time of the violent
at George Williams
rsity wos the news of still

Berlin crisis in the
And if we thought the
§ of the students were
nsible, senseless and
nal, what shall we say of
s of the elder states-
politicians of West
ly and her allies?

ally the head of
f any country is always
sted in his own country.
Why \ German politicans
nt to cross 100 miles of East
ian territory to elect the
it of West Germany is
so childishly ab-
cannot be any logi-
ional or even a reason-
ligent explanation for
‘We to assume there are
Is big enough in Bonn
ler West German cities to
modate the West Ger-
mbly? Are we to as-
at the atmosphere 100
side East Germany is
ducive to the holding
ns? Why would the
fepresentatives of one
insist on travelling 100
across the border into
country to conduct
‘oral balloting for a
it? What would we say
bers of the electoral
in the U.S. had insist-
going to Cuba, 90 miles
U.S. borders, to forma-
@ election of President
No matter how you look
n idea — sense it
ake.

Crossland in the
Mester Guardian (Febru-
¥) relates the incredible
iat West Germany had
led her allies and they
ven their consent to this
Msible move. But Cross-
idmits that “none has
exactly enthusiastic
tt” In fact he says there

were mixed feelings even
among members of the West
German government.

But whatever their fears and
misgivings the West German
politicians are determined to
go ahead with this dangerous,
peace-disturbing provocative
action come hell or high water
—or presumably even a nu-
clear war. And some future
historian, if there will be any
around, might record the fact
that the Western allies hadn't
been very enthusiastic in’ sup-
porting West Germany in this
ultimate madness, but that
they did nevertheless.

If the lives of NATO troops
are to be risked over the silly
and trivial matter of in what
meeting hall the West German
president is to be chosen, it
is time Canada follows the ad-
vice of Hon. Eric Kierans and
pull out.

C.B.
The Commonwealth

NO ARGUMENT FOR NATO

In our view, there is no cre-
dibility to the argument that
Canada must remain in NATO
for reasons of defense and na-
tional security. None whatever.
The fact is that never, in the
20 years since it was establish-
ed, has NATO served as a mili-
tary alliance for defense.

The truth is that NATO is a
creature of the United States—
an extension of that country’s
foreign and military policies. It
was established in contraven-
tion of the UN Charter. A pro-
duct of the cold war, this mili-
tary alliance with troops in
post-war Europe is directed
against the socialist countries.
Not only has it bolstered anti-
democratic regimes in Greece,
Portugal and Turkey, but it has
re-armed Germany and thus
created a new and serious
threat to world peace. ...

Our membership in NATO
diminishes our role as a peace-
maker. To suggest that here
is room for an independent
role for Canada within such a
military framework is nonsense.

Not the least important is
the financial cost of this need-
less and dangerous commit-
ment. The NATO pact has been
the greatest single factor in
Canadian arms spending for
the last 20 years....

Canada should adopt a for-
eign policy of non-alignment.
We should end our commit-
ment to NATO. This is the year
when we have a chance to
withdraw.

Ukrainian Canadian

NOT ALL CASES

Canadians are quickly be-
coming as objectionable to the
Third World states as Ameri-
cans, the British and the
French, according to Professor
Donald Savage, who heads the
African Studies and CUSO
orientation programs at Loyola
University.

“Canada’s image as a lack-
ey of the United States is not
based on paranoia and unrea-
son in all cases.”

—The Telegram

HERE’S THE ANSWER

“There is still the old ques-
tion of how we get our troops
out of Vietnam. When this was
put to Jeanette Rankin, the 85
year old former Congress-
woman, she said, ‘Get them
out the same way we got them

in—by boat and plane’.

—Clayton Fritchey,
“Bring the Boys Back”,
New York Post.

Non-debate goes on

Last week, Ian Wahn, the chairman of the
Parliamentary committee which is supposed to
be investigating Canada’s foreign policy (or
lack of same) is reported to have expressed
regrets that Prime Minister Trudeau will visit
with President Nixon before the findings of the
committee are made public. Wahn apparently
regretted this because he felt that the govern-
ment will be accused of getting the line from
Nixon rather than as a result of the “re-exami-
nation” that is going on in Ottawa through the
committee hearings. Actually Wahn is indicat-
ing that Trudeau is clever enough to anticipate
his master’s voice without being pressured in
Washington.

Meanwhile the non-debate on foreign policy,
in which Canada’s role in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization is at the core, lurches on-
ward, ever onward. The whole procedure to date
has been an exercise in low key public relations.
On one hand Trudeau and his cabinet flutter
about as if they were genuinely interested in
policy options, yet in essence they are as firmly
committed to our present discredited and un-
workable policy as any previous government. It
is true that there may be a search for variations
on a theme. But we are still politically committed
to every cold-war shibolith. A case in point is
Mitchell Sharp who, like one of the proverbial
monkeys can hear no evil about NATO, can
also pass off the old line that the west faces a
military threat from the Soviet Union as if the
world has not moved beyond Churchill’s Fulton

speech.

It is sheer dishonesty to speak about a re-
assessment of foreign poly when every poli-
tical principle upon which foreign policy is based
is to be sacrosant. If there is to be a mean-
ingful debate on foreign policy the public must
not only be involved but it also must have
access to the facts. On both counts the gov-
ernment refuses. There is no way of knowing
what NATO costs in terms of dollars, what
will be expected of us in military commitment
if Canada renews the treaty. The political im-
plications of Canada’s involvement in NATO
are likewise obscured, just as the whole range
of our relations to the United States are su
merged in the fable that it is foreordained that
Canada play court jester at the feet of whoever
sits in the White House. ,

It will take an aroused public opinion at this
stage, to blast open the hearings to allow all
interested groups to appear. It will also take an
aroused public opinion to expand the issue from
the back rooms of Ottawa to the streets and
meeting places in Canada. There is no more vital

uestion facing Canada than a change in our

oreign policy, and it cannot be left in the hands
of Trudeau and his lieutenants to continue play-
ing charades.,

(WEY'RE NOT OUR TYPE oF
\_ DECENT, RESPECTABLE, **-

LOOK AT THOSE FILTHY, UNS HAVEN
PROFESSIONAL AGITATORS!
(a0 |

(LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS You'D FIND

uw)

‘PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 7, 1969—Pag