King ‘fired’
for holding
to rights

ae Mutse II of Buganda was
ie €d by British Colonial Secre-
ary Oliver Lyttelton simply be-

fase he demanded a time limit §

for Ne independence of his coun-
ithin th iti : :
Wealth, the British Common
ans was admitted in a British
7 pment White Paper on Bu-
da issued here last week.

b ii Sovernor of Uganda tried to
t
al demands, which he had put
By ard with the backing of the
Nie Parliament (Lukiko). But
aaa to withdraw, says the
a ate ;
the neg without consulting
one §0vernor therefore deposed
Stang ported him for taking a
would Which any British monarch
a be deposed for not taking.
Pitte White Paper also prints the
ctorate ‘Treaty with Buganda
he which governs the rela-
‘ etween Britain and Uganda.
. at agreement, despite i
las 7 pite its
Noein clauses robbing the
ia of Buganda of half their
ann, Shows that the British gov-
ority ent have absolutely no auth-
aki to depose, still less deport,
Ng of Buganda.

I ‘

tear Scifically provides that the
Tade Say superior to any laws
Sovernn, the governor or British
he ae nt which conflict with
iament y. As the Buganda par-
and ne Says: “We are not a colony
The ver have been a colony.”

orandum® Paper prints the mem-
Tent aie the Buganda_parlia-
African poe Out its fears of East
demang €deration and its three
Subjectign (©, Prevent Buganda’s
owners n to the European land-
tion, of Kenya in such a federa-

tio

No federation,

to ee Buganda affairs revert
Titish Foreign Office .as

Proyj,

: mgd under the 1900 treaty.

ihdependen ., Ue limit be set for
Weal, °° Within the Common-

a

Strikers defy
Franco’s ban

MADRID
Shipyara 000 workers in a Bilboa
they oh ave been fired because
of ‘the a & walkout in defiance
°n all ee Sovernment’s ban

; ikes, it is reported here.
€, which took place De-

Pt

sto
Tst in ¢
atc
cee Wave of March, 1951.
Were rep leaders of the strike
kis Seen €d to have been arrest-
Was Ag the demonstration
Whe Snip uzkalduna shipyard
denstratign, 4,500 workers, The
{own strike" Started with a sit-
ent eh eehy after manage-
i nced = that i
“ . overtime
tee a abolished and Wages re-
Clice
ae Dlant re brought in to clear
roy; i ‘ie Jenaro Riestra Diaz
vernor, issued an ulti.
e ee that they
tes he ess they return-

some 2,000
on strike the
dismissed

to reports here, the

Workers

y the king (Kabaka) out of| |

|
1
}

e

Mossadegq gets three years

solitary confinement.

“lve done nothing wrong.”

in a rebellion against the Shah.

A military court in Teheran this week found former prime
minister Mohammed Mossadeq guilty of “13 charges of attempting
to overthrow the Shah” and sentenced him to three vears in
Earlier, Mossadeq contemptuously rejected
a plea by the Shah on his behalf, pounding a desk and declaring,
Demonstrations on behalf of the
former premier took place in the streets and were instrumental
in convincing the military court that a death sentence might result

ing living standards.

By providing the Indian producer
with a constant and steady market
for such products as jute, tea, cof-
fee, tobacco, shellac, oils, spices,
wool, leather and hides, the Soviet
Union is indirectly contributing to
the earnings of India’s peasants
and workers.

These products, required by So-
viet consumers because of their
rapidly increasing purchasing cap-
acity, are to be paid for by goods
which provide India with the means
of creating new jobs for its people,
and eventually manufacturing more
articles for their consumption.

With the Soviet Union’s help
India will be able to improve coun-
try roads, to bore for oil, to equip
factories, textile mills, power sta-
tions, food processing plants, with
the very latest types of new mach-
inery, to supply. the countryside
with more tractors and agricul-
tural implements. To appreciate
the full significance of the reper-
cussions of the Soviet Union’s en-
try in the markets of southeast
Asia as a large scale supplier and
consumer, it is necessary to turn
back to the International Economic
Conference held at Moscow. in
April, 1952.

This conference was attended by
the first group of Indian business
men ever to come to the Soviet
Union. A few days later M. V.
Nesterov, president of the USSR
Chamber of Commerce, told the
conference that Soviet foreign
trade organizations could raise the
Soviet Union’s trade with foreign
countries—apart from the Peo-
ple’s Democracies and China—to
between two and three times the
1948 level.

Soviet commercial organiza-
tions, said Nesterov, were in a
position to develop mutually
profitable trade which would
make it possible for Southeast
Asian countries to process their
raw materials. Soviet industrial
organizations could also render
technical assistance in the design
and construction of industrial en-

India, Soviet in
big trade pact

By RALPH PARKER

MOSCOW

The news that India and the Soviet Union have established large-
scale trade relations has been received with satisfaction in Moscow.
Peaceful cooperation of countries—however different their. systems—is
the basic policy of the Soviet government, which considers develop-
ment of international economic ties as an important factor in improv‘

terprises, power plants, irrigation
systems.

The Indian government, though
not officially represented at the
Moscow conference, took a con-
siderably closer interest. in its pro-
cessings than the governments of
many other countries. This long-
sightedness has been repaid.

The new agreement, the first
general trade agreement between
India and the Soviet Union (the
1951 agreement was a barter ar-
rangement for a single exchange
of goods) springs directly from
those first contacts.

There is no discrimination of
whatever form in the India-USSR
five-year trade agreement, which
is based on the principle of mutual
advantage and on respect for na-
tional sovereignty and_non-inter-
ference in the domestic affairs of

other countries.

This was a clear reference to
tary of State John Foster Dulles
forced*into an “agonizing re-ap-
praisal” of its foreign policy unless
the European Army plan was im-
plemented.

The committee decided by 28
votes to 13 to continue its study of
the European Army Treaty at the
speed, and according to the method
it had already agreed on.

Dulles’ statement provoked a
storm of protest among French par-
liamentarians, including many of
those who favor the European
Army plan.

A former cabinet minister,
Edouard Bonnefous, declared that
Dulles’. statement “calls into ques-
tion indirectly the agreements al-
ready in force within the Atlantic
framework.”

Disregarding French objections,
the North Atlantic Council declar-
ed that the formation of a new
German army “remains an essen-
tial objective.”

This declaration came in a long
communique issued at the end of
the council’s three-day meeting in
Paris last week, composed of
foreign, defense and finance min-
isters of the 14 NATO countries.

After the final session, at which

‘| discussions covered the situation

from Korea and Indochina ‘to
Trieste and the forthcoming Four-
Power Foreign Ministers’ Confer-
ence, French Foreign Minister
Bidault addressed a press confer-
ence.

He refused to answer questions
dealing with Dulles’ threat to
France if the European Army plan
was not ratified.

In their communique, the At-
lantic Pact ministers claimed that
the “threat to the Western world
remains,” and therefore, they said,
Atlantic Pact forces and weapons
must be maintained and reinforc-
ed “over a period of years.”

The communique also disclosed
that “some increase in the numeri-
cal strength of existing NATO
forces,” had been decided on for
the coming year.

While the communique did not
specify what these increases
were and which governments
they affected, it is known that
the United States has been de-
manding that all 14 governments
should adopt two years conscrip-
tion.

“On the basis of the recommen-
dations made in the report,” said
the communique, “the council
adopted firm force goals for 1954,
provisional goals for 1955, and

planning goals for 1956.”

Dulles’ threat
angers French

The foreign affairs committee of the French National Assembly
last week affirmed that foreign intervention on the European Army
question would not influence French parliamentary decisions.

PARIS

the statement made by U.S. Secre-
that the United States would be

DR. CHEDD!I JAGAN

Lyttleton claim
proven false

LONDON

While Dr. Cheddi Jagan, elected
premier of British Guiana, contin-
ues to win support for his appeal
in India, two West Indian political

leaders now in London have charg-
ed British Colonial Secretary Oli-
ver Lyttleton with misinforming
the British public about reaction
in the British West Indies to his
action in removing the People’s
Progressive government of British
Guiana from office.

Last week, in the House of Com-
mons, Lyttleton claimed that no
West Indian political organization
had condemned his action.

Ebenezer Joshua, member of the
legislative and executive councils
of St. Vincent and leader of the
People’s Political party, and John
La Rose, general secretary of the
Independence party of Trinidad
and Tobago, both promptly refut-
ed Lyttleton’s claim with details
of mass protest meetings in both
colonies.

Businessman wanted to talk at UN

Malan foe held by U.S.

CAPETOWN

The weekly newspaper Advance
reported here on the experiences
of a South African businessman
who was detained in the U.S. on
Ellis Island for six weeks and fore-
ed to return here without accomp-
lishing his objective of talking to
United Nations officials in New
York.

“Mr. Coaker is a Ladybrand
businessman, widely known an
respected,” Advance said. “He -has
never| belonged to any political
party, let alone to any leftwing or-
ganization. His main interest lies
in Christianity. But he is not a
Nationalist. His human sympath-
ies lie with the African people.”

The newspaper pointed out that
Coaker incurred the enmity of the
Malan government when he ran

«

for parliament in 1948 as a Native
representative — only whites can
hold the three seats allotted to Af-
ricans in the Union parliament.
Coaker “conceived the simple
idea that he could do good if he
went to New York and talked to
people in the United Nations
about the position of the Africans
in the Union of South Africa,” Ad-
vance reported. He applied for

dj and received a U.S. visa. After he

had left for New York, howeyer,
someone in the justice department
here sent a cable to the U.S. De-
partment of Justice warning the
American authorities that a man
who held dangerous opinions was
on his way over.

On his arrival in New York, Coak-
er was met by several representa-

| Naturalization Service, Advance re-
ported, and promptly taken to the
detention centre on Ellis Island in
New York harbor.

“As the days and weeks passed
he made increasingly frantic ef-
forts to secure his own liberation,”
Advance said. “But men detain-
ed on Ellis Island are not given
many facilities to raise hell about
their cases or to prove that they
are responsible citizens from re-
mote spots like Ladybrand.”

After six weeks’ imprisonment,
Coaker was released on condition
that he make no further attempt
to enter the U.S. “He’s back in
Ladybrand,” Advance commented,
“deeply shocked by his experi-
ences, and no doubt pondering the
soundness of the American con-
cepts of freedom and justice.”

tives of the U.S. Immigration and

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — DECEMBER 25, 1953 — PAGE 3