sifitiatiacel

. Dis

(Guest editorial from
Br. Daily Worker)
FoR President Kennedy to start
: his speech to the General As-
sembly by accusing the Socialist
countries of wanting to undermine
ithe United Nations is bound to
cast doubt on every phrase that
followed.
For no one has done more to

~ undermine the U.N. than the U.S.

Government. What has brought
the U.N. into more discredit than,
anything else? The exclusion of a
quarter of the world’s population
—the Chinese People’s Republic.

It makes a mockery of the very
title — United Nations — when
the biggest nation on earth is ex-
cluded simply because the Ameri-
cans choose not to recognize its
existence.

This one fact shows that the
U.S. Government has no desire
at all to see a genuine world or-
ganization dedicated to the prin-
ciples of peaceful co-existence.

It is still trying to use the U.N.
as an instrument of American
policy. This policy has brought the
organization to its present state

Editorial

Peake that a growing world

sentiment will compel restora-
tion of the legitimate righis of
People’s China to its seat in the
United Nations, U.S. imperialism
is resorting to every trick in the
calendar to headeff this inevitable
decision by the U.N.

In addition to its obstructive
“question of China’s representa-
tion” by which the Pentagon hopes
to delay the seating of People’s
China, U.S. imperialism is now
coaching its Malayan and Thailand
steoges in the UN to introduce the
so-called .“Tibet,an question”
which, as a leading Chinese com-
mentator says, “the U.S. still holds
onto . .. as it would a Stinking

- dead rat.” With the aid of this

Tibetan “dead rat,’ slanders and.

~ provocations against People’s

China can be continued, with
Taiwan (Formosa) yesmen kept
on the UN as the “representatives”

' of China proper.

One of the outstanding contri-
butions to peace the Canadian
people can make at this time, and
in tribute to the 12th anniversary
of the founding of the People’s
Republic of China, is to instruct
the Diefenbaker government and
Canadian representatives on the
UN to support and vote for the

Pacific Tribune

Editor — TOM McEWEN
Associate Editor — MAURICE RUSH
Business Mgr. — OXANA BIGELOW

Published weekly at
Room 6 — 426 Main Sireet
Vancouver 4, B.C.
Phone MUtual 5-5288
Subscription Rates:

One Year: 4.00 — Six Months: $2.25
Canadian and Commonwealth coun-
tries (except Australia): $4.00 one
year. Australia, United States and
all other countries: $5.00 one year.
Authorized as second class mail by the
Post Office Department, Ottawa, and

for payment of postage in cash.

EDITORIAL PAGE
uniting the U.N.

of crisis. It can only be an effective
force for peace if there is a re-
turn to the principles of the United
Nations Charter.

The Soviet proposal for a
“troika” instead of one man at
the head of the U.N. is in complete
conformity with the original con-
ception of those who founded the
organization.

It was Roosevelt — not Stalin
— who first proposed the “unan-
imity principle,” later called the
“veto.” As his son Elliot Roosevelt
wrote later, the proposal was
based:

“On the simple, crystal-clear
fact that if the peace is to be
maintained it can be maintained
only if all the world’s greatest
powers concur.”

Why does Kennedy now declare
that proposals which are com-
pletely in line with Roosevelt’s
ideas would mean “anarchy, para-
lysis and gross confusion”?

Only those who want to use
the U.N. and the office of secre-
tary-general to impose their own
will on the world can possibly ob-
ject to the “troika” principle...

comment

restoration of the right of People’s
China in the councils of the UN,
as the only legitimate representa-
tive of 650 million people dedicated
to peace, progress and scoialism.

ee ie i

Provi

In a lead editorial of Septem-
ber 27 The Province quotes at-
torney-general Robert. Bonner as
having told a Voice’ of Women
delegation petitioning on peace and.
ban-the-bomb, to “Take a stand
at the World’s Fair in Moscow”
and “Get the attention of the rank
and file in Russia.”

In this snide remark to the VOW
(if such wasn’t concocted by The
Province?) the A-G may not know
it, but well over double of Canada’s
total population have already sign-
ed just such a petition in the
Soviet Union.

It may also be news to The
Province, but every visitor, delega-
tien or tourist returning from a
trip to the Soviet Union, are unan-

imous in the opinion that not only —

ave the Soviet people very well
informed on world affairs relat-
inz to peace, but are themselves
as individuals and through their
multiple organizations, outstand-
ing exponents of peace. This de-
spite The Province contention that
the Soviet people were “permitted
to read only 36 words” of the Ken-
nedy speech to the UN. Such “ac-
curacy,” if true, would really be

‘Seat China on the UN now,
thereby ending the U.S.-promoted
farce of “two Chinas” — with one
(Taiwan), used as a war base for
U.S. provocations and aggression
in Asia.

1
nce

eo of
seig hei
astounding, as would the

and identity of the preci
words”?

Cut from the same ©
propaganda cloth is the T
Tory MP Ernie Broome (
ver-South). Just returned q
junket to Berlin (at the taf
expense). Ernie is all enti
with the “teeming” life of
Berlin, but aghast at Eas!
which he claims is “bec0?
ghost town”. But agains
“shost town” the sabret
Tory Broome insists the
must stand completely fm
the Soviets . . . even if #®
war.”

And in Ottawa, whoop
the Kennedy war hysteria @
“Berlin crisis”, Diefenbak?
the “first wave” of nucleat 4
killing anywhere: betweet
six million Canadians, ap
because of his government!’
termination (designed bY ‘it
ington) to preserve the “H®
of two million West Berline®)
the “threat” of a Soviel

treaty?

But as The Province em
pontificates, “we Canadian® (
and others, Ed.) are not Fi
upon to aécept the respon
for deciding what is best”
that to Dief and company ®
is the way it should be.”

Ours is but to “do and/f ‘
—for Adenauer and Wall

Tom
McEwen

SS. President Kennedy’s 40-
minute address to the UN
General Assembly on September
25, already out-of-date, met with
a_ strikingly divided reception.
From the visitor’s gallery packed
with presidential admirers, an en-
thusiastic applause. From the main
body of UN delegates (other than
“free West” NATO countries) a
reserved and stony silence, broken
only by a polite handclap here and
there. :

The Kennedy “burst of elo-
quence”, stripped of its fine words
about “peace” had’ one prime aim;
to bolster the illusion that- U.S.
imperialism is motivated in all its
aggressive actions by the loftiest
ideals for the peace and well-being
of mankind, even while it fever-
ishly plans for war. This, while the
Socialist world, and particular the
Soviet Union are portrayed as the
prime obstacle to peace and all the
“freedoms” with which such
speeches are heavily larded. _

No wonder UN delegates from
Socialist, Afro-Asian, Latin Am-
erica and other ‘uncommitted”
countries didn’t break out in loud:
hozannas, They know from bitter.
experience the real aims of U.S.
imperialism.

The job of transforming the
Kennedy UN address into an ora-
torical “masterpiece” fell to. the

kept press, radio, TV and other

media of public misinformation.

Needless to say they did a masterly

job with such superlatives as ‘‘a

great contribution to peace’’, “most

constructive”, a ‘firm warning to

the Soviets’, “the strong voice of _
peace” and so on.

Two days later the same lads
portrayed the address of Soviet
Minister Andrei Gromyko to the
UN Assembly as “a tirade”, the
‘same old Soviet hash,” etc. etc.

This propaganda balderdash has
been loudly echoed since by Dief-
enbaker and company, while Bri-
tain’s saturnine Lord Home (col-
league of Chamberlain and Hitler
at Munich) pip-pipped his ‘con-
gratulations” to Kennedy, and.
utilized the occasion to slander and
distort Soviet peace policies and
proposals, the while lecturing UN
delegates on the benevolent nature
of Yankee imperialism. Pip pip.

Without looking too deeply into
the aggressive activities of U.S.
imperialism, which stands in sharp
contrast to the demagogic elo-
quence and peaceful ‘ideals’ put
forward by its youthful spokes-
-man, there were some points of
substance commanding universal
approval.

Who would quarrel with the plea
“let us call a truce to terror. .
the weapons of war must be
abolished before they abolish us’’?
But together with this lofty pur-
pose comes the oft repeated threat
to use these same deadly weapons
to “defend access” (meaning pos-
session) of West Berlin, should the
Soviet Union sign a peace treaty
with the German Democratic Re-
public.

It should be kept in mind also
that “access” to this made-in-the-
USA “Berlin crisis” has never been

threatened in any way bY
Soviet peace treaty proposals
though under the provisions 9
Potsdam Agreement to which
U.S. is signatory, it could be: _
Perhaps that portion of the B
nedy speech touching upon sin8
onialism’” was the most reve@™ ww
“Let us debate colonialism iD *
said Kennedy, “‘and apply the pe of
ciple of free choice and the pray
of free plebiscite in every P4
the globe.”

rm
==

In short, let us have “free” ele

tions in all the countries of sor
ism so that the peoples of ‘
countries could “freely” ele |
republican Tweedledee or a
cratic Tweedledum, thereby —
ing” themselves from the capil?
myth of “Soviet imperiali§
Hence Kennedy’s eloquent plea
“debate” and “end coloniali® |
conveniently forgetting the }?
fiasco of his government’s off
to turn Cuba back to the U.S.
enialism of the butcher Bat”
By and large the Kennedy 4
point program” advanced 10
the production, testing and ust
fissionable weapons and “or
ally” destroying all stockpiles ib
weapons of delivery, merits W?
wide approval, but such mvU5’ Wy
an integral part of an equ al
world-wide agreement on gen
and total disarmament. Thi
Soviet Union urged long ag% tt
the world already knows the § ii I
and “brinkmanship” purpose W ‘i
up until the moment at Je
has made this urgently de ie
hope of all mankind unreali2® 4
Only a stepped-up fight for Pe
by adding the voices of milly
more to that sacred cause 0
make Kennedy’s “truce to te?
real. ; /

sefyet

dl

§
0

October 6, 1961—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—