wn O&O =~

Tt

fee ae Gea ee LO,

By PHYLLIS CLARKE

: = ee the NATO meeting open-
. eek in Brussels, it cer-
: an Y Was no surprise that the
‘ ani a Were asking for greater

ary commitment — that af-

a all has been their role
TOughout the organization’s 20
‘Year history.
a ce. if the pretext of Czecho-
Vakia had not been to hand,

gt
-;/T€ would have been another

fee invented, to justify the
Ntinuation of the aggressive
Military pact,
ee last immediate period has
NATO a happy one for the
as enthusiasts. Not only has
ue Ce withdrawn her troops,
| pee cased rumblings were
nates many NATO countries,
ine Ing Canada, that when the
eae for the 20 year review
€ up in 1969, there could be
Ore defectors, :

oe Eayrs, political scien-
ie the University of To-
dian pe specializes in Cana-
say Oreign policy, for example,
ta that the red scare is a “false
“ue by NATO nabobs.”
pen gains he says that has hap-
5 €d since the intervention in
et oslovakia by the Warsaw
pcs: “need lead to the
ae Usion that, the military ba-
cis) © In Europe has shifted de-
Wely in favor of the Soviet
ee or that the Russians are
€Paring for a major imperialist
by against the West; or that
hy need for NATO is any great-
f eae than it used to be, when
i fed seemed not so great;
buti Nally, that Canada’s contri-
; 10n to NATO is more urgent
ay than it used to be, when
i Contribution seemed not so
Tgent,”
ete it is not very clear
ether it was this line of rea-

The Brussels meeting:

CANADA AND THE
NATO BUILD UE

soning that led the government
of Canada to promise no more
at Brussels than that we will not
reduce our commitments for this
year, the fact is that the defense
review, which Trudeau spoke
about so much in the election
campaign last June has not yet
taken place, and essentially we
have no policy about NATO or
anything else, except to continue
what we were doing until we do
look the whole thing over.

From the somewhat confused
exchange in the House of Com-
mons about what we are doing
about NATO it can be deduced
that we are deferring reduction
of our forces for an indefinite
period, which could be long or
short, that we are not increasing
our commitment and as for those
anti-submarine destroyers that
are supposed to become part of
the NATO fleet, they are not yet
built and they may, or may not,
be built.

What has not yet been in any

way clarified, is whether, when
finally the review that the gov-
ernment is making is completed,
it will be presented to Parlia-
ment to allow debate before it
becomes policy.

It will not be easy to pull
Canada out of NATO. The forces
that in the first place led to the
creation of this organization 20
years ago still hold power in the
main countries in the pact. In
addition, the revanchist forces
of West Germany are very an-
xious to ensure the continuance
of this force in Europe.

A reading of the Brussels com-
munique of the NATO ministers
of last week makes this very
clear when it states:

“The allies participating in
NATO’s integrated defense pro-
gram have, therefore, been ob-
liged to re-assess the state of
their defenses. They consider
that the situation arising from
recent events calls for a collec-
tive response.

“The quality, effectiveness
and deployment of NATO’s
forces will be improved in terms
of both manpower and equip-
ment in order to provide a bet-
ter capability for defense as far
forward as possible. The quality
of reserve forces will also be
improved and their ability to
mobilize’ rapidly will be in-
creased .. .

“The ministers agreed that
the coordinated implementation
of these measures and the pro-
vision of additional budgetary
resources to the extent neces-
sary to support them would
form part of the NATO force
plan for 1969 to be submitted in
January, 1969.

“They also acknowledged that
the solidarity of the alliance can
be strengthened by cooperation
between members to alleviate
burdens arising from balance of
payments deficits resulting spe-
cifically from military expendi-

tures for the collective defense.”

There is certainly no sugges-
tion here that governments will
consider pulling out of NATO
next year. And the theme is
echoed particularly by the Con-
servative circles in our own
country. Coupled with this is
the obvious pressure from with-
in the Liberal Party itself to re-
main within NATO.

The forces in opposition to
NATO have not yet mounted
the sort of campaign that can
counteract the pressures to ‘‘de-
fend the members of the alliance
against any armed attack” as
they said in Brussels. And until
such a campaign is mounted, the
very real danger exists that in
the same way as Canada main-
tained her commitment to
NORAD, so shall we do in
NATO, even if in an effort to
Save some money the form of
that participation is changed.

This need of a decision by
Canada about NATO presents
a challenge about our foreign
policy—one which is-tied to an
aggressive war alliance or one
which is independent and will
allow us to play a role of peace-
maker in the world scene. Since
the former is not presented as
a war but as a defence alliance,.
the choice does not seem as
clear cut to many Canadians,
genuinely . concerned about
peace and suffering from many
delusions about what is the true
source of the danger of war. And
it is here, that those who have
and continue to be in complete
opposition to Canada’s partici-
pation in NATO can play a deci-
sive role, first of clarifying,
then of convincing, so that mass
public opinion is on the side of
pulling out of NATO in 1969.

Student's social role

By ALF STENBERG

Jeanette Michel’s “rebuttal”
to Charlie Boylan seemed de-
signed to produce more heat
than light—to obscure issues
rather than to advance the un-
derstanding of processes of
change at work in an important

sector of the socio-economic
structure of capitalism in
Canada.

It is hard to imagine how a
communist could be associated
with either Miss Michel’s divi-

sive approach of her patroniz- -

ing style of diatribe directed
against Boylan and against the
student movement. She obvious-
ly lacks any substantial acqu-
aintance either with much of the
reality of Canada or with the
discussions and analyses of
changes in the role of the edu-
cational system (and thus of
students) in the structure of
capitalism that is receiving a
growing attention from Marx-
ists around the world.
Consider, as but one exam-
ple, the contrast between Miss
Michel’s denigration of the sig-
nificance of the student move-
ment with the positive approach
of the Spanish Communist
Party:
"EWEN
that the

in Spain... we see
future of most of the
students depends not as much
on their antecedents as on the
place they will be able to ob-

bulk of

as engineers, technicians, spe-
cialists and scientists. But all

tain on. the labor market. The,
‘the students are enter-,
ing the market for labor power

this is taking place on a mar-
ket that is subordinate to the
laws of monopoly capital.

«| in our opinion there is
an objective basis for the stu-
dents and working class move-
ments finding points of coinci-
dence and contact; here, too, is
the objective reason for the stu-
dent movement inclining  to-
wards socialism.

“In the light of this the stu-
dent problem should be seen as
part of a more general prob-
lem. In our opinion, not only
the student body but also tech-
nicians, engineers, the teaching
staff and intelligentsia have be-
come a stratum of increasing
social weight in modern socie-
ty. It is a stratum that is steadi-
ly developing, being connected
with the most advanced sectors
of production, a stratum made
up of wage workers whose
functions are more and more
acquiring a collective, social
character <...

“This leads us to the conclu-
sion that in the developed capi-
talist countries this stratum re-
presents one of the motive forc-
es of the revolution today. In
the past two years our party
has based its political line on
the thesis that in present-day
Spain the alliance of social forc-
es capable of carrying out a
socialist revolution is not only
that of the workers and peas-
ants. We call it the ‘alliance of
the forces of labor and culture.’
Besides the working class and

peasantry, it includes intellec-
tuals, professionals, _ techni-
cians and students.” (World

Marxist Review, July, 1968.)

The West Berlin Communist,
Bruno Kuster, points out, ‘‘What
we say about concentration in
industry helping the workers to
organize applies also, to a cer-
tain extent, to the universities.
Ideas and movements tend to
spread more easily and rapidly
where many people are thrown
together.” (Ibid.)

Or the attitude of Italian
Communists: ‘We see the stu-
dents as a social force fighting
for the reconstruction of socie-
ty. We take an understanding
view of, and support, their de-
mands for autonomy. And we
are determined to work in their
movement through Communist
students and outside it through
the workers’ organizations, dis-
cussing all problems in a uni-
tarian fraternal spirit.” (Ibid)

Only the most dogmatic pseu-
do-marxist can fail to see the
changed role of the university
that the scientific-technological
revolution is bringing about—
particularly in Canada. Today
the primary role of the univer-
sity is to prepare that all im-
portant commodity labor
power.

Since 1956 university enrol-
ments in Canada have grown
rapidly with a growing propor-
tion of working class children
attending (see my article in
Horizons, Autumn, 1966). Al-
ready by 1958, 24 percent of
young Canadians’ in that age
group entered oné form or -an-
other of higher! education. By
1966 university enrolments - in

Canada had passed the 200,000_

. mon interests,  _
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOVEMBER 22, 1968—Page 9

mark—more than triple the

_..figure.just,.a..decade—earlier..Of___

all students, it is the full time
university student body that is
most highly concentrated and
best organized.

It is for these reasons that
the Communist Party of Canada
has designated the universities
as one of the chief areas of con-
centration of its work. (See Wm.
Kashtan in Viewpoint, Nov.
1968—also forthcoming issues
of Scan and Horizons.)

The history of the university,
the illusions that are still ram-
pant on it and the special con-
cern that capital exercises in
trying to maintain its hegemo-
ny on the campus makes the
ideological struggle among stu-
dents and faculty of paramount
importance. The position repre-
sented by Northrup Frye con-
stitutes one of the more sophis-
ticated and subtle efforts at
diverting students and intellec-
tuals from taking more progres-
sive, revolutionary positions. It
would have been well if Miss
Michel had devoted her ener-
gies to a positive contribution
to this ideological struggle ra-
ther than her rather primitive
subjective attack on one of
those communists who are mak-
ing rather notable personal con-
tributions towards the develop-
ment of this important section
of the revolutionary forces in
Canada.

The responsibility of Marxists
is certainly not to try and arti-
ficially create divisions between
various forces that are objec-
tively allies in revolutionary
struggle, but to identify and
fight for a recognition of the
growing ground for real unity
against the enemy of the work-

ing people. Rather than preach
to students about their beards
and dress, Miss Michel would
do better to join the struggle
to Win real unity) between work-
ers and students in their com-

mae hae ee a | “aa Ax