During the election campaign the
U.S.-financed Liberal party put a
_ lot of emphasis upon “action”; the
need for “stable government” to get
things done?

Already, even before Parliament
opens, this minority Liberal govern-
ment “action” takes on an old-fami-
liar sinister pattern, that of rail-
roading unpopular legislative meas-
ures by cabinet “‘order-in-council”,
leaving Parliament to “debate” a
fait accompli, if debated at all?

The Liberal government’s recent
order-in-council ratifying the Paci-
fic Fisheries issue with its infamous
U.S.-Japan provisions, without even
waiting for parliamentary debate or
further hearings before a parlia-
mentary Standing Committee is a
_ good example of what may be ex-

pected. Even Liberal pledges to the
United Fishermen and Allied Work-
ers Union and other interested
groups, are brushed aside,— that
they would have an opportunity to
_ state their opposition, points up this
sinister pattern of Liberal govern-
ment “action”. A type of “action”
diametrically opposed to the inter-
ests of Canada and Canadians.
Since this Hyannis Port vi St to
_ U.S. President Kennedy, more “ac-
tion” of a similar character appears
_ to bein the making. Despite a 59-
_ percent vote of the Canadian people
against Liberal policies, and parti-

EDITORIAL PAGE

No mandate, ‘Mike’

cularly on the issue of ‘‘no nuclear
arms’, we are now assured since the
Kennedy-Pearson tete-a-tete, that
Canada will have “‘nuclear arms in
four months”?

The Canadian people gave Mr.
Pearson and his Liberal government
no mandate for such “action’’. Quite
the contrary. Parliament and the
people must therefore insist that
this vital issue be debated, not asa
fait accompli “commitment” but as
a threatening menace to be kept out
of Canada at all costs.

Similarly it would appear that
almost “‘full accord” was achieved
by Messrs. Kennedy and Pearson on
the Columbia River Treaty sellout
to the U.S. power trusts. } A few
“modifications” here and there are
mentioned, but substantially “‘ac-
cord” on the principle provisions of
this infamous give-away of one of
Canada’s greatest natural resources.

Canadians must be alert to the
dangers emmanating from the Hy-
annis Port “accord”. The Liberal
government has no mandate from
the people to impose nuclear weap-
ons on Canada; to sellout our vital
resources, or to bind Canada more
tightly to the tail of the U.S. cold-
war kite.

Parliament, and ee the order-
in-council decrees of a U.S.-domi-
nated Liberal minority, must be the
determining voice on all action.

Editorial comment...

American and British scientists
are now almost all agreed that there
is no technical obstacle to an agree-
ment to stop nuclear tests.

One prominent U.S. scientist,
Dr. Bernard Field, of Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, said last
week that an adequate test ban
could be based on three automatic
seismic stations in the Soviet Union
with only three on-the-spet inspec-
tions. e

This is exactly what the Soviet

Union proposes. But the American
and British representatives in the
Geneva talks refuse to agree, and in-
sist on seven annual inspections.
Yesterday the Observer said
that this Western demand is “‘no
longer tenable on technical grounds”

_ and added that “the scientists in-

volved, who have so far been loyally
backing the political negotiations by
keeping mum, will not be able to
deny the facts much longer.” =

It is certainly time that the sci-
entists spoke out. But the British
people must also speak out, to de-

mand an end to the obstruction at.
Geneva and the signing of a test ban

Pacific Tribune

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

Published weekly at: _

Room € € — 426 Main Street

Vancouver 4, B.

Phone MUtual 5-5288
Subscription Rates:
Canadian and Commonwealth coun-
tries (except Australia): $4.00 one
year. Australia, United States and
all other countries: $5.00 one year

“Authorized ae second class raail by

eae Age See Ottawa
of postage in ¢ash

treaty without any more delay.
Elsewhere in this edition is an
illustration of the U.S. Nazi “pro-
gram” for Jewish extermination, and
the picture of a Toronto Jewish syn-
agogue desecrated during the past
weekend. Both point to a common
identity—and a common danger.

Comment

‘Prestige’ vs shame

When racist brutality, discrimi-
nation and lynch terror against Ne-
gro-Americans in the Southern
United States is ‘kept under wraps”
by a curtain of press and official sil-
ence, American “prestige”’ doesn’t
suffer. It is only when this racist
horror breaks out into the open that
the official cry of “prestige” goes up.

Now, however, the segregation-
ist racist horrors of Birmingham,
Alabama, just as before that the
James Meredith struggle to enter
“Ole Miss’ university in Mississippi,
have spotlighted world attention
and indignation against this so-call-
ed ‘white supremacy” which, in its
blind racist hate and violence, seeks
to deny every elementary right to
millions of Negro-American people.

So far U.S. federal authority to
enforce observance of a long-esta-
blished American Bill of Rights has
been largely impotent in the Deep
South. The interplay of power poli-
tics between the slave-owning men-
tality of Southern “Dixiecrats” and

Cre
IGATS 2—N
CITIZEN P= NO?

Tapley in the Amsterdam News .New York
“Amending the Constitution”

federal authority (whether demo-
crat or republican), has seen to that.
When federal authority does step
in, as is now the case with federal
troops ordered into Alabama by
President Kennedy, it is the Negro-
American peoples and not the
“Bull” Connors who are portrayed
as the instigators of violence?

It isa long way from Verwoerd’s
“apartheid” (race segregation) in
South Africa and Alabama or Miss-
issippi; along way between the
Sharpsville massacre and Birming-
ham, but the racists are the same
“brothers under the skin’’, and the
‘hapless victims the millions with
Black or Colored skins.

While we in Canada have no
cause to pretend a pious smugness
on race persecution and discrimina-
tion, (our own Native Indian peo-
ples serve as a grim reminder of this
fact), decent people everywhere
watch with profound indignation
and horror these latest outrages up-
on Negro-Americans, who seek no-
thing more than the equality and
simple rights of ordinary citizens.

This they must win, in Alabama,
Mic :‘sippi, South Africa or else-
where, if freedom and democracy
is to mean something more than an
empty sham. Only in this context
does “prestige’’, national or individ-
ual, mean anything.

The outrages against Negro-
American people, now spotlighted
in Birmingham, Alabama is just one
more timely reminder that the bil-
lionaire government of President
J. F. Kennedy which spouts “‘free-
dom” to the world, should begin ap-
plying some genuine freedom in its
own Southern back-yard in keeping
with its own Bill of Rights?

recent announcement from
Washington by Sargent Shri-
'ver, director of the U.S. ‘‘Peace
Corps’’, stated that the U.S. plans
to “double the present number of
‘peace corps’ personnel in African
countries.’ At the moment, accord-
. ing to Shriver, there are 1,500
' peace corps members in 16 African
countries. The plan is to hoist this
number to 3,500 by 1964.

order of President Kennedy, Latin
America would have top priority
for new “peace corps” program, but
its program in Africa was contin-
uing to grow...
‘Superficially, the role of this_so-
called “peace corps” is to “aid”
the people in Africa or elsewhere,
emerging from colonial status to
that of self-government, to master
the techniques of modern civiliza-
tion in all aspects of life. The “art
of government’, health hygiene, so-
cial organization, the role of labor,
etc. and so forth. ;
In actuality, however, the ‘“‘peace
corps” objective is something quite
different. In the coldwar ideology

Lo Western imperialism, it is to

Shriver also added that on the

politically indoctrine a hatred of
Communism; to “‘sell’’ the native
peoples a brand new neo-colonial-:
ism with a made-in- the-USA ‘‘face-
lift”. To inculcate the “superiority
of our way--of-life’’ over that of
Socialism.

As a British pence bluntly put it
quite recently; “to scatter thous-
‘ands of well-rehearsed, smooth-
talking and glib anti-Communist
agitators in countries where imper-
ialist and capitalist: exploitation
is already doomed, there to heip
slow the process and leave the ex-
ploiters with some little toehold,
and label the outfit engaged in this
Judas work a ‘peace corps’ ”’. In es-
sence a “Fifth Column” engaged
in the work of obstructing the pro-
gress of nations and peoples, emerg-
ing from a ruthless colonialism to
self-determination and self-govern-
ment.

It is already on record that a
number of African governments
which had earlier agreed to permit
these U.S. “peace corps’’ personnel
into their respective countries, are
now taking a second look. This is,
necessitated by the fact that in too
many cases “peace corps” assist-
ance has become nothing other
than political inerference in the in-
ternal affairs of the people they
are alleged to be “aiding” ?

Then, of course, there is another
angle in this U.S. “peace corps”
services in Africa. A writer in the
British Daily Worker, under the

title “Birds of a feather in Jo’burg

and Alabama’’, goes on to say: “"Be-
tween the barbarians of aparthied
(race segregation in South Africa,
Ed.) and the racial fanatics in the
Southern States of the U.S. qpere is
an evident kinship”.

Daily we can read of the atroci-
ties of ‘“aparthied” practiced
against the Negro peoples of South
Africa by the white racist govern-
ment of Hendrick Verwoerd. Atro--

_cities which run the whole gamut

from brutal murder to bullwhips
and mass genocide. And in the
vast continent of Black Africa,
South Africa is not alone in this.
multi-imperialist terror against a
native people by white supermacist
governments.

Even at home, on our TV sets we
can see fire hoses, savage police ~
dogs, guns and clubs and other
auxiliaries of our “‘free-way-of-life”’
turned full heat upon Negro’ peo-
ple, the old and young alike, just |
because these humble Americans
seek the same rights, liberties and
opportunities as are accorded to
white Americans. |

To cover up such atrocities a
U.S. “peace corps” agitator in Af-—
rica or elsewhere has only one
subterfuge — anti-Communism. In
an All-African congress not long
ago a great Negro leader posed the
question: ‘“‘What of this man Jeffer-
son, who wrote on the Rights of
Man — and worked his farm with
my people as slaves’? That is one
for the “historians” — and the
“peace corps’’. Ms