on taeramemacarennn aseiasinatan

my

The following timely article ap-
pearedin arecent issue of THE
FISHERMAN and was one of a ser-
tes dealing with problems of Latin
America.

@

Latin Amedica is in crisis.
The desperate poverty of the
people, the long outdated feudal-
ism of church and big land-own-
ers, the ruthless exploitation ol
workers and resources by U.S.
corporations have combined tc
create an explosive situation.

On the agenda of history in this
troubled continent are political
and economic revolutions that will
bring democratic practices basec
on Jand for the peasants, jobs
through industrialisation of thc
econmy and nationalisation of the
resources and basic industries.

This fact, well understoood anc
widely accepted in Latin Amer.
ice is also understood by serious
Canadiar observers.

What Latin America needs, said
J. B. MeGeachy, associate editor
of the (Toronto) Financial Post
in a recent article, “is an econom-
ic revolution of their’ own, not
necessarily or desirably on the
Castro model, but a revolution
just the same.” He adds: “Latin
America’s biggest need is more
and better non- communist ‘revo-
lutions.’’

If U.S. armed forces or U.S.
supported dictatorships prevent
such revolutions occuring through
peaceful electoral processes, they
will surely come about by the
only other way left open — armed
revolt.

* * *

Two such revolutions that took
place in recent years were in
Guatemala and Cuba.

In 1954, the people of Guate-
mala elected a government rep-
resenting a broad united front of
labor, peasants, local buiness
people, socialists and communists.
This new government was pledg-
ed to improve life for the people
and to restrict exploitation by the
powerful and much hated United
Fruit Company of Boston.

What happened? The U.S.
lavelled the government ~ “com-
munist’’ and organized a military
invasion to overthrow it and re-
establish the rule of United Fruit.

In his book The Organization of
American States, John C. Dreier,
for 10 years U.S. representative
in the OAS, called this act of ag-
fression ‘the sucessful counter
revolution led by Colonel Castillo
Armos with U.S. backing...”

Wha: did the U.S. controlled
OAS do about this intervention
in the affairs of a member coun-
try? Nothing at all, even though
it is pledged to oppose aggression
and dictatorship and to support
democracy, electoral processes
and social reforms.

*

In the case of Cuba, the over-
throw of the U.S. backed dictator
Batista was done by armed revolt,
Since elections were denied the
People. Ever since, the U.S. has
been endeavoring by subversion,
Sabotage, economic blockade and
Military invasion to overthrow
the Cuban people’s revolutionary
Sovernment.

J.B. McGreachy said President
Kennedy “is not opposed to night
landings by saboteurs on the
Cuban shoreline,’? and “the U.S.

is definitely engaged in, or sup-
porting, internal subversion of the
Castro regime; but this is a !a:m

-of warfare that can’t very well

be discussed in public speeches
and press conferences.”’

At the same time, he concedes
“Castro has improved standards
of living and education.”’

The abortive Bay of Pigs inva-
sion of Cuba in April, 1961, is now
history. This U.S. act of aggres-
sion against a neighboring state
flagrantly violates the OAS char-
ter. Because the U.S. dominates
it, the OAS was impotent, and in
effect condoned the deed.

* ** *

IN LATIN AMERICA. Peoples movements are arising everywhere

IN ( FE i

Why does U.S. want Canada in OAS?

The propaganda tactic of the
OAS as well as President Ken-
nedy’s so called Alliance for Pro-
gress (South Americans call it
Alliance for Poverty) is to label
all movements aimed at chang-
ing things as ‘‘communist,”
“Castro communist,” “unrest in-
spired by Havana,” “‘communist
infiltration,’ ‘‘export of- revolu-
tion by Cuba,” etc., etc.
propaganda is aimed at creating
the impression that dissatisfaction
and unrest have no real basis in
the conditions of the people.

But J. B. McGeachy states ‘‘the
destruction of Castro would do
nothing whatever to cure or al-

3

demanding sweeping change. This picture shows peasant guerrillas
in Peru who have taken up arms to fight for their country’s inde-
pendence. The U.S. wants Canada to act as its ‘‘front’’ in OAS for
putting down people's resistance and ensuring continued profits for

U.S. corporations.

Such :

leviate the desperate poverty of
the Latin Republics.”

William Manger, for 12 years
assistant secretary general of
OAS, now retired, admitted the
same thing in these words:

“The problem that is contin-
ental in scope and fundamental
in nature is economic. Revolution
and the threat of communism
more often than not are the re-
sult of economic and social im-
balances that exist in nearly
every country.

“A growing awareness of these
deficiencies is at the bottom of
the social unrest that has char-
acterised the national life of Latin
America in the years since the
close of World War 2.”

Under intense U.S. pressure, the
OAS has set up a special body to
investigate ‘‘communist subver-
sion’”’ in member states with or
without the permission of the
“country concerned! It will be a
sort of international witch hunt-
ing Un-American committee.

* *

Why does the U.S. want Canada
to join the OAS? What would be
the results for Canada if we did
join, as the Liberal government
wants?

The name of the U.S. in Latin
America is discredited, hated,
and suspect. Anything the U-S.
proposes is looked upon with sus-
picion and distrust. Latin Amer-
icans know from experience that
U.S. actions have always been
aimed only at protecting U.S.
profits.

Canada’s name, on the other
hand, is less discredited, mainly
because Canadian corporations
have not invested so heavily in
Latin American countries (al-
though Canadian investors have
been no less ruthless in their ex-
ploitation of labor in South Amer-

on
See

ica). Canada has a good name”
in that it has traded with Cuba
and maintained diplomatic rela-
tions with that country despite
U.S. opposition.

The U.S. undoubtedly feels that
if Canada joined the OAS, we
could now be used to propose the
things the U.S. wants and thus
clothe these objectives with a de-
gree of respectability. Canada’s
name would soon become mud
and we would be looked on as a
supine satellite of U.S. corpora-
tions.

* ak *

Getting Canada into OAS would
be another way of adding pressure
on our country to break off all
relations with Cuba.

The U.S. would also most cer-
tainly involve us in plans to iso-
late and destroy Cuba, perhaps ©
even in military adventures
against that small island.

We would automatically become
a party to all U.S. attempts to
block social reforms in Latin
America.

We would be pressured to use
public funds for “aid” to Latin
America which would be used to
prop up U.S. controlled dictator-
ships there. This was ‘already
agreed to in the May 10, 11, meet-
ing between Prime Minister Pear-
son and President Kennedy.

We don’t have to take the path
of joining the OAS. Canada could
pursue an independent policy.
We can increase our trade with
Cuba to the advantage of both
countries. We can grant long
term credits to South American
countries so they may industrial-
ise and thereby create huge new
markets and thousands of new
jobs for Canadians. We can align
ourselves with the forces of social
progress in Latin America. :

Which road will Canada take?

Terrorists play a cruel,
dangerous game in Que.

By SAM WALSH
HE Front de Liberation Que-
becois and its terroristic activi-
ties have caused many people in
French Canada to reconsider the
whole question of the separatist
solution to the national question.
Far from attracting the mas-
ses of people to the standard of
separatism, they have alienated
thousands of French Canadians
who were considering separatism,
or had even opted for a separ-
ate Quebec, by the senseless and
brutal tactics employed by the
FLQ.

The senselessness and even
the tragedy of the road taken
by this group is underlined by
the fact that they proclaim
themselves for a socialist Quebec.

They consider themselves the
‘Jeft-wing” of the separatist
movement — the daring ones,
those who are not afraid to take
heroic actions to stir up the
masses to revolt against their
“eolonial’’ status — not vis-a-vis
the U.S.A., but Ottawa (with the
Queen brociding in the back-
— and to fight for a

ground)
Quehec with social jus-

“free”
tice.

At one time, at any rate, they
considered that they were model.
ing themselves on Fidel Castrc
and the 26th of July movement
in Cuba --_ sparking the na.
tional revolution which would leac
eventually, under their leader:
ship, to a sccialist revolution.

Thus their tactics bring dis-
credit not only to the nationalist
and separatist movement but alsc_

SAM WALSH
Communist Party Leader in
Quebec.

to the socialist cause.

But their tactics have nothing
in common with those of Fidel
Castro and the circumstances in
which they are acting are very,
very different, as the results
clearly show.

Castro and his group had the
overwhelming support of the
peasantry and the working class
as well as important sections of
intellectuals and the bourgeoisie,
because the people detested the
Batista dictatorship and recog-
nized that organized armed
struggle was a necessary conse-
quence of the mass struggles
they had conducted to free them-
selves from the bloody tyranny.

Demonstrative dynamite explo-
sions which could kill ordinary
citizens and terrorism in gener-
al never formed a part of their
movement.

Defying federal post boxes and
all ‘‘symbols of the tyranny of
Ottawa,” constitutes playing with
the problem of national self-
determination, but using dyna-
mite is a cruel and silly game.

The bravura with which they
claimed responsibility for the
murder of a night watchman at
an armory as though it were a

great blow for the principle of
national self-determination throwy
further light on just how far
their tactics have taken them
from their former avowed goals.

The labor movement in Que-
bec, progressives of every ten-
dency, nationalists, and separa-
tists who sincerely belive that
this is the only solution for
French Canada, have all been
compelled to sharply repudiate
these harmful and dangerous
tactics. They have no place in
Quebec whatsoever.

Only Marcel Chaput of the Re-
publican Party of Quebec has
refused to repudiate these tac-
tics and tries to couple his eva-
sion with red-baiting and chau-
vinism — accusing the Commu-
nists and ‘‘Anglo-Saxons’’ of in-
filtrating the separitist move-
ment to misiead it.

GENUINE GRIEVANCES

Many people ask: how does it
happen that a terrorist movement
like the FLQ could even begin
in Quebec? Clearly there must be
genuine grievances or no one
would risk their own life and the
lives of others to eliminate them.

Yes, there are genuine griev-

See QUEBEC, pg. 10

June 7, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 5