any debate in parlia-
long as we are tied to
through such agree-
ability to press for
tt could reduce ten-
limited — and almost
is the view that if the
ceeds with the ABMs it
ip the door to new escala-
arms race.

prisingly, the enthusi-
[ATO in Canada’s cabi-
also to be the least
the ABM system. Take
_ Affairs Minister Mit-
Sh for example. His
ition to the debate was
system is ever ‘called
t, the game is over and
nd will have lost.” He as
as Defense Minister Leo
« minimized any danger
ignoring the dangers
build-up leading to
calations in the arms
ese sentiments lead us
to uncritical acques-
n U.S. plans.
the suggestion from the
Minister that if we want
‘something about it, we
then have to participate
brought its appropri-
. The Globe and Mail
le says of it, “Cana-
no strangers to that
we must join the
in order to influence

fas the rationale behind
et diplomacy which in-
‘us from voicing disap-
f the American handling
lam. It has been the most
ly heard argument ad-
© support our continued
ation in the North Atlan-
ty Organization (if not
| Trudeau, certainly by
il Affairs Minister Mitch-
33 oy Defense Minister

>

cceptance of this ration-
committed Canada to

another form of escalation, the
escalation of our involvement
with the United States, regard-
less of the form the American
policy takes. The fact that the
United States waited until after
the Nixon administration had
committed itself to the ABM sys-
tem to ask for Canadian appro-
val to fire the warheads over
our territory already casts doubt
on the extent of that influence.”

The argument put forward in
Washington that the ABMs
mean no escalation, but only
maintain the balance of deter-
rant, was based on what U.S.
Defence Secretary Laird called
“classified information” of sup-
posed Soviet increases in mis-
siles. To this, Senator Fulbright
has appropriately answered, “The
fact that information is classi-
fied, does not necessarily make
it true.”

One Canadian who places the
question briefly but pointedly is
Dr. Norman Alcock of the Cana-
dian Peace Research Institute.
“The ABM,”, he says, “is an
Alice in Wonderland absurdity.
If it is an effective defence, then
it will cause the Soviets to in-
crease their offensive weapons,
thereby escalating the arms
race. If, on the other hand, it
is not an effective defence, (and
most scientists think it is not)
then why build it?”

So Canadians are asked
to trade their sovereignty, the
dangers of nuclear fall-out, per-
haps large new defense spend-
ing for participation, for the
dubious “benefit” of guarding
the Minutemen sites.

As William Kashtan, leader of
the Communist Party said last
week, “The ABM system estab-
lished close to Canz ja’s borders
means only one thing—that the
Pentagon considers Canada and
its people expendable and is
prepared to defend the U.S.A. to
the last Canadian.”

While we may have no “veto”
power over what the Nixon ad-
ministration plans for its terri-
tory and' for its skies, surely we
can stand up and exert our
sovereignty to say that our skies
are not to become part of the
Pentagon’s plans. If the prin-
ciple of territorial waters can be
fought out, why not the fight
for air rights.

But our concern should go be-
yond that of demanding that the
ABM sites be moved away from
our border. In the interests of
world peace we should as Kash-
tan said, “equally insist that the
entire ABM system be scrapped
and that genuine measures be
taken by the U.S. government
to begin the process of nuclear
disarmament.”

We've gone along for a long
time now — from NATO to
NORAD, from the Pinetree line
to the Distant Early Warning
line, from missile site at North
Bay and La Macaza to the
famous Bomarcs, to nuclear war-
heads, from moral support to
the Bay of Pigs adventure to
arms for U.S. forces in Vietnam
—have we not yet reached the
time for sanity, for an indepen-
dent Canadian foreign policy, a
policy of military © non-align-
ment, a policy for disarmament
and peace.

The Trudeau government has
projected the end of this month
as the time when its new de-
fense plans would be revealed.
The Nixon decision to go ahead
on the ABM system sharply un-
derlines that the essence of the
“new” for it to have any mean-
ing, must be an end to Canada’s
subservience to the imperialist
plans of the Pentagon:

And our answer to the spokes-
men of U.S. imperialism like
Defence Secretary Laird should
be that we won't like it or lump
it but we'll fight against it with
everything we've got.

IGT AGAINST 4.0.0

Electric for develop-
k alone.

_to the system
from its tremendous
eat skepticism about

foung, a Democrat
example has said,
*boondoggle’ is hard-
Ough to describe the
the ABM proposal—a
hat could eventually
taxpayers more than
h and add nothing
© the defense of the
tes. Should President
to proceed with
and make this hor-
der, it could well
be the Achilles heel
stration.”
before the Senate
ittee, scientists
ocal in opposition.
F. Yorke, former
fense research and
in the Pentagon
ve the gravest doubts
@pability of any ABM
ver heard of. I am not
Mt percentage failure
ither about catastro-
n which at the mo-

ment of truth either nothing at
all happens, or all interceptions
fail. I believe the deployment of
any ABM would in the long run
almost always result in further
acceleration of the arms race.”

Trade unions have noted with
concern the efforts of the mili-
tary to line up labor backing for
the ABMs and warn against the
missile job lure. The Washing-
ton Teamster, for example, com-
menting on this said in its last
issue, “Across the South and in
the big cities of the U.S. hun-
dreds of thousands of families
live in dialapidated quarters.
There is an unconscionable iro-
ny in the proposal to build slick
silos to house missiles with nu-
clear warheads to protect tene-
ments in which crime breeds and
share-croppers’ cabins in which
children go hungry.

“The irony is compounded
by the general recognition that
the Sentinel missiles will not
make a difference between sav-
ing the city and losing it to en-
emy missiles. Spending on the
Sentinel would mean that the
city would possibly be twice
lost: once because slums were

allowed to stand, again when
the missiles came through the
thin line and the fallout drifted
into the streets.

“Good judgment dictates that
the 900 to 1,375 construction
workers that each ABM requires,
be put to work instead on pro-
jects that will make the cities
habitable.”

The U.S. peace movement is
now centring its fight on the
cancelling of ABM. Huge de-
monstrations early in April in
New York, Chicago, San Fran-
cisco and other cities will sig-
nalize opposition to ABM’s along
with the call for the ending of
the Vietnam war and _ with-
drawal of all U.S. troops.

The fight is shifting to pres-
sure on Congress and reports
indicate that there could be over
50 Senators in opposition.

A Universities Committee
Against ABM has been estab-
lished which in full page ads in
the name of thousands of scien-
tists and scholars calls on Con-
gress to stop the anti-ballistic
missile system. They say, “It’s
ineffective. It’s dangerous. It’s
wasteful. A threat to world

peace.

“We strongly oppose deploy-
ment of the ‘Safeguard’ ABM
System because:

e “It would provide very lit-
tle protection for the United
States.

e “It would be likely to trig-
ger a new round of escalation in
the arms race.

e “It would hinder negotia-
tions for disarmament.

e “It’s enormous cost should

be directed instead to meet urg- .

ent civilian needs.
“We urge that the proposed

deployment of the ABM be can- .

celled and that negotiations with
the Soviet Union be initiated as
quickly as possible to reverse
the sterile, wasteful and dan-
gerous competition in arm-
aments.”

In a summary of arguments
against the ABM being heard in
Congress, one noted is that by
its reorientation of the ABM
system, the Pentagon is now
proposing to defend holes in the
ground not people—and, as the

Senators put it, “see if you can

sell that to the workers back
home.”

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 28, 1969—Page Ae:

Critics of the plan in the
Senate, particularly as seen in
the Foreign Relations Commit-
tee, argue that Nixon’s decision
to go ahead was dictated more
by political consideration - to
satisfy the military-industrial
complex, than by the need to
protect the Minutemen sites.

Senator J. William Fulbright
has said that Defense Secretary
Melvin Lairds is using a “tech-
nique of fear” to win support for
ABM. “Suddenly the Russian
are becoming eight feet tall and
they about to overwhelm us,”
the senator said. “ii

As the Daily World comments
editorially, “The reported op-
position of 57 Senators to the
Sentinel program on the eve of
Nixgn’s decision testifies to the
majority popular opposition that
was aroused. It argues, also,
that the Sentinel can be stopped
cold even now, in Congress,
despite Nixon.”

It looks like one of the big-
gest fights by the peace move-
ment is shaping up now in the
U.S. to halt the military-indus-
trial complex in its tracks and
have the ABM system cancelled,

TAY