Who’s the aggressor in Ogaden?

_.. By VLADIMIR SIMONOV
Novosti Political Correspondent
The Ogaden Desert is still the
scene of the biggest war in Afri-
ca’s history. The setting was
changed, however, for it is

Ethiopia that is counterattacking. —

Somalia’s regular troops, which
Posed as the ‘‘liberation’ front”’,
are backtracking, leaving their
NATO arms behind.

This news from Ogaden has
Caused the Western capitals to
Teverse their assessment of the
Conflict. So long as the Somalian
forces were biting off, piece by
Plece, one-fifth of Ethiopia’s ter-
Titory, the West confined itself to
an ostentatious display of anxiety
with an easily detectable gloating
behind it. Those who were out to
nip the Ethiopian revolution in the
bud were already preparing the
Strategic bridgeheads in the horn
of Africa to be leased to NATO,

while diverting the attention of
the progressive forces of the reg-
ion from the two major problems,
the struggle against South African
racism and the quest for a Middle
East peace.

It has now suddenly come to
light that if there was somebody
who could not sleep because of
the roar of battle in Ogaden, it was
the West. It has chosen to call an
immediate halt to the hostilities,
but has addressed this undoub-
tedly reasonable, if somewhat be-
lated, appeal to the Soviet Union!
The West labels Moscow and
Havana as the chief trouble-
shooters and even as good as ag-
gressors.

In Washington Cyrus Vance
has detected an ‘‘entirely new
situation’ in the horn of Africa.
He threatened that the U.S.
would reconsider its position in

World peace leaders —
meet in Washington

WASHINGTON — USS. and
world peace leaders met here Jan.
25-28 for a Dialogue on Disarma-
ment and Detente sponsored by
the World Peace Council. Among
the WPC delegates were rep-
Tesentatives from 40 countries
and all continents, including

many members of parliaments

and governments.

The three-day Dialogue was
opened by Abe Feinglass vice-
president of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen and vice-president. of
the WPC representing the United
States.

‘‘This is an appropriate place
for you to meet,”’’ said Feinglass.
“If anyone needs to be talked to
about peace it is we . .. There are
Many changes that need to be
made to make the dream of Mar-
tin Luther King, Jr., come true.”

Romesh Chandra, president of
the WPC, said it was of “‘historic”’
Importance that the WPC was

ROMESH CHANDRA
meetingin the U.S. ‘‘We meet ata
moment of crucial significance for
the future, when we can turn the
tide, reach out, achieve dis-
armament and consolidate de-
tente,”’ he said.

This was the first time in years
that the WPC was able to hold its
bureau meeting in the U.S. Over
150 peace leaders from around the
U.S. attended the Dialogue and
shared their views on peace with
the international leaders.

supplying arms to Somalia if
Ethiopian troops crossed the
Somalian border. The secretary
of state did not specify whether he
meant direct military supplies to
Somalia since the delivery of
American arms through go-
betweens is no news.

In Rome, Foreign Minister For-
lani has discovered what seems to
him to be the main cause behind
the conflict in Ogaden — “‘major
and gross interference by the
Soviet Union.” The minister did
not say, however, whether the
Italian Augusta firm had shipped
43 combat Cobra helicopters to
Somalia and how the Somalians
had come to have Italian-made
mortars at their disposal.

The stir in NATO’s capitalists
grew after Somalian president
Siad Barre explained the retreat
of his troops quite simply by ‘“‘un-
disguised aggression of the Rus-
sians.””

Cahill’s Secret Mission

The obvious purpose behind
this stream of strange pro-
nouncements is to make the in-
ternational community forget all
about the main issue the events in
Ogaden have brought up. Who is
the aggressor, who has, after all,
moved his troops into Ethiopian
territory to a depth of from 700 to

-300 kilometres west of the

Somalian-Ethiopian border? Who
has since been occupying a por-
tion of Ethiopian territory?

Not .one of the numerous
statements produced by the
Western capitals about the situa-
tion in the horn of Africa has re-
ferred to Somalia’s action as -a
case of aggression, a term quite
neatly defined in the UN docu-
ments,

Before attacking the neighbor-
ing staté,. President Siad Barre
sent his personal doctor and ad-
viser Kevin Cahill to the U.S. At
the state department this Ameri-
can was reassured that the United
States had no objection to a
“build-up of pressure’ in Oga-
den.

To cap it all, Washington ag-

OPIA

Sudan

AD
Kenya
2s Gumi
reed to back up Somalia’s aggres-

sion, as it was prepared, with its
arms supplies. An admission of
this basic fact is to be found in an
official statement made by the de-
partment of state Jan. 17. True, at
a later date the United States
went back on its promise, but that
changed nothing, the aggression
was on.

“‘Had it not been for such hints
from Washington, which were
withdrawn afterwards,”’ a notori-
ously anti-Soviet British jour-
nalist wrote in the International
Herald Tribune, ‘‘Somalia might
never have moved against
Ethiopia.”

It’s Others Who Pay

The West cannot bring itself to
call Somalia’s actions by their real
name also because this would re-
move all questions. regarding as-
sistance to Ethiopia from the
Soviet Union and Cuba. A victim
of aggression has a perfect right to
turn to friendly nations for help to

defend its sovereignty. At the
same time both Moscow and
Addis Ababa.-are still trying all
diplomatic and political means to
induce the Somalian leaders to
accept a peaceful settlement.

But Mogadishu does not appear
to relish a peaceful prospect. It
has announced in a public state-
ment the dispatch of more regular
troops into the area of military
operations and declared a total
call-up. The secret and, obvious-
ly, productive negotiations with
NATO about arms supplies are
whetting the Somalian leader-
ship’s appetite for internationaliz-
ing the conflict.

Those supposed to be fighting
“in an honorable way’’ are the
13-year-old Somalians drafted ina
total call-up. This act of folly has
been estimated to cost Somalia
$2-million a day. To the aggres-
sor’s delight, it is the Western
capitals and their oil bankers who
foot the bill.

This is the second of a 3-part
Series on foreign penetration of
Canada’s economy, prepared by
Gerry van Houten, researcher for
the Communist Party of Canada.

* * *

By GERRY VAN HOUTEN

PART 1
vernment response to the
accelerated takeover of the
Canadian economy has been
Weak and ineffectual.

In its weak-kneed attempt to
defend the interests of a section of

Canadian monopolies who are
Competing with the foreign, par-
Ucularly American, monopolies
M Canada, the federal govern-
Ment passed the Foreign Invest-
Ment Review Act (FIRA) in the
Spring of 1974. -

FIRA acknowledged that some
Sort of control was needed over
bids by foreigners to take over

_ ©Ompanies in-Canada. A number
Of factors, including the effect ofa

Over on the level and nature

Foreign penetration of |
our economy accelerating

of economic activity, its effect on
employment, resource proces-
sing, etc., the degree of Canadian
participation, the effect on pro-
ductivity, technological
development, etc., was to be
taken into account in assessing
whether or not a foreign corpora-
tion could acquire a company al-
ready in operation in Canada or
set up a new business. Acquisi-
tions and new businesses were to
be assessed according to whether
or not they were, or were likely to
be, ‘‘of. significant benefit to
Canada...” ‘

However, FIRA’s effective-
ness was precluded well ahead of
time. It has no authority over ex-
pansions of foreign subsidiaries in
Canada which raise-their funds
from domestic sources, chiefly
through loans from Canadian
banks, undistributed profits and
capital consumption allowances.
It thereby excludes a substantial
proportion of foreign direct_in-
vestment from the scrutiny of the
federal government.

If FIRA has had any effect, it is

this: The amount of foreign direct

investment from foreign sources
has declined steadily since 1972,
while the export of capital from
Canada has increased just as

‘steadily. In 1973 — the last year

before FIRA came into effect —
$750-million more in direct
investment flowed into Canada
than flowed out of Canada. In
1976, $395-million more flowed
out of Canada than entered Cana-
da.-In short, FIRA has encour-
aged foreign monopolies in
Canada to rely even more on
Canadian sources for the takeover
of the Canadian economy.

The only significant benefit of
FIRA’s regulations to ‘‘Cana-
dians’’ has been to Canada’s big
banking monopolies who are cal-
led upon to provide greater funds
for the takeover of the economy.
Canada’s Canadian controlled
banks are obtaining a little extra
profit from the interest on their
loans to foreign-owned corpora-

~ tions:

FIRA has had no effect on the

continuing takeover of the Cana-
dian economy by foreign, chiefly
American,’ capital. Although
figures for 1976 and 1977 are
available, the fact that foreign di-
rect investments continued to
climb in 1974 (when FIRA was in
effect for nine months) and 1975
(FIRA’s first full year of opera-
tion) is proof that this so-called
“*screening’’ agency has not done
a very effective job in controlling
foreign direct investment.

Furthermore, even where
FIRA had the opportunity to stop

‘foreign direct investment, it did

very little. In its first two years of
operation (1974-75 and 1975-76),
it allowed the acquisitionof 177
companies, both Canadian and
foreign-owned. In 1976-77, FIRA
allowed 319 acquisitions. In
1976-77 alone, there were 70 ap-
plications by foreign corporations
to take over Canadian-owned or
controlled companies and most of
these were allowed.

In its first three years of opera-
tion, FIRA has allowed a total of
326 acquisitions and 170 new
businesses in Canada. On the
other hand, it has disallowed 54
acquisitions and 14 new busines-
ses in the same period.

Most acquisitions allowed by
FIRA have been in the branches
of the economy which provide the
most jobs. In 1976-77, 58.2% of
acquisitions were in manufactur-
ing (followed by wholesale and re-
tail trade with 22.9%). Although
FIRA has the -power to
“‘Canadianize”’ enterprises which
are put up for sale, it has failed to
exert that power.

Instead, it legitimizes increased
foreign control of Canadian indus-
try, particularly manufacturing,
and thereby becomes an ac-
complice to a situation where de-
cisions .are made outside of
Canada by the parent companies
of the multi-nationals with all its
dire economic and_ social
consequences.

. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 24, 1978—Page 5