By WILLIAM KASHTAN

Some people and some of the daily press express surprise
about the one-sided relationship existing between the Canadian and
U.S. trade union movement, although they should know better, Take
the Toronto Star for example.

In an editorial ‘The Mice That Squeaked’’ it said among other
things that ‘‘apparently we misunderstood the relationship. Cana-
dian labor leaders may be no more capable
of ‘speaking up to their international presidents
than the average office employee is capable of
telling off his boss. Are the bosses of labor in
Canada only mice when they go to New York? So
it would seem from the AFL-CIO c@gnvention.
If that really is the relationship, international
unionism in Canada is in worse conditions than we
feared — and it can’t all be blamedon Hal Banks.”’

The Toronto Star seems to be in the position
of Johnny come lately who has suddenly discovered
America,

Be thts as it may the AFL-CIO convention did nothing in any
basic way, to change that relationship. What it did do was reject

a proposal for a constitutional amendment which would spell out the.
‘autonomous rights of the CLC with respect to jurisdictional matters
affecting international unions of Canada.

‘Instead of such a constitutional amendment, the AFL-CIO
executive council gave a conditional delegation of power to the CLC
to deal with such questions, provided the machinery it set up was
similar to that in the USA,

~ * *

This is a slight step forward but only a slight step, obviously
directed to undercutting the rising movement for national trade
union autonomy in international unions in this country.

*€Give a little but don’t change the substance of power and con-
trol’’; this seems to have been the approach taken by the dominant
forces in the AFL-CIO executive council.

If that is not so why was no constitutional amendment agreed
to by the AFL-CIO convention? Why was it only a conditional
delegation of power? Is it because the ultra conservative elements
in the AFL-CIO want to keep the door open to take even this con-
cession away from the CLC when it so chooses?

That these questions are valid is to be seen in the fact that
nothing was done by the AFL-CIO convention which would recog-
nize the rights of international unions in Canada to full autonomy.
In these conditions, even the limited agreement on jurisdictional ques-
tions is in danger of being undermined.

* * *

Nor did the AFL-CIO convention make clear that it supported
the CLC with respect to the maritime crisis in Canada. In fact by
leaving the question alone, by not repudiating the line adopted by
the Maritime Trades Department Convention, or the position of
President Meany, one must draw the conclusion that the door is
left open for continued attacks on the CLC and the continued boy-
cotting of Canadian ships in U.S. ports,

Clearly, therefore, the basic broblem of a sovereign and fully
autonomous trade union movement is still to be achieved, The danger
lies in the attempt by some right wing officials in Canada to pro-
claim that everything is now settled when in fact no basic changes
have been attained, and when the real battle is yet to be fought and
won. .

If the CLC is serious abouttheneedto advance the autonomy and
self-determination of international unions in Canada; if it is serious
about the trade union movement becoming master in its own house,
then it must press all international union offices and the AFL-CIO
to take those steps which would spell it out in constitutional form,
and state clearly that if this is not done the Canadian trade union
movement will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve it,

* * *

A good place to make that clear is at the coming CLC con-
vention next April in Montreal. The Canadian Union of Public
Employees (CUPE) has given a useful lead in this regard by its
resolution calling for full autonomy for all international unions
by 1965, a resolution which should stimulate considerable discus-
sion and debate at the CLC conventién, unless the top officers of
Congress try to sidetrack it.

What ought to be considered is the adoption of a Declaration
of Canadian Rights in all international unions which might include
the following:

* All international unions in Canada to hold annual Canadian
conferences to decide on policies affecting the Canadian membership.
All U.S. appointees to be ended and replaced by the election of na-
tional officers either by referendum or by conference.

* All international unions in Canada to be guided by Canadian
union constitutions. This would put an end to the invidious posi-
tion where Taft-Hartley and Landrum-Griffin Bills as well as other
undemocratic clauses in international union constitutions are im-
posed on the Canadian union membership. It would equally put an
end to clauses in union constitutions which prevent union locals in
Canada from endorsing, working for, or financing the political
party of their choice. It would take away a weapon monopoly and its
press has used effectively to weaken support for the NDP, based
on the argument that election of an NDP government in effect means
electing a government under U.S. union control.

* All international unions in Canada to have the right to co-
operate with and merge with other unions in a given industry on
a democratic and voluntary basis in order to effectively defend and
advance the interests of the workers and organize the unorganized.

* * *

It is measures such as these which could give flesh and blood
to the sovereignty of the Congress, strengthen the unity of the trade
union movement and advance democratic rank and file control in
all unions. Without such measures there is always the danger that
through international union control the CLC will constantly be a
prisoner of the AFL-CIO, Without it the Canadian trade union
movement cannot truly be master in its own house.

What the AFL-CIO convention failed to do, the Canadian
trade union movement and the coming CLC convention ought to
do.

‘us think it is impossible.

Peace

On June 10, 1963, in a speech at
the American University i in Wash.
ington, President Kennedy urged a
‘changed attitude by Americans to
the question of peace and peaceful

‘coexistence.

Total war makes no sense in
an age where great powers can
maintain large and relatively in-
vulnerable nuclear forces and re-
fuse to surrender without resort
to those forces,

It makes no sense in an age
when a single nuclear weapon
contains almost 10 times the ex-
plosive force delivered by allthe
Allied air forces in the Second
World War.

It makes no sense in an age
when the deadly poisons produced
by a nuclear exchange would be
carried by wind and water and
soil and seed to the corners of
the globe and to generations yet

Some say that it is useless to
speak of peace or world law or
world disarmament - and that it
will be useless until the leaders

‘of the Soviet Union adopt a more

enlightened attitude. I hope they
do. I believe we can help them
do it. /

But I also believe that we must
re-examine our own attitudes -
as individuals and as anation - for
our attitude is as essential as
theirs

First: Examine our attitude to-
wards peace itself. Too many of
Too
many think it is unreal. But that
is a dangerous, defeatist belief,
It leads to the conclusion that war
is inevitable - that we are gripped
by forces we cannot control.

Second: Letus re-examine our
attitude towards the Soviet Union.

Today, should total war ever
break out again - no matter how -
our countries will bethe primary
targets. It is an ironic but ac-

curate fact that the two strongest -

powers are the two in the most
danger of devastation. All we
have.built, all we have worked for,
would be destroyed in the first
24 hours,

And even in the cold war - which
brings burdens and dangers to so
many countries including this
nation’s closest allies - our two
countries bear the heaviest bur-
dens, For we are both devoting
massive sums of money to weap-
ons that could be better devoted
to combat ignorance, poverty and
disease.

We are both caught up in a vi-
cious and dangerous cycle with
suspicion on one side breeding
suspicions on the other, and new
weapons begetting counter-weap-
ons,

In short, both the United States
and its allies, andtheSoviet Union
and its allies have a mutually
deep interest ina just and genuine
peace and in halting the arms
race,

Third: Let us re-examine our
attitude towards the cold war, re-
membering we are not engaged
in a debate, seeking to pile up
debating points, We are nothere
distributing blame or pointing
the finger of judgement. We must
deal with the world as it is, and
not as it might have been had the
history of the last 18 years been
different,

Above all, while defending our
own vital interests, nuclear pow-_
ers must avert those confronta-
tions which bring an adversary to
a choice of either a humiliating
retreat or anuclear war. To adopt
that kind of course in thenuclear,
age would be evidence only ofthe
bankruptcy of our policy - or of
a collective death-wish for the
world.

We are unwilling toimpose our
system on any unwilling people -
but we are willing and able to en-
gage in peaceful competition with
any people on earth,

During the crisis over Cubain
October, 1962, President Kennedy,
in defiance of pressures from the

ultra- Right, sent a telegram to Sov-
iet Premier N.S. Khrushchev in
which he said:

Both our countries have un-
finished tasks and I know that
your people as well as the United

States can ask for nothing better -

than to pursue them free from the
fear of war. Modern science and
technology have given us the pos-
sibility of making labor fruitful
beyond anything that could have
been dreamed of a few decades

ago.

er agree with you that we must
devote urgent attention to the
problem of disarmament, as it
relates to the whole world and al-
so tocritical areas, Perhaps
now, as we step back from danger,
we can together make real pro-‘
gress in this field. I think
we should give priority to ques-
tions relating to the proliferation
of nuclear weapons, onearthand
in outer space, and to the great
effort for a nuclear test ban. But
we should also work hard to see
if wider measures of disarma-
ment can be agreed to and put in-
to operation at an early date.

Civil Rights

On the night of June 11, 1963,
just before submitting his civil
rights legislation to Congress, Presi-
dent ennedy,} in a nation wide ad-
dress over TV and radio, said:

This nation was founded by men
of many nations and backgrounds,
It was founded on the principle
that all men are created equal and
that the rights of every man are
diminished when the rights of one
man are threatened.

It ought to be possible, there-
fore, for American students of
any color to attend any public in-
stitution they select without hav-
ing to be backed up by troops. It

ought to be possible for American’

consumers of any color to re-
ceive equal service in places of

December 6, 1

Will es U.S.
act in the spirit
of these words?

Ww

public accomodation, such as ho- q

tels and restaurants, and theatres
and retail stores without being

forced to resort to demonstra- —

tions in the street.

And. it ought to be possible for
American citizens of any color
to register and to vote in a free
election without interference or
fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short,
for every American to enjoy the
privileges of being American
without regard to his race or his
color.

In short, every American ought

to have the right to be treated as —

he would wish to be treated, as

one would wish his children tobe ©
treated, But this is not thecase. —
It seems to me that these are |

matters which concern us all —

not merely president, con- |
gressman, or governors, ev- |
ery citizen of the United States, ©

We cannot say to 10 percent of
the population that ‘‘you can’t
have the right. Your children
can’t have the chance to develop
whatever talents they have, that
the only way that they’re going to
get their rights is to go in the
street and demonstrate,’’

Ultra Right

On Nov. 18, 1961, President Ken
ned, addressing a Democratic
ses dinner in Los Angeles, warn-

e nation of the increasinly |

Pearen activities of the ultra-Right.

They look suspiciously attheir |
and their leaders. |
They call for ‘fa man on horse- ©

back’’ because they do not trust 4 |
the people. They find treason in

our finest churches, in our high- |
est court and even in the treat- |

neighbors

ment of our water,

They object quite rightly to po- |
litics. intruding on the military - —

but they are anxious for the mili-
tary to engage in politics.

Warning the nation not to‘*heed |
these counsels of fear and sus- —

picion,’’ Kennedy urged the nation

to ‘‘Let our patriotism be reflect- |
ed in the creation of confidence |
rather than crusades of suspi- |
Let us prove we think our [|
country great by strivingtomake |

cion.

it greater,’’

|

In the speech Kennedy was sched- |

uled to make in Dallas on the day |
of his assassination he lashed out |
at the ultra- Rightists in their own —

lair with these words:

There will always be dissident |
voices heard in the land, expres- |
sing opposition without alterna- |
tives, finding fault but never fa- |
vor, perceiving gloom on every |
side and seeking influence without —
responsibility, Those voicesare |

inevitable,

But today other voices are —
heard in the land- voices preach- |
ing doctrines wholly unrelated to 4
reality, wholly unsuited to the —
sixties, doctrines which appar- —
ently assume that words will suf- _
fice without weapons, that vitu- —

peration is as good as victory an
that peace is a sign of weakness.

963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page