There can b Following several weeks of arm- twisting and face-saving, the Carter administration finally whipped Secretary of State Muskie into line behind the dangerous Directive 59, a ‘‘limited, strike first’’ nuclear policy aimed at the USSR. This Directive was signed by Car- ter on July 25 (without telling Muskie) and has been the subject of wide-ranging criticism for its dangerous implications. The following key points were made on this subject by William Kashtan, Com- munist Party leader, in a major public speech: - * * * The U.S. is striving might and main to establish a new axis as part of their ef- forts at the nuclear encirclement of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries. That’s why they are making such a big noise about Afghanistan. And in this they are aided by the leaders in Peking. That is why there is a new directive adopted by Washington. Directive 59 in fact is a new nuclear strategy, a strike first strategy, by the USA. It constitutes a marked change from the previous position, that of nuclear deterance and the impermissibility of nu- clear war. Now U.S. imperialism has thrown that strategy out the window and is directing its effort to convince people of the permissibility of nuclear war. This, in fact, is in line with Mao Tse Tung’s position who declared that nu- clear war would not be so terrible. What if half the world were destroyed, he asked, there would still be 50% left. It’s in line with U.S. National Security Adviser Brzezinski’s position: so what if 10% of the world’s people are destroyed, there will still be 90% left. As part of its effort at selling nuclear war, the U.S. administration says Direc- tive 59 is based on a limited, not a major ‘nuclear war. But everyone knows there’s no such thing as a limited nuclear war. A so-called limited nuclear war would quickly escalate into a nuclear war engulfing the entire world. Directive 59 moves: away from the principle of parity and equality of sec- urity and replaces it by military superior- ity with the aim of achieving world domination. If has all the earmarks of ‘‘preven- tative war” which President Truman call- ed for in his day — that is, launching a knock-out blow against the Soviet Union. This is a mad and dangerous policy which threatens world peace. Clearly, the USSR will neither retreat before such nuclear blackmail nor permit the U.S. or any other country to achieve military superiority. It will fight as it always has for disarmament, peace and security for all countries: The conclusion from present developments is clear: everything possi- ble must be done to defeat the cold war- riors and return to a policy of détente, including military détente. > Architects of genocide plan: Security adviser ie qi Brzezinski, U.S. president Carter, Defence Secretary Harold Brown trying to sell nuclear war. e no ‘little’ nuclear wars The world confronts a choice — either consolidate détente, or move to cold war and other dangers including the danger of war itself. Canadians should make their voices heard clearly in this matter which in- volves the very survival of Canada. This country has been turned into a mes- senger boy for U.S. imperialism by Joe Clark and Prime Minister Trudeau. "Now we have Defence Minister Lamontagne clamoring for neutron bombs. He should be fired and the pre- sent foreign policy course ¢ : Canada must persue an independent foreign policy, get out of NATO and NORAD, reduce its arms program use this money to create useful work for our young generation. It’s policies like these, buttressed by economic policies to strengthen Cana- da’s independence that we must fight for- By FILS DELISLE Tribune Berlin Correspondent Berlin — the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries have both begun military Manoeuvres in the two Germanys that contrasted the socialist program of ac- tions for peace to the belli- gerant NATO slogans of stepped-up military preparations. The tone of the NATO manoeuvres was set by U.S. General William Rogers, NATO’s Supreme Commander in Europe, in a speech open- ing the manoeuvres at Guetersloh, in the Federal Republic. Rogers called for more armaments and military strength for the West to carry out its politi- cal policies and “‘to defend our way of life”. The press of the socialist countries described the very size and shape of the NATO manoeuvres as aggressive and provocative even be- fore Rogers’ bellicose speech. ’ The Warsaw Pact Man- oeuvres, on the other hand, began with a great demonstration for peace at Potsdam, German Democ- ratic Republic. In a key- note declaration to the 180,000 citizens who turned out to welcome the troops and the military leaders of the fraternal countries, GDR leader Erich Honecker warned that the NATO powers were. striving to achieve military superiority, that the socialist countries would prevent such a dis- ruption of the military ba- lance in the world. He called on the West to reply to proposals on sec- urity and peace made by the Warsaw Pact countries and said: ‘‘We are ready to take concrete actions for the strengthening of peace and the improvement of the international situation. We expect the same from the leaders of the Western powers.” In a comment on the so-called new U.S. strategy of waging a pro- longed nuclear war, Hon- Steps to ensure peace ecker said ‘‘the ree ism of the imperialis icy of threats and black- mail becomes evident 1 the directive on ‘the new nuclear strategy’ of the USA which the President of the USA has af nounced. The talk of SO} — called retaliatory blow the now loudly proclaim concept of a modified planning of goals for nU- clear weapons’ strikes are meant to delude the world public about the true aims involved. ‘These are: to prepare 4 concentrated assault against the Soviet Union and the other countries © the socialist community- This insane play with the | risk of an atomic wal naturally: sharpens the international situation. For that reason the coun [ tries of our alliance have every reason to counter the plans of the imperial- ists with an ever greater watchfulness and the necessary strengthening of their defence power.” Canada and Directive 59 Marxism-Leninism in Today’s World As the U.S. presidential election cam- paign unfolds, so does the psychological assault against the minds of the Ameri- can people to prepare them for nuclear war against the Soviet Union. The rationale for such war is limited pre- emptive nuclear strikes. Canadians are not exempted from this brainwashing as- sault. For we are linked to the U.S. mili- tary through NATO and NORAD. Con- sequently, Directive 59 is directed at us as well. * * oS Directive 59, which President Carter signed on July 25, is explained away by U.S. Secretary Defence Harold Brown as being “‘less than all-out nuclear war responses”’ to ‘Soviet aggression”. This is but a cover-up for there can be no doubt that Directive 59 means a first strike nuclear strategy. This was made quite clear as early as 1978 by the then U.S. Secretary of De- fence Rumsfield in these words; ‘‘The present planning objective of the De-_ fence Department is clear. We believe that substantial numbers of military forces and critical industries in the Soviet Union should be directly targeted and that an important objective of the as- sured retaliation mission should be to re- tard significantly the ability of the USSR to recover from a nuclear exchange and regain the status of a 20th century mili- PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPT. 19, 1980—Page 8 tary and industrial power more rapidly than the United States.’’ (Annual De- fence Department Report, February 2, 1978). * * * What this means is that the strategical superiority of the United States must be such as to allow it to wage nuclear war — and win it. And in the course of such war to knock out the Soviet Union as a mod- erm industrial power. The purpose of such strategy is ‘‘that the territorial in- tegrity must be assured and that an inter- national environment must be main- tained in which U.S. (read imperialist, A.D.) interests and U.S. (ditto) freedom of action is ensured.”’ These openly expressed expansionist and aggressive aims of U.S. imperialism are directed not only against the Soviet Union, although that socialist country is its main target. But within this context, U.S. imperialism strives to revive the U.S. role of world policeman which it took on to itself following World War - Two. As events over the past few years’ have. shown, the U.S. Government and its imperialist and militarist backers use that country’s economic and military clout to impose its decision upon allies and non-allies alike. This clout is well- known in Canada. The rationale for Directive 59 is an alleged Soviet threat to the West. U.S. and NATO propaganda echoed in Cana- da, consists in the claim that the Soviet Union’s combined nuclear and conven- tional military capacity gives it superior- ity over NATO in Europe. That this is nothing but poppycock to gull the unin- formed is exposed by none other than U.S. Secretary of Defence Harold Brown. When presenting the U.S. de- fence budget for 1980, Brown said that “U.S. nuclear warheads deployed in Europe in support of NATO number about 7,000.’" Against this, the Soviet Union has but half that number of similar weapons, all of which are on its own territory. Further from Secretary Brown: ‘‘We have reached a point at which the United States and the Soviet Union have rough parity in strategic capability, and in con- ventional capability we and our allies are again in rough parity with the Soviet Union and its allies.’’ (press conference, April 25, 1979). It is this movement to- ward rough parity that the U.S. Government and military want to pre- vent. That is why they want to deploy the Cruise and Sherman II missiles in West European countries. ~ Canada’s connection with the U.S. military through NATO and NORA* constitutes the main danger to Canada $ independence and sovereignty. It actl- ally serves as insurance for the main- tenance of U.S. monopoly domination over the Canadian economy. On the other hand economic domination serves to tighten the U.S. military hold over Canada. : The cover for such a military hold 1s the alleged Soviet ‘‘threat’’. This is whY Directive 59 directly concerns Canadians foreign policy. To bank on the likelihood that 4 strike-first nuclear war could be limited to Eastern Europe is to live in a fool’s paradise. We should make no mistake. Nuclear war, once triggered, will not be contained. 5 * ab * The U.S. planners of a limited pre- emptive war consider Europe is expend- able in the service of U.S. imperialist ~ ‘‘interests.”’ Just as this is so, they consider Canada expendable in the event of a world nuclear war. This-is why it behooves all of us, individually and through our organizations, to demand of Prime Minister Trudeau and his Government to break now with the nu- clear war plans of the U.S. Speak out now for an independent Canadian foreign policy of peace.