A Tribune reader wonders;

~ Has the Pentagon got a hand in our :

“\.. TQOR SOME time now I have

been following the dispute
between certain members

of the Armed Forces and. the

Department of Defence.

-I have been suspicious that
the United States is mixed up
very deeply in the actions of the
government toward the integra-

tion of the armed forces. I think —

it is part and parcel of an Ame-
Tican orientation towards _ us
which includes the suspicious
moves in the fields of business.
in the. relationship towards or-
ganized labor by American
monopolies and..in their moves
towards our water and other
natural resources, ©

‘It is well known that nothing.

which is very important can hap-
pen here without ‘the U.S. being
~ involved: or: at least very inter-
‘ested. It is hard to believe that
_ & fundamental change. could -be
made in our military set-up with-

out the blessing or condemna-~

tion of the Pentagon. In order
for my point to make any sense
"at all it is necessary to presup-
'' pose. that integration is only a
. cover-up. for. the-benefit» of. the.
public. I am sure this is for the

’ following reasons, pe
First, the airforce is conspi-’
culously absent from the debate
on integration. The RCAF is al-
ready closely integrated into a

continental defence program .

armed forces in

_ which is dominated’ by the Ame-

-rican airforce. It is equipped to

“a large extent, at least. in come -
“bat equipment, with U.S. wea-

pons and the integration is on.
an active day-to-day working
basis. -

On. the other hand the Cana-
‘dian navy is different. The navy
is: not. half as dependent on
equipment purchased from the
U.S. and there has been a feeling
of hostility amongst the enlisted
men towards the Americans for .
about 40 years. Perhaps due to
Canadian nationalism there | is
present in the army and navy a
stubborn chauvinism which can
be found amongst the officers
as well.

Of course, the top “ranking
people involved are probably.

--split-on the whole question. Why

else would admirals appear to be:

~ so much opposed to the integra-

tion with such ridiculous argu-
ments unless they ‘knew or
guessed at something which
could not. be publicly’ stated.
Why have so many Canadian
bosses left. or disappeared from
command in the automative. in-
dustry? We know these admirals
and ranking officers are not pro-
gressive but perhaps they resent _
American domination and per-
haps like myself they cannot

prove what they suspect.

Secondly, Stanley Ryerson in
his book on Canadian. history

tegration battle?

~ has proved that the U.S. m- +e.
- a teriffic tactical mistake in e .

war of 1812 by not; recognizing
the: maritime character of our
country and. thus - invading
through the Great Lakes instead
of concentrating on the Atlantic
seaboard. I am not necessarily
saying we are in for an invasion,
but the principle of domination
would require the same tactics.

On Oct. 22 it was announced
that if the Canadian navy might
evolve into a Coast Guard with

maritime safety functions, the.

U.S. would be willing to take
over anti-submarine warfare,

This means of course, that the.

great seaports and the Gulf of
St. Lawrence would be under
the control of the U.S. navy.
The U.S. announced that’ it has
already drawn up the plans.
Thirdly, Canadian: rights as

. far as territorial waters are con-

cerned are being discussed by
Canada and the U.S. right now.
It is interesting to note’ that the
U.S. does not concede that Hud-

’-son Bay and the channels that
lead to it, the Bay of Fundy or |

the Gulf of St. Lawrence are

_ Canadian territorial waters.
Fourthly, if integration effi- -
~ /¢iency and economy are held up |
~ aS bait, much as the city mana-
"ger idea is, it might well be only

a guise to slowly reduce the
fighting capabilities of the Cana-
dian armed forces.

2 ite

You might well ask why they
bother, because our forces could - -
not do much to resist anyway... :
Well the important. point.is that”
any stubborn resistence to U.S, :
domination taxes the already
swaying. international position
of the U.S.

With their overall war pro-
gram they cannot afford to have

-the Canadians making a nuis-

ance of themselves especially
with the stimulus it might lend
to anti-imperialism in Latin
American countries., After all-
there: are Canadian capitalists
who will fight for their right to
exclusive exploitation of the
Canadian people.

The information I have listed es
is circumstantial, disorganized
and in large part conjecture.
However, if I was in charge of .
the Pentagon I would want to _
have my. finger in. any military - .
pie in the hemisphere. ~ Renee eke

The big American grab for .
water, Jand and resources must:
come ‘into ‘the open and become _'

a reality. The imperialists are ~ +

_ against the wall-internationally - -

and possession of Canada and-°
its natural resources is a must. ee

‘They are beginning to talk of -

growing room and if we don’t --
see the handwriting. on the wall

‘it may be pathetic.

—F. S., Hamilton, Ont. _

_ The many faces of

~ Charles de Gaulle

~ New light on what.

De Gaulle: by Alexander Werth;

~ Simon and Schuster, New
York; $8.25.

_["HE MANY faces of Charles
~ de Gaulle are described
.,. With perception ‘in’ this
Political biography of a man
Whose place in history is yet to

evaluated.

de €porter and author Alexan-

Tench scene since 1928, with
k € exception of war years spent
1 the Soviet Union and briefer
Periods in England and the
“puited States. He is uniquely
tualified to unravel the tangled
“8teer of de Gaulle.

Werth describes de Gaulle’s
Pe-war quarrels with the rigid
Tench military establishment;
'S leadership of the Free French
fing the war years;-his “united
pet period with the Left fol-
_ Wing Liberation; his swing to
-COmmunism and neo-
Cism; his retirement. from
Public life and his return to
_ Wer in 1958 at the time of the

Serian crisis; and his current

T Werth has covered the.

role as an anti-colonialist and

opponent of the U.S. war of ag-

gression in Vietnam.
Though de Gaulle’s recogni-

tion of China, his rapproche- |

ment with the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe and his opposi-

tion to American. aggression

have all increased his stature in
recent years, his internal poli-
cies have not endeared him to
the French people, and the last
presidential elections showed
that his popularity at the polls
is declining
miners have not forgiven his
savage (but unsuccessful) at-
tempt to break their strike in
1963; and the Ben Barka affair
revealed that some shady char-
acters help to operate the de
Gaulle machine.

Stalin said of de Gaulle at
Yalta: “He is not a complicated
man.” Werth disagrees with this
estimate. De Gaulle, he con-
tends “is much more compli-
cated than he appears at first
sight.” He says in his introduc-
tion to the book:

“He is growing old . . . some-

rapidly. French.

thing will no doubt be left of
Gaullism even after de Gaulle—
but what and how much?

“The Ben Barka Affair showed
that behind the majestic facade
of Gaullist France many dirty
and disturbing things could go
on, just as they did under the
Third and Fourth Republics. And
some of. the dirt—particularly
the ‘parallel’ police—was, some-
how, inherent in the Gaullist re-
gime itself. Scandals big and
small happen in all countries,
but the Ben Barka Affair, com-
ing on top of de Gaulle’s medi-
ocre election victory, rudely
shook—at least for a time—
what faith was still left in the
longevity of the Fifth Republic.”

—Bert Whyte

happened in Congo —

CHALLENGE OF THE CON-
GO. This is the title of a new
book by Kwame Nkrumah which
willbe pubished simultaneously
in London by Thomas Nelson
and Sons, and in New York by

‘International Publishers, on Jan.
30. :

This book by the former pre-
sident of Ghana is the first ac-
count of the Congo’s recent his-
tory by one of the heads of
state most closely involved. A
most valuable feature is the
publication for the first time of
contemporary diplomatic re-
cords and documents on which
future historical analyses will be
based.

New light is thrown on Kat-
anga’s secession, the failure of
the United Nations operation,
the murder of Patrice Lumumba,
foreign military intervention in
Stanleyville and Mobutu’s so-
called coup d’etat.

Dr. Nkrumah wrote a special
preface for Challenge of the Con-
go from Conkry, where he now
resides as honorary president of
Guinea. He relates the problems

of the Congo and foreign inter-
vention to the coup of February —
1966 deposing his government.
He sees both these areas — the.
Congo and Ghana — as part of
a larger scheme of the Western
powers to retain control ‘of a
world now struggling for na-
tional liberation. He believes, in
the light of these experiences,
that armed struggle may neces-
sarily be the only way to free-
dom: in Africa. é

This is the eighth book by the

author, who is generally regard-

ed, by friend and foe alike, as
the most articulate champion of
African unity and socialism.

November 25, 1966—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7