How FrenchCanada reacted to nuclear weapons crisis By SAM WALSH HE initial reaction of French Canada to the U.S. interven- tion in our defence policy has been heartwarming. As a matter of fact, even €arlier, when the U.S. State De- partment advanced its Canadian representative, Lester B. Pear- Son, to open the attack on our defenses against nuclear weapons im Canada — even at that moment the response of French Canada Was immediate, unequivocal—for Peace and for Canada. This was no simple affair to See through. After all, it was only a matter of days before that Pearson had captured all the headlines and a lot of fawning attention for his support of a Toyal commission on “‘bi-cultur- ism.” His announcement in the House Was regarded as a truly major development in recognizing the national status of French Canada. It was a ‘master stroke’’ that Won instantaneous, even uncriti- Cal support in Quebec. Only a few of the more realis- tic type examined his speech Carefully and found considerable Oratory but very little content that would accord genuine equal- ity of status to the French-Cana- dian nation. BETRAYAL _Very few, indeed, drew atten- tion to the fact that his speech Was timed to offset the obvious Preparations of the Liberal Party to endorse nuclear arms for Can- ada in the statements of Liberal front-benchers Hellyer and Drury. Pearson's “bi-culturism’’ com- Mission -was thus, at least in its timing, designed to recapture French Canada before he let loose the full blast of his be- trayal to the USA. First reactions to his betrayal and the subsequent open inter- vention of the U.S. State Depart- ment show that not even the ‘‘na- tional question’? — as seen from the standpoint of French Canada — outweighs the deep longing of _ the people for peace and resent- - Ment against the bullying tactics of the U.S. warmongers. Both Le Devoir and La Presse, Which had just poured out gal- lons of ink praising Pearson, pub- : lished sharp editorials denounc- Ing his betrayal and declaring that the Liberals no longer pre- Sented a possible choice for the People of French Canada. Laurendeau of Le Devoir end- €d rather wistfully that it was a Shame, because Pearson had just done so well on ‘“‘bi-culturism’’— but just the same. . . After the U.S. State Depart- Ment press release publicly de- Manding that Diefenbaker deliver n his promises to accept nu- Clear weapons, the French press Tose to the occasion. LIKELY TO UPSET Said Le Devoir: ‘Its arrogant tone is likely to upset Canadians. It recalls the dangers of domina- tion to which we are exposed in too close relations with the Neighboring great power.” Said La Presse: ‘‘The Ameri-_ Cans like to speak as masters to those who consider themselves allies or associates . . . The threat IS taking definite shape. Some- thing more than an improvised answer must be found.” Montreal-Matin said: “Tt aps Pears that the Americans will no longer tolerate the hesitation of Mr. Diefenbaker and are forcing his hand.” After noting U.S. exasperation with De Gaulle at the same mo- ment, the editorial goes on to say that the USA had better curb its impatience with “‘a country like Canada, a friendly neighbor, but not a vassal to the great power to the south.” But in all three of these impor- tant dailies a dangerous note of fatalism has crept in. All of them, in the very same editorials, indi- cate that in the end Canada will have to accept nuclear weapons because of the great economic and political power of the USA in Canada. INDEPENDENT VOICE And in La Presse we find an editorial declaring that the gov- ernment is dead, that the record of the Conservatives is bad, and implying that they were going to take another look at the Liberals. If ever French Canada needed the independent voice of the labor and progressive movements — it is now. We do NOT have to accept nuclear arms! We do NOT have to bow to U.S. dicta- tion or resort to delaying the “Sn- evitable’”’ as the Tories are doing. The New Democratic Party, which is holding its founding Quebec convention in March, perhaps in the midst of an elec- tion campaign, has both a very great opportunity and a very great responsibility to emerge as a voice for French Canada which does not accept the inevitability of nuclear arms, which demands the dismantling of the Bomarc nuclear missile base at La Ma- caza. : If the NDP and the trade unions in Quebec, as well as the Union of Catholic Farmers, really take hold of: this issue, demand that the Lesage government de- fend the sovereignty of French Canada _ by disassociating itself ‘from the policy of the federal Liberals and order the USA to dis- mantle the nuclear base at La Macaza — they will win very widespread support in Quebec. They will emerge as a major force giving hope and _ inspira- tion to the people of French Can- ada, and help our people make their full weight felt on the whole: Canadian scene for peace and Canadian independence. STRUGGLE LINKED That is why it is to be hoped that the strong group which is trying to save the NDP from right-wing domination will not in- sist too rigidly on their formula that the great task of the second half of the 20th century is to give a socialist and humane solution to the national question. After all, without peace, with- out a successful struggle for peace, who will be lcft to com- plete the great tasks of the sec- ond half of the century — the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, as well as the solu- tion of the colonial and national questions? Too rigid an insistence on their formula will not win the support of the great masses of the people who, much as they are ready to struggle for national self-determi- nation in French Canada, have demonstrated that the struggle for peace — against nuclear arms for Canada, for dismantling of the base at La Macaza — goes very deep and is_ indissolubly linked with the struggle for na- tional self-determination. IN THE SPIRIT OF 1812 WHO po THEY - RK AGEY . SL tg +, The US. State Department declared KeeCanadisn Government has not, yet n foe for arming Saeetie at ee 5. wou'd US". DELEGATE FROM B.C. REPORTS: What is Cuba like no @ What is life like in Cuba today, about three months af- ter the U.S. blockade? Is there any truth in the black pictures of Cuba painted in reports coming out of the US.? On January 2-18 Ben Swan- key, educational director of the Trade Union Research Bureau, was a delegate of the Canada-Cuba Friendship Committee. Together with Cedric Cox, MLA, he attend- ed the fourth anniversary of Cuba’s revolution. Later he toured parts of the island. e By BEN SWANKEY as the U.S. military and i=) economic blockade harmed Cuba? It can ‘hardly be denied that it has made life more difficult for the is- land’s seven million people. Until Castro led the revolu- tion of 1958, about 65 percent of her imports were with the U.S. The country depended upon the U.S. for its sugar and tobacco sales, for cars, trucks and machinery and for many foodstuffs. All this is now ended. The U.S. placed an embar- go on all trade with Cuba, and our own country will not al- low exports of repairs for U.S. made cars, trucks, buses © and machinery to Cuba. Although the U.S. lifted its military blockade of Cuba in November, it took steps at the same time to tighten its economic blockade still fur- ther. It informed its allies that any company allowing any of its ships to be used in trade with Cuba would have all of MONTRE ment Pour le Desarme at the University of draw from both NAT in them “infringes on will eventually result in tth organizations in Quebe Inay arms, and urged a the Confederal pact.” PULL OUT OF NATO, NORAD URGED IN FRENCH CANADA AL — Last Weekend’s congress of the Mouve- ment Nucleaire et la Paix, held here Montreal voted to send a telegram ker demanding Canada with- O and NORAD because membership Canada’s national sovereignty and e acquisition of nuclear arms.” to Prime Minister Diefenba The National Student Press, c also declared itself against nuc- “constituent assembly” to examine with 85 student member its ships barred from all U.S. ports. It brought pressure to bear on its allies to sever dip- lomatic and trade relations with Cuba. It compelled sev- eral Latin American coun- ‘tries to break off ties with Cuba. The object of this “econ- omic aggression,” as the Cu- bans call it, was to draw an economic noose around the island, to strangle Cuba econ- omically, to bring it to its knees, to cause shortages, dis- location, hunger and unrest. * * * Has the U.S. succeeded? From what we were able to see during our stay in Cuba we would definitely say no. The Cuban economy has not faltered or broken down. On the contrary it is going ahead, and rather rapidly too. In our travels on the island) we saw factories under con- struction in many places. We were told by trade union leaders of many other new factories and industries—tex- tile, shoe, chemical, mining, sugar, oil — being establish- ed, many of them with the assistance of the’ Soviet Un- ion, Czechoslovakia, the Ger- man Democratic Republic and other socialist countries. We saw flourishing state farms growing a variety of crops (tobacco, sugar cane, bananas, cocoanuts, tomatoes, mangoes, papaya) as well as co-ops and individual farms. The sugar crop now being harvested (sugar is still Cu- ba’s main source of income) has been completely sold to friendly countries. * * * Cuba now appears to be self sufficient in fruit and vegetables. Price controls have been established» to prevent profit-. eering in those necessities» where the supply is still inad- equate. (There are still many rich people in Cuba—anyone doubting this just needs to visit the government operated Tropicana night club in Ha- vana). _ Meat is rationed, as it was. in Canada during the last war, and for similar reasons —to ensure that what there ‘Feb. 15, 1963—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 7 w? | is will be fairly divided among the population and the armed forces. The meals we ate in our hotel were _ excellent, al- though it took us a little while to get used to some of the food. Among the various foods we ate while in Cuba were beef, pork, chicken, duck, fish, sausages, rice (with almost every meal), beans, lettuce, string beans, tomatoes, cucumbers, fruit juices, fruit salads and a veg- etable something like our po- tato, only richer. The meals we ate in workers’ homes were every bit as good. Anyone coming in from Mexico is immediately struck by the complete absence of beggars anywhere in Cuba, and an absence also of those sad-eyed serious faced bare- foot children with the big bellies, the result of malnu- trition. The U.S. blockade against Cuba and its pressure to force other countries also to stop trading with her made it nec- essary for Cuba to change its whole pattern of trade in two or three years. This was- n’t easy but they did it. Today about 80 percent of Cuba’s trade is with socialist countries. Cubans appreciate this trade and the help they are getting from the socialist lands. But they are anxious nevertheless to develop large scale two way trade with Canada and are very much concerned about the big drop in Canadian-Cuban trade. All in all, it appeared to us that the U.S. blockade, while it created many serious diffi- culties for Cuba, at the same time compelled it to do things in two or three months that it may have taken years in other ‘normal’ circumstan- ces. It has caused Cuba to rely on its own resources and resourcefulness more than ever. From this standpoint the U.S. blockade has accelerated rather than retarded Cuba’s economic growth. —Reprinted from The Fisherman.