CANADA. ‘Back words with deeds, boycott apartheid’ A call on Ottawa to act TORONTO — Canadians Concerned About Southern Africa (CCSA) has ad- dressed a letter to External Affairs Minister Clark congratulating his government for Canada’s support of UN Resolution 39/72G adopted Dec. 13 at the 39th session of the UN General As- sembly. Canada voted for the resolution aimed ~ at the elimination of apartheid along with 145 other nations. Britain and the U.S. voted against, six states abstained. “Although we are pleased at your positive vote’’, the CCSA letter said, “‘present Government policy is not in line with many: aspects of this Resolu- tion.” CCSA then specifically asked Clark what actions Ottawa has taken or plans to take on certain specific Resolu- tion points: The Resolution ‘‘ Appeals to all states . to consider national legislative or other measures to increase pressure on the apartheid regime’’, such as, ‘‘cessa- tion of further invéstments in or financial loans to South Africa.”’ It calls for *‘an end to promotion of trade’’, ‘‘cessation of all forms of military, police or intelli- gence cooperation’’, ‘‘an end to nuclear collaboration’’ with the apartheid regime. It further appeals to all states and in- Stitutions ‘“‘to increase humanitarian, legal, educational and other assistance to the victims of apartheid’ and to ‘‘in- crease support for the liberation move- ments recognized by the Organization of African Unity and to all those struggling against apartheid and for a non-racial democratic society.”’ The 11-point UN resolution is the latest in many by the world body con- demning apartheid and was prompted by increasing violence against the liberation struggle by the regime. Copies of CCSA’s letter were also sent to Canada’s UN ambassador Stephen Lewis, opposi- tion MPs and the media. Growing dissatisfaction with Canada’s position on apartheid was given impetus by recent revelations that the Canadian- based Bata Shoe company is contraven- ing the so-called Canadian code of con- duct for firms operating in that country. Bata, with two factories there, pays its workers 50 per cent below the country’s poverty line, offers them no medical or health facilities and has engaged in blat- ant union-busting. The code of conduct, by which Ottawa *“‘requests’” Canadian firms doing busi- ness in South Africa to submit annual reports, has no enforcement clauses. Its timid nature can be seen in the fact that only one of 36 firms has bothered to report. Faced with this situation, Clark said his government will review the code, but ruled out introduction of enforce- ment procedures. More light on Canadian economic ties with apartheid was shed by a detailed 98-page study released last week by the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU) Solidarity Committee (Cana- da), giving facts and figures on Canada- South Africa trade and investment. The study documents Canada’s lack of support for UN sanctions, outlines old and new arguments against sanctions and exposes the regime’s vulnerability to such steps as disinvestment. It presents data on Canadian exports and imports to South Africa, names the companies and argues that virtually no Canadian jobs would be lost by cutting trade. It details Canadian investment in apar- theid, estimated at $1.1-billion in 1981. The struggles of South Africa’s workers is shown, as is the myth of Reagan’s “constructive engagement’’ policy which bolsters apartheid while pretend- ing to work for change. Copies of this important new report can be obtained at $5 each by writing: SACTU Solidarity Committee (Canada), P.O. Box 490, Sta- tion J, Toronto, Ont., M4J 4Z2. New study details Canada-South Africa ties. The spotlight is increasingly on South Africa and the people’s struggle for liberation. Pressures are mounting on traditional friends of the regime to adhere to UN calls for the complete isolation of the white minority regime. Canada, which traffics in apartheid, is now called on to back its UN vote with concrete — _T.M. actions. UOEODEADERAD EAD DEAL EEA EEA TEA EAR TEA TEETER The North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) agreement is coming up for renewal next year. In the past, successive Canadian governments have ritually ratified the arrangement with a minimum of discussion or debate. This time, however, Canadians should not allow the Mulroney government to slip it past without asking some hard questions, because the nature of NORAD is changing in a way that threatens the security of us all. Renewal of the agreement will involve an extremely expensive upgrading of NORAD facilities, and a sharp escalation of the U.S. military presence in our North. More ominously, it will also signal Canadian acceptance of the Reagan administration’s plans to develop an integ- rated defence against nuclear missiles (Star Wars), and will almost certainly pave the way for direct Canadian involvement in that deadly illusion. NORAD grew out of the close U.S.-Canadian military co-operation during WW II. The Ogdensburg Agree- ment of 1940 granted the U.S. considerable access to Canadian territory, and integrated the defence planning of the two countries. After the Nazi danger had passed, the U.S. persuaded the Canadian government to allow the arrangement to continue in order to meet the new “Soviet threat’’ — even though such close peace-time military alignment ran counter to long-standing Cana- dian tradition. On August 1, 1957, Canadian participation it NORAD was authorized by an order-in-council of the Diefen- baker government. The agreement provided for “integration of operational control of Canadian and U.S. air defences’’, and ‘‘authoritative control of all air de- fence weapons which must be employed against an attacker’’. Fraudulent Premise These clauses in the original NORAD agreement were meant to apply to anti-bomber defences, and the package was sold to the Canadian public at the time with a great deal of ‘‘Soviet bomber threat’? type, which has since been proven to have been utterly fraudulent. Today, however, as the Reagan administration moves toward the goal of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), and Star Wars weaponry, NORAD takes on an ominous new meaning. It has recently been revealed in testimony before the U.S. Congress by Undersecretary of Defence Fred Ikle that the first objective of BMD will be to protect U.S. missile silos, not population centres, and that ground- based anti-ballistic missiles as well as space-based sys- tems will be employed. This admission holds staggering implications for Canada: ground-based anti-ballistic missiles, in order to be effective against Soviet ICBM’s coming over the north pole, will have to be deployed far to the north, on Canadian territory. 10 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 6, 1985 News Analysis Fred Weir And, in fact, the NORAD agreement as it is presently conceived allows for this to happen. In 1981, the last time NORAD was renewed, the Canadian government drop- ped a clause that ¢xempted Canada from participation in ballistic missile defence. The way is now clear for our involvement in the U.S. Star Wars project. If anyone doubts the likelihood of this, there is a highly instructive example from our not-too-distant history. In September, 1967, the Johnson administration in the U.S. made the decision to build an anti-ballistic missile system to protect North America from Soviet nuclear missiles. It was a plan that was very similar to Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars scheme except, of course, none of the weap- ons were to be built in space. Missiles at North Bay When the U.S. government released this plan in 1967, they announced that the whole anti-ballistic missile sys- tem was to be co-ordinated by NORAD. They also made known that at least one of the anti-ballistic missile sites was to be located in Canada — a special radar instal- a + if % i GREENLAND Ee Q tic a eee Sh Dye5, oso % SE ge The ‘NI 3 \ Sey oh 2 } eR steele A Sone 4) (Caos bye, GS / Es ew Control SETI | Monae x Pons EAN xe a HS : aaa y Ce hos pec > CANADA Bayt a aay “a A “necpers. Mla. Canag, enccastgeeees Chbougamay ” I * poco cee Gaia? ling (oom Ssrhantiog) 0 gMont & St. Margarets tek "take Senneterre APC se o PO noid Dana G ‘Sioux i Kamloops ‘aign YorktOn pre Falconbridge © $1 Denis 4 acific y3 ~____ Baavneyour shar ea 7|_Aviantic |_| = UNITED STATES fF gm z , g woraD Command [ ne? x % soars | Ground Everard Face Ee AS | ® Norther onan headquarters =i = & ew sites PRES A revamped “Fortress America” puts Canada front-and- centre in Reagan’s Star Wars madness. Canada — a U.S. military extension lation, and a battery of ‘‘Sprint’’ short-range interceptor missiles was to be placed at North Bay, Ontario. Fortunately, ballistic missile defence never became a reality in the past, because the USSR and the U.S. signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972 banning such weapons, they thought, forever. Now that the Reagan administration has dumped the ABM Treaty, and returned with a vengeance to the idea — of ballistic missile defence, Canada — as long as it re- mains in NORAD — is certain to be heavily involved. As Canadian defence critic John Warnock has noted, Canadian subservience to U.S. military domination in the NORAD arrangement “‘reveals that our political and military leaders have ceased to have any concept of an independent national interest for Canada.”’ Who’s the Enemy? ‘*A defence policy,’’ he writes, “‘is by definition sup- posed to protect the nation-state from war, occupation or absorption by a foreign power. For Canada, there have only been two possible military enemies: the Soviet Union and the United States. Historically, only the United States has attacked Canada, and today the only threat to Canadian sovereignty comes from the United States ... The most likely threat to Canada in the post- war period has been the possibility of an all-out war between the Soviet Union and the United States. In the era of nuclear weapons, that would mean the destruction of Canada. ‘‘Therefore, Canada’s real national interest is to re- duce tensions between the two nuclear giants in order to try to prevent such a war. That interest could best be served if Canada were to choose to act as a buffer state between the two countries, and to take the diplomatic initiative, in concert with other powers of similar inter- ests, to promote arms control, disarmament and a reduc- ~ tion of international tensions. Yet this appropriate and visible approach has been rejected by our leaders ... By joining this country to the American alliance system, they have made Canada a military extension of the United States. Far from reducing tensions in the Cold War, their continental American positions have com- pounded insecurities in the dangerous balance of | terror.” Today, as President Reagan commits his nation — and ours — to an insane, high-tech version of the old ‘‘fortress America’ fantasy, Canadians owe themselves a chance to opt out of this dangerous madness. It is the NORAD agreement, soon to be renewed by the Mul- roney government, that locks us into the American plan for continental ballistic missile defence. It is time for Canada to break with NORAD, and put our energies into the search for peace in this troubled world.