, Si katate age Sake Gordon Wismer has introduced a bill in the legislature, pur- porting to seek “agreement” with the federal gov- ernment to have the RCMP take over the policing of British Columbia from the B.C. provincial police. Such a changeover, according to coalition spokesmen, would effect “great economies” in pol- icine B.C., but neither Wismer nor his colleagues have cared to specify or elaborate on any of these “economies. : Advancing “economy” as a reason for the RCMP taking over B.C. is pure eyewash. So also is the pretense of seeking “‘agreement”’ with ‘the federal government. It is much more likely B.C. does not want the RCMP of its cold-war policies against progressive labor and peace, that the authority of its centrally-direct- ed political police be extended; and particularly so in B.C: where the economic crisis and its evil ’ consequences are being felt the hardest, and where the atomic war blueprints of Yankee imperialism have a particular application. Behind this Ottawa-inspired move, sugar- coated with an “economy” pretext, there lurks the mentality that thinks in terms of a repressive police state—and the police force best fitted to do the dirty work. Canadians, communist or non-com- munist, do not take kindly to Gestapo rule. Thus we can say, with the editor of the Comox Free Press and other B.C. weekly journals expressing a like opinion, “We do not like this whole busi- ness. ‘that the St. Laurent government demands, as part Socialism - - ersatz and real ROM the proud position of a government pledged to socialism, with the backing of a huge majority in 1945, the new Labor government of Britain has been reduced to the status of a caretaker’ regime— a parliamentary janitor to British imperialism. ~~” Formally opening the British House of Commons on March 6, the king’s speech from the throne an- nounced that the Attlee government would pigeonhole all “controversial legislation” during 1950. No | con- tentious” portions’ of Labor’s 1945 ‘“‘socialist’”” bal- last will be introduced in the hope thereby to keep the ship of state on an even keel. ee The Tory “free enterprisers’” are jubilant. They ean rock the boat at will. For a oe recent elections consti a condemnation of socialism per se —— oe concealing the fact that the Attlee-Bevin brand of “socialism” was nothing more than toryism disguised in red flannels. Stripped of their Fabian chatter,. the policies of ~ the Labor government from 1945 onward were basic- ally Tory poli Thus Labor's setback at the polls rather a protest had cleverly maneuvered Labor into defending, rather than boldly and fearlessly advancing its own policies pledged to socialism. — ; Toryism has now not only succeeded in having the Labor government scrap its “socialist” ballast for the present, but will continue to heave that dead cargo ground—not for the purpose of defeating Labor in the house, but for keeping it in office. . . discredited. : Compare the Attlee-Bevin-cum-Churchill brand of “socialism”, with the genuine article in the Soviet ---Tn the USSR, devaluation of the ruble in 1947 was aimed at eliminating the last remnants of the - Hitlerite occupation, black market racketeers and _ speculators. For the Soviet people devaluation’ meant higher living standards, higher real and nominal wages, ‘and lower prices. (Since 1947 there have been three substantial price cuts in basic foodstuffs, clothing, fur- - niture and home construction materials). In “‘socialist” Britain the devaluation of the pound sterling—under the dictation of dollar impenial- ism—had quite the opposite effect. Wages were slash- things, in which the Tories Tit Mmm TT ed from ten to thirty percent; living standards (“‘aus- terity’”’) hit a new low, and prices of basic com- modities skyrocketed. , \ Under the Socialist planning of the USSR, the fruits of post-war industrial reconstruction and expan- sion are passed on to the people in higher living, cul- tural and social standards. In “‘socialist’’ Britain even staid organs of finance: and respectability such as the London Economist are forced to admit that the profit indices of big business, whether “nationalized” or not, reflect a high level of prosperity under Attlee’s “‘socialism’’. Prosperity for the coupon clippers—austerity for the workers! - * In the back-room confabs of British toryism many big industrial tycoons are very emphatic in their estimation of the labor government, as against a gov- ernment led by their own kind with Winsome Winnie at the helm. With admirable British frankness some of them openly declare that Labor’s re-election with a slim majority helps to “‘restrain the extremists” and keep British labor in line with tory policies—with much less bother and worry than a tory government would face. : iit as That kind of “socialism” is totally absent in the Soviet Union, primarily because it is the workers and not the “‘free enterprisers’” of capitalist exploitation who plan, direct, and carry out socialist policies. With a “‘gentlemen’s agreement’’ to set “‘contro- versial’’ legislation aside, it is highly probable that the Bnitish Tories, while sniping continuously at its “‘so- cialist’’ effigies in the government, will do their best to keep them there—for the long-range purpose of foist- ing tory policies (with a socialist label) on the British people. In the Socialist Soviet Union, and the New Dem- ocarcies and People’s China, moving rapidly towards socialism, wherever Marshall plan ‘‘aid’” does not ictate governmental policies, the trend is rapidly rising standards of life, normal price levels, and social- ized spending on a gigantic scale for peacetime ad- vancement. In “‘socialist’’ Britain the trend of government policies is from “socialist austerity” to tory pauper- _ ization. ‘ IHHNEUNEEUQTE SQUUHNUTANUOUAGEQUEUUEUU OMY UEMEUECENEUEGRCUHERYE : The Soviet-Chinese Treaty — HEN the terms of the 30-year alliance between is “the most significant, most fact in the relation of any foreign power -” . : with ington could say that there must be secret clauses which had not been divulged and that any govern- ment which signs any agreement with the Soviet — Union, no matter how favorable it -may seem, is sure later to regret it. ee The first of these observations is virtually cer-— tain to be true, and the second likely to prove so. - But that will not lessen the effect which the treaty will have now in China and everywhere throughout the Orient. Instead of showing Russia grabbing chunks of China, as Mr. Acheson had charged, it shows her generously returning what the United States, when this country was playing the part of an ally, had ‘helped to force China to surrender. Coming ‘at a time when the United States is putting pressure on as it appears in Oriental eyes, understand why the moral as well as the political Sees passed to the Communists in the Far ~ __Fyom the Christian Century, March 1, 1950. .TOM McEWEN Printed by Union Printers Ltd., 650 As We See lt HRHAPS we live too close to events to appreciate fully their great historic significance. February 14, 1950, marked one of © these epochal milestones, On that day the Union of Soviet Socialist — Republics and the People’s Republic of China, through the repre sentatives of their respective governments, signed a Treaty of Friend. ship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance. For the millions of Russian and Chinese people it marked a new stage of, mutual goodwill and friendship, and a new factor in inter- national relations. For the common people of the whole world the Soviet-Chinese treaty is a mighty contribution to the strengthening of the forces of peace and democracy. ‘ This Soviet-Chinese treaty gave the atomaniacs in Washington ~ : and their deputies in Ottawa and London the jolt of | their lives. Already it has had the effect of toning down their hell-bomb talk considerably. It will be recalled that while China’s Mau Tse tung and Chou En-lai were in Moscow negotiating — this historic treaty, our “free’’ press in the Western world was indulging in a orgy of the wildest spec- ulation. High government spokesmen in Washin-_ ton gave out with all sorts of press “releases,” tO the effect that the Soviet-China negotiations had hit a snag. Naturally Ottawa and London followed suit. “Russia démanding hegemony over China,” “A new Tito challenges the Kremlin,” “Stalin wants to gobble China,” and so on. ‘This press campaign of distortion, misrepre- % sentation, and wishful thinking, directed by the high-pressure propaganda machinery of the Washington hell-bombers —and avidly picked up and parrotted by their Charlie McCarthys in Canada, put all the emphasis on what these crusaders of “Western civilization” hoped would happen... but didn’t. : What did happen is destined to be recorded in history as one of the most powerful road-blocks in the path of the new Hitleri dollar imperialists by the single action of 700 million people, Those who hoped for a new Tito to pick up where the discredited Chiang Kai-shek regime left off—to return China as an Asiatic cock- pit of western imperialist rivalries, exploitation and civil war, will find little comfort in the Soviet-China treaty, nor little compariso! between what they hoped and schemed and worked for .. . and wh did happen. Article 1 of the treaty might well be regarded as an atomaniac nightmare: _ “Both Contracting Parties undertaking jointly to take all W nécessary measures for the purpose of preventing the resumption of aggression and violation of peace on the part of Japan or any ott state which would unite with Japan directly or indirectly in any a” of aggression. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties i attacked by Japan or states allied with it and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party will immediately rem” der military and other assistance with all the means at its disposal- The wild hopes for Soviet-China friction were shattered, the door for a new Munich in Asia closed, even while the representatives of “Western civilization’ were wrestling with the problem in Colomb®O Ceylon, of how to pry the door off its hinges with a “Pacific pact.” History passed them by, but left them the solace of “a cup if tea. »* three or four times a day’? to soothe their frayed tempers—and the! inability to demonstrate that “it is we and not the Russians who stand for national liberation and economic and social progress.’’ (EX ternal Affairs Minister L. B. Pearson in the House of Commons, Feb- ruary 22, 1950. ; It’s enough to make the boys of the old “extra-territorial rights” school-tie weep. Here Russia is supposed to have been imposing “Com munist domination,” “hegemony” and what not, to say nothing of moving everything movable out of China! And now? On the Chinese Changchum Railway, key link in thé Marshall planners’ plan for an atomized “democratic” China, thé treaty reads: “Both Contracting Parties have agreed that the Soviet Gove ment transfers gratis to the government of the Chinese People’s B® public all its rights in the joint administration of the Chinese Chans chun Railway, with all the property belonging to the railway. Tré fer will be effected immediately upon the conclusion of a peace tt with Japan, not later however than toward the end of 1952.” United to halt further aggression; recognizing the sovereign rig} of the Chinese people to run their own eeraiece .. even a railroad the treaty further provides: ; “The Governmet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics giran' the Central People’s Government of the Chinese People’s Ropu credit counting in dollars amounting to 300 million American dollat _..-In view of the extreme devastation in China as a result of P longed hostilities on its territory, the Soviet Government has a to grant credit, on favorable terms at 1 (one) percent annual intere Small wonder that the atomaniacs of Washington, London Ottawa are biting their fingernails and seeking, through the medil of their powerful press and propaganda a “ oy gencies to “play down bisterio signifieance | of the Soviet-Chinese treaty. = oe Piss. indeed “sour grapes,” after having hoped so much for a Chinese who would undertake the “socialization” of China under “Mars? _ plan” auspices, and who are now faced with a Marxist-Leninist dissoluble alliance of 700 million people, determined on peace ¥ gk Soe isa tie 8 the world, a itorial at the bottom of this ; stian © tury adds to the hell-bombers’ nightmares oe eee ae es ey dC) EDS ! lhe wal tae : Published Weekly at 650 Ho : By THE TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY LTD. vere Wh y we: i) vivunthinensnenntttfl j _ >» Telephone Tom McEwen .. cs peaieeeee dit ocd oe oe RCLCOE, _ Subscription Rates: 1 “Year, $2.50; 6 ‘Months, $1.35. Authorized as second class mail, Post Gre ieee. cael PACIFIC TRIBUNE—MARCH 17, 1950—P.