‘Looking ahead to 1965 By NELSON CLARKE HERE do we stand on the great issue of peace or war as we enter 1965— the 20th anniversary both of the defeat of fascism and the unleashing of the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Naga- saki? Through nearly 20 years of heroic and persistent struggle the peace forces have been able to prevent outbreak of the nu- clear holocaust which was fore- shadowed by the murderous United States bombing of ‘the two Japanese cities. But peace has not yet been made secure. It still must be fought for day by day with growing unity and ever greater determination. It would be fatal (in the full meaning of that word) to make the mistake of believing that world war has now become “un- thinkable,” and that the pro- gressive forces of this or any ‘other country do not need to be constantly vigilant and active to save the peace. The fact is that powerful big business forces in the capitalist countries are still determined to deny the right of peoples of the colonial and former colonial countries to decide their future for themselves. This can be seen in the brutal intervention. of United States and Belgian forces in the Congo. It can be seen in the continued refusal of the government of the United States to establish nor- mal, peaceful relations with socialist Cuba. Most dangerous of all today is the continuing war in Viet- nam, and the constant pressure being applied upon President Johnson by General Maxwell Taylor and his friends in the Pentagon for a policy of spread- ing that war to North Vietnam, to Laos and to Cambodia. Neither Johnson nor Taylor have been willing to tell the world the conclusions of their recent talks in Washington, but this much is quite clear — pre- sent United States efforts are being directed toward stepping up the war. It is said that Johnson is de- manding a heightened “effort” by the South Vietnamese them- selves. But the realities of the situation in that war weary country are that no increased military activity will take place without more U.S. guns and planes, and more U.S. forces,. without a deeper United States commitment to a policy of mili- tary victory, which is not pos- sible and in the end leads only toward nuclear war. A further fact of the present world political situation is that the West German militarists, the clique that twice in this country plunged the world into war, are pressing with increas- ing desperation to get their hands on nuclear weapons. They want these weapons as a means of blackmail to undo the results of World War II, to restore capitalism in the German Demo- cratic Republic, to once more over-run all of Europe. This is what is behind all the talk about a multilateral nuclear force. It is a device schemed up between the war plotters in Bonn and Washington, to allow the heirs of Hitler to acquire control over the most dreadful weapons ever invented by man. Canadians have not paid enough attention to the multi- lateral nuclear force. Pearson and Martin have been soothing our concern with assurances that Canada has no intention of participating, and that consider- ation will be given to the “re- negotiation of our nuclear role” as promised by the Liberals in the last federal election. But there are disturbing re- ports coming out of Ottawa to the effect that the “re-negotia- tion” may be in a far different direction from what most Cana- dians expect and want. For example, a story by Dave McIntosh of the Canadian Press ‘released on Nov. 25 said: “Federal authorities, including cabinet ministers, now are giv- ing serious attention to the pos- sibility of an about-turn in long- term Canadian nuclear weapons policy. “A switch to a continuing nuclear role in the North Atlan- tic Alliance might be under- taken, sources say, as one means of trying to prevent an outright break between France and the United States and to in- duce France to take a greater part in Alliance strategy.” Such inspired stories are either a signal of an actual change in policy, or they are a trial balloon to test public reac- tion. In either case there is ob- viously the need for a powerful protest from that great body of Canadians who stand opposed to the nuclear arming of the Ger- man revenge seekers, and who believe that Canada should take the lead toward general nuclear disarmament, by itself getting rid of nuclear weapons. To recognize serious dangers in the present situation should not in any way give rise to feel- ings of defeatism and despair about the prospects for peace. On the contrary, the great yet simple idea of peaceful coexist- ence, based on the understand- ing that war is not inevitable, has grown in these recent years into a mighty force. The successful completion of a test ban treaty over a year ago was a real demonstration of the power of this idea. A little more than a month ago the American people reject- ed, by one of the greatest land- slides in their history, a_presi- dential candidate who openly challenged peaceful coexistence. The reaction from Canadians Danger spots to peac to the Goldwater campaign gives us sound reason to believe that our people, faced with a similar threat. from the _ ultra-Right, would have reacted even more overwhelmingly to defeat it. What is needed in our coun- try now is an extension of the activities of all those organiza- tions working for peace, devel- oping their own programs of action to reach out to ever wid- er sections of Canadians, while at the same time cooperating on those key issues on which a broad agreement already exists. There is wide agreement among all peace organizations on the urgent need for the Cana- dian government, as a member of the International — Control Commission, to speak up for an end to the war in Vietnam, for the reconvening of the 14-nation Geneva conference to restore peace in Southeast Asia and bring about the withdrawal of U.S. forces and U.S. arms. There is the basis for a great protest against the multilateral nuclear force and all other vari- ations upon this theme. This basis is rooted in the conviction that we must not dishonor the memory of 100,000 Canadians who died in two world wars by ‘now putting nuclear weapons in tl “hands of the West German - war-makers. It is rooted too in the powerful opposition to ac- ceptance of nuclear arms by Canada which was the focal point of the last federal elec- tion, and which continues in the demand that the Pearson gov- January 8, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Pat ernment renegotiate its nuty, commitments — not to exh; but to end them. at The ending of the wat! Vietnam would be a blow st? for the liberation of all oppi, ed peoples everywhere. 5; The defeat of the multilal® force idea would open the ® for the banning of undergrd: nuclear tests, for prohibit® on the spread of nuclear aN for the banning of all nu@ weapons, and finally for winning of general and comp disarmament. ° a The problem before all plk workers in Canada: is to D public opinion to bear decis upon the government. Theré many ways of doing this: let and delegations to membel*® Parliament, petitions, newsp advertisements _ sponsored © prominent public spokesi™ resolutions from organizati> of the people, and espech from labor unions, large Wy supported public demonsig tions. All these forms of ap should be used, recogni that different sections of 4 nion can be more effectits mobilized around one form “e another, =) j Let us resolve to make } a year of stronger and @ united action for peace in’ country. Let us do all we ® to make sure that this new J will mark a giant step forW by all mankind toward “a without weapons, a world out wars.”