} if | { ; } WORLD Journalists hear Soviet By JAMES LEECH A peace-motivated meeting of some 80 editors of the Communist and _ revolutionary-democratic press from almost as many countries were in Moscow for Soviet Press Day, May 5, as guests of the newspaper Pravda. At a two-day round table ex- change, May 4-5, the journalists heard an analysis of the prospects for and threats to world peace, delivered by Boris N. Ponomarev, Alternate Member of the Political Bureau of the Com- munist Party of the Soviet Union, and Secretary of its Central Committee. The gathering was opened by Victor Afanasiev, editor-in-chief of Pravda, who hosted similar discussions — last November, and on the 70th anniversary of his paper, in 1982. The 70 who took part in the dis- cussion came from Europe, Asia, the Indian Ocean countries, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Canada, the USA and New Zealand. Sabotage of Peace In the past half-year, said Boris Ponomarev, the ‘‘polarization of social and political forces in the world has become more evident than ever. The extreme reaction- ary forces, headed by U.S. imperialism, continue to grow more and more aggressive.” This manifests itself, he said, ‘tin the confrontation with world socialism and with the national the sabotage of any sensible peace-loving policy.” © He referred as well to ‘“‘a tightening of the screws on the working class and other working masses’’ in capitalist countries, as part of the self-same policy. All of it is designed, the Soviet spokesman charged, ‘‘to compel the forces of socialism and peace’ to step back.’ But he reiterated the *‘firm resolve’’ of the USSR and the socialist community to ‘prevent any disturbance of the military-strategic parity.”’ Ponomarev cited examples of U.S. imperialist intervention ' against Nicaragua, El Salvador, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan. “*... the specific feature of the present-day situation,’ he said, liberation movement, and also in “is that a ‘war party’, as Lenin ‘Linkage’ excuse withering Angola thwarts U.S. plans By KERRY McCUAIG United States’ hopes of turning its disastrous policy in Southern: Africa into an election-year diplomatic coup are quickly fading. A package deal which would have removed Cuban troops from Angola while crushing practical external support for the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) has been rejected. Through its agent on the Horn, South Africa, the U.S. had hoped to impose the same shotgun deal it had foisted on Mozambique and force Angola to sue for an unjust peace. Withdrawal of South Afri- can troops which have occupied parts of Southern Angola would be timed with the leaving of Cuba’s 25,000 soldiers; cessation of Angolan aid for SWAPO and the African National Congress (ANC) would hinge on South African ending its support for UNITA, the counter-revolutionary force which has carried on damaging raids since its defeat during Angola’s war of independence in 1975. However a joint communique issued from Havana and signed by Cuban president Fidel Cas- tro and Angolan leader Jose Eduardo Dos Santos, March 19, reiterated the two countries’ position that Cuban troops would be reduced contingent on the withdrawal of South African troops from Ango- la; the acceptance of United Nations resolutions calling for the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia and its full independence; an end to South African and U.S. aggression against Angola and an end to their aid to UNITA. Although this did not represent-a departure of previous Angolan-Cuban positions, Secretary of State George Shultz called the communique a “positive step’’. Pretoria announced it would study the document, although it took immediate exception to statements in it calling the apartheid regime ‘‘repugnant’”’ and expressions of solidarity and support for SWAPO and the ANC. The communique was a serious blow to Washington and Pretoria, who are. both desperate for a solution in Namibia — a solution they had always linked to Cuban withdrawal from Angola. But world public opinion is getting anxious for some action on the Namibian situation. The Con- tact Group, comprised of the U.S., France, West Germany, Britain and Canada, which was al- legedly formed to oversee the implementation of the 1978 UN resolution calling for South Africa’s withdrawal is falling apart. It continues to expose itself as the protector of multi-national interests in Namibia. France resigned last fall. U.S. news- papers and the Congress are calling on the Reagan administration to drop the ‘‘linkage’’ provision. South Africa from its own accounts and state- ments is feeling the effects of its 17 year war with SWAPO. Economically it is facing its worse reces- sion and the loss of its soldiers is causing a backlash within the country. After a series of failures in its foreign policy, the latest being Lebanon, the U.S. is eager to at least call one success and is trying very hard in Namibia. But by its very nature it finds it difficult to be an honest broker. Sas Following the Angolan-Cuban Accord, South Africa came to the tables and agreed to -a disengagement zone. Three hundred troops from both sides were to monitor South Africa’s with- drawal from Angolan territory — Dos Santos had rejected a previous U.S. offer to be part of the monitoring party. Since then the U.S. has set up a station in Namibia where its CIA operatives rendezvous. The April 30 pull out date for South Africa has come and is well gone but its troops are still en- trenched in Angola. As time passes it becomes increasingly evident that Reagan won’t have a Namibian solution to wave in the voters’ face come’ November. called it, stands at the head of the main imperialist power. It ignores the realities and plunges blindly ahead, attempting to impose its ways on, everybody every- where.’ Ponomarev-_ pointed __to Reagan’s speeches expressing with ‘‘brazen frankness,’’ U.S. imperialism’s ‘‘adventuristic credo.”’ And behind it all is the U.S. military doctrine of dealing the first stike in a nuclear war, he added. However, he said, optimism springs from the existence of the mighty, world-wide peace movement, the socialist com- munity, the international com- munist movement, the anti- imperialist and anti-war states and movements. Among major new reverses for US: imperialist policy, Ponomarev listed: 1. Failure of the U.S. attempt to force the socialist countries to reconcile themselves to the » deployment of U.S. nuclear mis- siles in western Europe; 2. Failure of U.S. attempts at sanctions against socialism; 3. The proven ‘“‘insolvency”’ of U.S. gunboat diplomacy; 4: Isolation of U.S. imperial- ism in the United Nations; 5. Vacillations and contra- dictions in NATO ruling circles. Regarding Reagan’s ‘‘great march’’ to China, Ponomarev saw it as an election year attempt to demonstrate some kind of foreign policy success. Noting the simultaneous Chinese attacks on Vietnam, he said: ‘‘American- Chinese relations are a big card in Reagan’s anti-Soviet plans, in his ‘crusade’ against socialism, in- cluding, in the final analysis, a campaign against socialism in China as well.”’ Spelling out the Soviet Union’s formula, he said the USSR does not seek military superiority but will ‘‘never allow’’ any superior-. ity over itself and its allies ‘‘by those who are boasting that they will send socialism to the ‘ash heap of history’ ...” He listed among tasks of the Soviet media at home and abroad, the persistent explaining of the essence and full content of Soviet foreign policy and exposing the true goals of U.S. military build- up which parades as promotion of peace. Soviet large-scale plans of peaceful construction to perfect real socialism are intended to cover many decades and “‘are in- peace proposals" U.S. brazen inits \ PONOMAREV... intentions. compatible with the aggressive, bellicose intentions our ideo- logical adversary tries to impute to us,”’ Ponomarev pointed out. Pravda editor, Victor .Afanasiev, dwelt on some facts of Soviet social and economic pro- gress, including recent figures showing an industrial production increase of 4.9 per cent in the first quarter of 1984, compared to that period in 1983. At the same time — labor productivity rose by 4.6 per cent largely through the applica, tion of new technology. Still, he said, we have “to shorten the - road from the idea to actual production.” Afanasiev referred to major ef | forts in the social and economic sphere which occupy Soviet ef forts. One area of innovation is among five ministries where executives and work collectives of enterprises work more inx dependently, at the same time” increasing their responsibility. — | Another is the agroindustrial - complex which has undergone management reorganization. And the reform of secondary and voc- — ational education is being carried — through. These pursuits, and not war, he indicated, were the desired goals of the Soviet Government and people. He stressed the cCOn-— sistent role of the Soviet press in its advocacy of peace, at the same — time instilling confidence in the — Soviet people ‘‘that we have everything necessary to rebuff a_ possible aggression . The wide-ranging " discussiOlill : expressed consensus on the need to expose and turn back the eX- _ treme danger from U.S. impenalal / ism in the form of Reagan’s nu-— clear escalation. Speakers aS-_ serted that clear explanations of - Soviet policies on peace, detente — and disarmament (not as distorted — by the monopoly media) are an — essential to strengthening the — unity of peace movements, and to — lessening East-West tensions. CP leader Kashtan : .. U.S. doesn’t want independent neighbors. TORONTO — Accusing U.S. President Reagan and his ambas- sador to Canada of wanting to *‘Americanize’’ Canada, the Communist Party of Canada has urged that Ambassador Paul Robinson be shipped back to the USA. . Robinson stated on May 28 that ‘Conservative leader Brian Mul- roney, and Liberal leadership as- pirants John’ Turner and Jean Chretien, would, if elected prime minister, pursue policies satisfac- tory to the Reagan administration. ‘He spelled this out to mean the complete opening of Canada’s doors to U.S. takeovers, in- creased military expenditures and the elimination of what he called 8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 6, 1984 ‘nationalist’ policies such as the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Act,”’ a May 29 Communist Party press release notes. “This would include more energetic support to the economic and foreign policies of the Reagan administration,”’ it adds. “Mr. Robinson continues to ‘take upon himself the mantle of a gaulieter, laying down the law to Canada,”’ the statement says. (In - Nazi Germany a gaulieter was a high official assigned to govern Nazi-occupied territory). “It is in line with U.S. interfer- ence in other countries, be it Nicaragua, E] Salvador, Grenada or Lebanon the aim of which is to subordinate these countries to the interests of U.S. imperialism,” it says. The remainder of the ane ment, signed by CPC leader Wil- liam Kashtan for the Central Executive, reads verbatim: “‘Neither Mr. Robinson nor the Reagan administration wants a next door neighbor which pursues an independent course in economic and foreign affairs. They want Canada as a source of raw materials for the U.S. empire and an energetic supporter of U.S. imperialist aims. “They want to Americanize Canada. “Mr. Mulroney has stated that - a Progressive Conservative government would support the economic and foreign policies of the U.S. administration. Is Mr. Ship U.S. ambassador back — CP Robinson correct in saying the policies of Messrs. Turner and — Chretien would be similar? “Tt is to be hoped Messrs. Turner and Chretien will publicly repudiate Mr. Robinson. | ‘*Patriotic Canadians, the labor © and democratic movement can- | not afford to ignore these remarks of Mr. Robinson. “In the coming elections they — should unite their forces to — achieve the return of a large pro- — gressive group dedicated to ad- — vancing the struggle for peace, — \ jobs and Canadian independence. ‘Patriotic Canadians should — also demand that Mr. Robinson | be shipped back to the USA. Let him peddle his Reaganite rubbish — in the USA, not in Canada.”