RIME Minister King once said that the secret of his

success lay in not
to the principle o

Out. He is a cautious man.

doing things. He also paid homage
f letting things work themselves
But one requires a stronger

phrase—perhaps deliberate procrastination—to describe his
Tesponse to the four-point memorandum addressed to him
by the National Council for Canadian-Soviet Friendship

on May 10.

The reply given by Lester B.
®arson, under-secretary of state
for external affairs, was dated
August 8. Pearson said that,
besides being busy, King ““de-
layed so that your proposals
Could be given careful consider-
ation.” Result? Nil!

What sticks out’ from Pear-
Son's reply like a Liberal
Platitude is the fact that the
f0vernment of Canada is not
Concerned, but rather is smugly
complacent with the way in
Which Canadian-Soviet relations
have deteriorated.

The scandalous actions of. the
Canadian government during the
SPy scare (which King melo-
dramatically initiated) seem to
be the permanent excuse for
doing nothing about trade with

Ussia or improving relations.
Figures speak louder than
®arson’s diplomatic evasions,

Which he was so anxious to
8ive to the press. In a report
tabled on July 14, 1947 Finance

ter Abbott said, “The in-

terest of Canada in the restor-
ation of social and - political
Stability in the borrowing coun-
tries and thereby in the achiev-
ng of a just and enduring
Peace, is equally real and
important.”

How much is Canada inter
sted in the most grievously
hort of our allies, the USSR?

_ FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1947

Up to the end of March, 1947,
Canada made available loans
amounting to $1,844,500,000
plus some ~ small amounts for
UNRRA and relief. Almost two
billion dollars in credits — of
which the USSR received $4.u
million in 1945-46 and a measly
$100,000' in the present fiscal
year. The shameful sum of $3

million (less than the cost of ©

a good-sized ship) is Canada’s
total effort to help rebuild the
USSR. And press and politicians
have the audacity | to-
Jectures to Moscow. — .

the USSR has not asked
for more. Does he want Mos-
cow to go on bended knee to

this country, especially after
the official and disgraceful
statements that have been made
about Russia since . the spy
scare was drummed up as part
of the ‘atomic diplomacy’ black-
mail? It is stuff and nonsense
for him to say that we cannot
have a friendship treaty with
Russia because Britain and
Russia are discussing amend-
ments to their 20-year pact.
Why is it all right for cpanel
Mazxshall at Rio to include
Canada in his western ‘security
zone’ without 4 treaty with us,

¢

C js rubbish for Pearson to
say

read .

and not all right for Canada
to take up its own defense
problems as they concern the
north? Pearson’s remarks are

‘the most brazen* hypocrisy.

The fact that the USSR did
not participate in the unsuccess-
ful Geneva conference of the
International Trade Organiza-
tion of the United Nations
(whose work cannot substitute
for a changed economic policy
by the United States) is no
reason at all for not pursuing,
as Roberts rightly proposes, a
positive’ trade policy anent the
USSR.

Canada was positive enough
when it came to joining in the
run on the Bank of England
for U.S. dollars. There isn’t
much sentiment in King’s of-
fices in the East Block. Can-
adian traders and _ politicians
are cold-blooded men, who have
sold Canada’s birthright as an

independent nation (and as a
member of the United Nations)
for a mess of General Marsh-
alls pottage. It will stick in
cur throats.

The fact of the matter is
that the Canadian government
is committed to a line of anti-
Soviet policy, and is by the
same token sacrificing the true
interests of Canada in peace,
Big Four unity and expanded
trade with Russia, Asia and
Eastern Europe. Tied as our
government has tied us to the
U.S. dollar and to the coming
of US. economy,

crisis our

“country is doomed to terrible

hardship and perhaps even to
war. The most urgent job labor
has, is to work to change this
government and its suicidal
course.

- not

agencies to

Pearson-Roberts exchange
sets out viewpoints

OLLOWING is an exchange of letters between Leslie

Roberts, president of the National Council for Canadian-

Soviet Friendship, and Lester B. Pearson, under-secre-
tary of state for external affairs, as released to the press
last week by F. W. Park, national director for the National
Council for Canadian-Soviet Friendship.

From Lester B. Pearson,
under-secretary of state for
external -affairs, to Leslie
Roberts, president of the Na-
tional Council for Canadian-
Soviet Friendship.

E prime minister has asked

me to thank you for your
courtesy in sending him the
memorandum on Canadian-Sov-
iet relations resulting from the
national conference on Canadi-
an-Soviet Relations held at
Ottawa on May 10. r

The memorandum reached the
prime minister at a particular-
ly busy period during the recent
session of parliament and this
reply has been delayed so that
your proposals could be given
careful consideration. As a re-
sult of that consideration, I
am instructed by the prime
minister to reply along the fol-
lowing lines: 3

The memorandum contained
four proposals for improving
relations between Canada and
the USSR. The first proposal
was that Canada should “in-
itiate trade discussions with the
government of the Soviet Union
to be based on long-term cred-
its granted by Canada.”

The Canadian government is,
of course, concerned at all
times to develop and expand
Canada’s external trade. We
are at present engaged at Gen-
eva in multilateral tariff nego-
tiations with sixteen
countries - at the
conference on trade and em-
ployment called by the economic
and social council of the
United Nations. There has been
widespread disappointment that
the Soviet government has not
felt. able to accept the invita-
tion to participate in these
negotiations at this stage.

It is intended, however, that
a further conference will be
called next winter to establish
an international trade organiz-
ation along the lines of the
draft charter now being pre-
pared at Geneva, and that all
members of the United Nations,
as well as certain other coun-
tries, will be invited to partici-
pate.

The Soviet government has
recently approached the
Canadian government for any
long-term credit. There was a
discussion early in 1946 about a
substantial Canadian credit for
the Soviet Union, on terms com-
parable with other trade credits
granted under the Export
Credit Insurance Act of August
15, 1944. These negotiations
did not result in a credit be-
cause the Soviet government
stated that it was not willing
to consider a loan on_ these
terms.

s

EE second proposal was that
Canada should “facilitate cul-
tural exchanges between Canada
and the USSR, encouraging the
CBC, the National Film Board,
the National Gallery and other
exchange cultural
materials with the Soviet Un-
ion.” ee
The following steps have been
taken by the Canadian govern-
ment to promote a greater flow
of information between’ the
USSR and Canada.

(Continued on Page 12)

other,
preparatory

_ From Leslie Koberts, presi-
dent of the National Council
for Canadian-Soviet Friend-
ship, to Lester B. Pearson,
under-secretary of state for
external affairs. A

. e
Ec has not been possible as
ye

t to convene a meeting of —
our national executive to con-
sider your answer to this coun-
cil’s memorandum of May 12.
That memorandum, as you
know, resulted from a_ confer-
ence held in Ottawa attended
by. delegates from all parts of
the country. As you wish to
release your reply of August 8
immediately, I am taking the
liberty of making one or two.
personal observations.

First, as to your reference to
the fact that the Soviet Union
has not “recently approached
the Canadian government for
any long-term credits,” it does
not seem to the writer that we
have here what could be called
a positive trade policy. Certain-
ly the great ‘export trade to
which the bureau of statistics
is constantly calling attention
was never founded on the
thesis of sitting back to wait
for applications for long-term
credits.

I think it would be useful if
more information were made
public about the trade discus-
sions of early 1946 to which
you refer. You mention that
they. broke’ down in spite of
our offer of credits “on terms
comparable to other trade cred-—
its granted under the Export

Credits Insurance Act.” I won- _

der if you meant terms com-

parable to the earlier short
term credit granted to the
USSR. ($3 millions repayable

within five years at 2 percent)
or the long term credits grant-
ed to several other countries,
repayable within 30 years at
3 percent and involving much
larger amounts.

yo: notice a lack of recipro-
city in attempts to establish
a broad base of exchange in
what may be called the cultural
area. We, for our part, have
found the reverse to be the
case. We have on hand a num-
ber of requests from Soviet
organisations for material on
Canada, most of which can
only be inadequately dealt with.

Soviet musicians and artists —
want to get more material on

the work of their Canadian
counterparts. Libraries and
schools in the war-ravaged

Ukraine are in need of texts
‘in the English language so that
their children may _ study
English. :
I am sure that our national
executive, largely composed of |
men and women whose names
are nationally known in the
fields of the arts . . . writers,
painters, musicians . . . would
like nothing better than to
join representatives of the fed-
€ral administration around a
table to discuss ways and
means by which positive and
useful exchanges can be worked
out. “
(Continued on Page 12)

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE ll