REIS I

fe
8

EDITORIAL ee

With every passing day, the paper-thin pretext that
the U.S. used for its bombing raids on the Libyan cities
of Tripoli and Benghazi is becoming more
transparent — and the isolation of the U.S. is grow-
ing.

If Reagan’s continued posturing as the man fighting
terrorism with even greater terror is winning him favor
at home, that is only to be viewed with great alarm for
it demonstrates how quickly the U.S. media and polit-
ical leaders are willing to sacrifice peaceful
solutions — and indeed world peace — to the asser-
tion of U.S. military superiority. But the rest of the
world stands in condemnation and it is time that the
government of Brian Mulroney woke up to that real-
ity.

USS. Secretary of State George Shultz declared fol-
lowing the raid that it “established a principle, that the
U.S. will take military action under certain circum-
stances.” In fact, the U.S. has many times followed
that perversion of principle — in the Dominican
Republic, in Grenada. The question is: will it now be
used to justify a full-scale invasion of Libya if the
circumstances seem right and the media’s anti-Gadaffi
hysteria has reached the right pitch? Will it also be the
justification for the use of tactical nuclear weapons?

U.S. President Reagan has insisted that the raid was
directed against only “terrorist installations” — the
same phrase that South Africa uses daily to justify its
indiscriminate attacks against the black majority. And
what is a terrorist installation? Is it the French
embassy which was caught in the raid or the residen-
tial districts where innocent civilians were killed? Or is
it Muammar Gadaffi’s own residence which U.S.
administration officials now acknowledge was a target
of the bombing? ;

By that same argument, the White House would be
a terrorist installation. The Oval Office would be a
“terrorist command centre.”

In fact, that would be far closer to the truth, and far
closer to the reality of world politics today.

Now we learn from report in the Washington Post
that a primary purpose of the raid was the deliberate
assassination of Gadaffi himself. Reagan denies it but
when he states glibly that the U.S. “wasn’t out to kill
anyone,” only a Mulroney could give it credibility. In
fact, the State Department acknowledged that there

Break with U.S. policy

were contingency plans to deal with the death of the
Libyan leader.

Indeed, a policy of assassination is nothing new to :

the U.S. It was, after all, the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency which plotted the assassination of Fidel Cas-
tro and was complicit in the mruder of Chilean presi-
dent Salvador Allende. What is chilling is that the
U.S., by its action in last Tuesday’s raid, is elevating its
support of covert terrorism to a level of state policy.

And that is exactly what the raid was — state ter-
rorism, with all the appalling history that the term
implies. Reagan attempted to use the enormous mil-
itary might of the U.S. to eliminate a leader whose
policies it would not countenance and to terrorize a
civilian population into submission.

Virtually since the Reagan administration came
into office, under the pretext of combatting “Libyan
hit squads” or “‘Libyan-backed terrorism,” Libya has
been the target because of its removal of U.S. bases
and its opposition to U.S. Arab policy. Even Shultz
admitted during a press conference April 17 that the

_ “encouragement of dissidents” within the Libyan for-

ces to overthrow Gadaffi was one of the objectives of
the raid.

With Reagan’s comments April 18 placing the
Libyan attack as part of the crusade against “Soviet
expansionism,” the world can only shudder at the
thought of what his administration may be contem-
plating next.

Is that the policy that the Mulroney government
would have Canada follow — to be the willing

drummer boy for the U.S. troops as they are dis-

patched for yet another military adventure, drawing
the world closer and closer to nuclear catastrophe?
Certainly that is not what Canadians, thousands of
whom have already spoken out against the Libyan
raid in rallies and meetings, want to support. And that
opposition will undoubtedly grow as thousands take
to the streets in B.C. this weekend in the walks for
peace.

It’s time that the Mulroney government began tak-
ing its bidding from Canadians, not from. Washing-
ton. It should dissociate itself from the U.S. raid, speak
out forcefully against state terrorism and begin work-
ing with the majority in the UN to find the political
means to ease world tensions which the U.S. raid has
raised to a new and dangerous pitch.

Ol Dp HA Bint: Pte

| TRIBUNE

>

Editor — SEAN GRIFFIN

Assistant Editor — DAN KEETON
Business & Circulation Manager — MIKE PRONIU
Graphics — ANGELA KENYON

Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street
Vancouver, B.C. V5K 125
Phone (604) 251-1186

Subscription Rate: Canada — $16 one year; $10 six months ive
Foreign — $25 one year; S

Second class mail registration number 1560

ike many British Columbians, we are
ften appalled at the Socred sense of
priorities. So we couldn’t help getting that
feeling of incongruity when we looked
over a recent government press release on
abuses to the province’s Pharmacare sys-

People and Issues

‘SEER meee a EE

able. And he’s also reported on the
forced moving takes on many of the
elderly residents: a fear voiced in 4
report from city medical health officet™
John Blatherwick.

Blatherwick’s fear turned to ange

tem,
In it, Human Resources Minister Jim
Neilson reports that a recent probe of the
system found several large drug manufac-
turers had been paying kickbacks to some
B.C. pharamcists to favor certain brands
in their stores. The result, to no one’s sur-
prise, was higher drug prices for patients.

The kickbacks, according. to the
government release, “range from free
steaks, wine and redeemable gas coupons
to free trip and travel discounts, as well as
untraceable cash rebates.”

Neilson noted that the intent of Pharma-
care legislation was to make generic drugs,
of equal effectiveness but lower priced that
big-brand items, available to the public “if,
in the professional view of the pharmacist,
a lower priced equivalent drug is availa-
ble.” Of course, the big drug companies
used the kickbacks to get druggists to
prescribe their brands.

The minister’s solution to the problem
stands in marked contrast to that of his
colleague, Municipal Affairs Minister Bill

Ritchie, who, on the basis of no evidence,
is currently investigating “abuses” to
social housing in B.C.

Neilson’s approach to the pharmaceuti-
cal scandal was to let the industry police
itself. His release reports that the B.C.
Pharmacists Society held a one-day sym-
posium attended by representatives of
manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and
the government. The minister announced
that due to the symposium, the govern-
ment will work out an “agreement” with

manufacturers.

The municipal affairs minister closes his
release by announcing he is “‘pleased that
the situation appears to have been identi-
fied and corrective measures developed in
a co-operative manner.”

One could wish that Municipal Affairs
Minister Ritchie had been as “co-
operative” when the Expo-related evic-
tions first started to hit Vancouver in the
Downtown Eastside. Instead, as the prob-
lem worsened and spread to other districts
surrounding the exposition, the minister
met urgent requests for an eviction-freeze
by announcing an investigation into B.C.
social housing.

The fact that the main problem with
social housing in the province — the
government’s complete lack of funding for
much-needed low-rent projects — was
already known failed to deter Ritchie,
whose appointed hit squad is presently
touring the Lower Mainland. That group
has already been criticized by housing
activists as being biased in favor of privat-
ized social housing and for its method of
holding unpublicized “workshops” instead
of public hearings.

So it’s perhaps anti-climactic to note the
obvious reason for the discrepancy
between the approaches of the two Socred
ministers:.in the first case, the tarnished
reputation of private corporations was in
danger of being exposed; in the latter, the
intent is to hand over for pillage and profit
to the Kerkhoffs of this province, a

publicly-owned — or, in some cases, co-
operatively run — enterprise. In either
case, the people of B.C. are the losers.

* * *

S peaking of Ritchie, we can report that
the minister did take some action on
Expo evictions by writing replies to letters
requesting the provincial government
enact anti-eviction legislation.

One recipient of such a reply was
Communist Party provincial leader
Maurice Rush, who had written Premier
Bill Bennett last July. In a Sept. 23 reply,
Ritchie said the proposal involves “aspects
of tourism, social and housing policy, as
well as. ..municipal policy; all of which are
being capably managed by various
responsible provincial ministries and
agencies.

“Since there is-no clear indication that
the suppositions upon which the proposal
is being made are sound, I do not feel that
it would be appropriate for me to recom-
mend support at this time,” Ritchie wrote
last fall.

Since then, as has been documented,
Expo evictions have risen to the point
where they have now affected some 600
residents. That’s the latest word from
Stephen Learey, a volunteer worker with
the Downtown Eastside Residents Associa-
tion who was hired by the city to help
tenants find new accommodation.

Learey reports that in finding new pre-
mises his choices are few and that “bottom
of the barrel” hotels are all that are avail-

_plate. It turned out the Expo log?

tor to directly link the fifth deat
area since the crisis began with the &
related evictions. Solheim, an imme,
from Norway whose death has —
attracted international attention,
after refusing to eat for six weeks ™
room in the new Columbia Centre p!,

Solhiem’s sad demise makes a ke¥
about the Expo evictions case. H¢ |
been a resident of the Patricia Hotel fot 0
estimated 62 years, when, with the 1
the residents, he was given about a
notice to vacate the premises. His evi
in the cause of profit amounts to 2°”

less than the destruction of an indi¥! afi!
ell

Ip
Ha

and the attempted elimination of a0
neighborhood.

Se
py

Wire the large-scale evictions ua
Downtown Eastside — ane
Socreds’ refusal to do anything ' “j
them — may constitute a crime
Stephen Learey rather than the 27 —
ment who faces a dayincourt. 9

Learey was driving in the vicifl™, 9
Canada Harbor Place recently “14
pulled over by Port Police, and SY
quently charged with defacing 2 a i

af
B.C. plate had been circled and crosse
the manner of a no-smoking sign

“Why should I be a billbord for
propaganda?” asks Learey, who $4
plans to fight to the charge.

4 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, APRIL 23, 1986

/