va

THE NATION

Canada’ s role in
atomic diplomacy

By TIM BUCK

DDRESSING the national convention of the
: Conservative Party on October 9, Winston
Churchill appealed vehemently for what he called
“a showdown with
atomic bomb.” In a reckless inflammatory
speech, leaded with direct and provocative insults
and “name-calling” against the government of
the USSR, Churchill urged the
United States to refuse to agree
to outlawing of the ‘atomic
bomb and to ‘refuse to destroy
the stockpile of such bombs in
Heres WEASY
Lest any reader imagine that
the truculent Churchill is “out
of step,” advocating action that
international finance-capital is
not yet willing to support, it
must be pomted out that exactly
the opposite is true. Churchill ;
whip up support in Britain for policies, decided
upon in the. U.S.—without regard to British in-
terests or opinion. Churchill was but trying to
“make a case’ for the arrogant ageressive im-
perialist war policies of his senior partners;
who have new become, in fact, the financial
masters of the parasitical interests for which
he speaks. Sarin 9% | BY ae! ) PTA a a a PAR
‘The tone and text of Churchill’s speech is of
* special interest to democratic Canadians because
he was doing a propagande job in support of
the policy that Louis St. Laurent and Peason,
his new ministers for foreign affairs, are seiving
in the field of diplomacy. Louis St. Laurent and
his subordinates cannot serve Wall Street by
broadcasting public “appeals” that the U.S. refuse
to agree to outlaw the atomic bomb so they
serve as echoes of Wall Street and Washington
in the atomic energy commission of the United

Nations.

@ In the United Nations atomic energy com-
mission Canada has supported U.S. aims 11 a
manner too aggressive to be termed slavish.
Once, when Canada’s representative in that com-
mission moved a series. of amendments to a plan
proposed by the U.S, representatives, St. Laur-
ent’s deputy minister of external affairs was
rushed by plane from Ottawa to New York that
very evening to instruct the Canadian represen-
tative to withdraw the amendments. Ane Ci
resentative did so at the opening of the next
meeting of the commission, with a statement.
that contradicted, completely, the. democratic
opinions he had expressed when moving the

amendments. t ®

Tim Buck
was trying to

in the atomic energy commission of the UN and
no other. On September 30, in Paris, General
McNaughton spoke against the Soviet proposal
that the atomic bomb be outlawed, He urged
the representatives of the capitalist governments
assembled here to adopt a position upon atomic
control which a newspaper reporter described as
“the plan of the Western powers oF nothing.
General McNaughton based his argument upon

the fact that, according to him, outlawing the
atomic bomb would “most seriously reduce the

military strength of the United States, which is
the only nation now in. S S101 1
bombs, at least on any scale which would suifice
to make atomic-war.”

ments of which cannot look _ forward to the
inst the socialist

prospect of an atomic war aga
Soviet Union as complacently
goverment does. As. cooler :
representatives of the capitalist states consider-

’ ¢

i)

Russia. before she has the -

of its secret,

Since then Canada has been playing that role .

- and -accompanied by American mili

possession of atomic

@ But, there are many countries the goverh-

as the Canadian |
heads among the

ed the problem, opposition grew against the

aggressive drive to get the U.S. (Baruch) plan

‘officially adopted. Mainly because of that op-
position a proposal has now been put forward
which, if adopted, will delay action on the out-
lawing of the atomic bomb for another year and,
thereby, enable the U.S. to continue to build up
its stock of bombs. It was to help create opiuion
in favor of this proposal that Winston Churchill's
speech was made, and the Canadian government
continued its role of front man for policies which
imperialism-—General McNaughton submitted the
are in all essentials the war policies of Amevican
proposal.

.

The Soviet government moved that the UN
atomic energy commission, upon which 11 coun-
tries are represented, be convened to work out
plans for the prohibition of atomic warfare. In
opposition to that General McNaughton moved
that six powers, U.S.» USSR, France, Britain,
China, Canada, be instructed to meet “to deter-
mine whether there exists a basis for agreement
on international control of atomic energy” and
that if these six powers cannot agree they shall
report upon their discussions “to the 1949 General
Assembly. '

Thus Louis St. Laurent and his subordinates
are using Canada to obstruct efforts to prohibit:
the use of the atomic, bomb in spite of
Vishinsky’s warning against the tragic error
of assuming that the U.S. still has a monopoly
It is time that peace-loving Can-
adians spoke out against the St. Laurent policy
of making our country’s representatives the
movers of motions in favor of Wall Street’s plans
for war. :

Atom control made easy
By ALAN MAX...

ERE is how the “step-by-step” atom
control plan proposed by the United
States would actually work:
@ The U.S.-Controlled atom commiss‘on
of the UN takes over ownership of all
uranium deposits, atomic plants and labora-
tories throughout the world.
@ The U.S. continues making A-bombs
but announces it is getting ready to stop
nfaking them.
@ The U.S.-controlled commission patrols
all other countries. :
@ The U.S. continues making A-bombs
. but announces it is getting ready to con-
4 sider stopping making them,
@ The US. continues making A-bombs
but announces it is getting ready to start
considering stopping making them.
@ The US. continues making A-bombs
but announces it is getting ready to start
considering getting ready to stop making
them.
@ The US. starts dropping A-bombs on
those who say they don’t like the plan, but
the U.S. says that it is getting ready to
stop making them. ;

- ‘Martial’ plan footnote

ALHENS (August 24)—Greek government troops

have won a crushing victory over General Markos”
guerillas in their Mount Grammos stronghold, Using
an estimated 75,000 troops with full modern equipment,
tary advisors, gov-

ernment forces have stormed the guerillas’ Iast line

of defence on fortified mountain peaks, as the climax
to a bitter campaign. Confident that they have crushed
‘the backbone of armed resistance, government officials
indicated that they would now launch operations to
clean-up small groups of guerillas in other areas.

PARIS (October 16)—Secretary of State George C.
| Marshall left today on a flying trip to Greece to inspect

military situation and determine if Greece needs
more aid. — : :

ATHENS (October 18)—U.S. Ambassador Henry
Grady stated in a press conference that the Greek
military operations were unsatisfactory and that more
effective cooperation is needed between the Greeks and
the American aid mission.

‘whole miners’ union.

- weeping that Mosher: was entitled to an apology,
a retraction, a public flogging of the union:

with the conciliation board,

LABOR FOCUS.
Mosher’s ‘lie’
proven as truth

By J. B. SALSBERG

RUTH received a merciless mauling at the

hands of Pat Conroy in full view of all
delegates. at the CCL convention last week.
What is worse is the fact that after being bat-
tered, truth was labelled a lie by the same
sanctimonious gentleman. And what is worst
of all, is the further fact that most delegates
at the CCL convention knew that a nauseating .
performance was enacted before their eyes and
didn’t dare say so.

It is all related to the Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers issue. The Mosher-Conroy-Miliard
leadership of the CCL suspended the historic
union of Canada’s metal miners from the Con-
egress, because—it claimed—the official organ of
that union, printed in the U.S., carried a Canadian
story that Mosher, president of the CBRE. offer- *
ed to settle the recent railway wage dispute for
less than the other rail unions. That was, of
course, not the real reason. ‘The right-wing
CCF-dominated CCL bosses were in open war
with the miners’ union. The metal miners
leaders in Canada (imcluding Bob Carlin, a CCFer
and former MPP) had refused to joint the red-
baiting, union-splitting crowd. For such “crimes”
unions pay dearly in the CCL.

Mosher and his yes-men raised a cry of
injured innocence. Mosher never offered to settle
for less than the other unions, they cried. It —
was. slander, it was lies, they protested. They
tried to create a hysteria to justify not only
suspension but the complete destruction of the
Charlie Millard began his

waiting for the official

raiding without even
signal

But something went wrong. The suspension
of the miners was resented throughout the ranks
of the CCL. It was too raw a deal. As for
Mine-Mill members, they became more loyal to
their union than ever before in the face of this
totalitarian treatment at the hands of Mosher and
Millard. Mosher and his friends then began

@ Whether the miners’ paper should have
carried that story about Mosher’s action is de- _
batable. Whether the miners’ paper should have ~
‘apologized” forthwith is also of secondary im- —
portance. What is important to state is that _
the story the miners’ paper carried about Mosher |
is the truth. Mosher knows that. Millard knows
it. Conroy knows it. But having gone « bit
too far; failing to find the expected support for
the all-out attack on the miners’ union, the CCL
potentates demanded of Mine-Mill leaders that
they perjure themselves; that they call the truth ~
a lie; in order to have their appeal for re-admis-
sion considered. : 2,
The miners’ leaders decided, in their wisdom,
to comply with the demand for perjury. They
paid that price for unity. It was then that —
Conroy delivered a speech which was positively _
shocking.’ After the international president of
the mine union publicly apologized, Conroy took
the floor and raved and ranted again against _
the terrible “lie.” | Now, since I am not in ~
danger of being suspended: from the CCL for |
telling the trith, here, for the sake of record,
is the truth of the whole matter. Here, in the
government’s own Labor Gazette which is issued
by some of Mosher’s close friends, is the extract
from page 850 of the issue of August, 1948:
“On June 28 the negotiating committee of
the international unions notified the railway
companies that a vote of the membersips had’
resulted almost unanimously in favor of strike —
action and that, failing a settlement in the mean- —
time, there would be a concerted and peaceful
withdrawal from the service on July 15. The ©
international unions did not indicate any willing-
ness to recede from their original demand for _
an increase of 35 cents per hour. In discus
-epresentatives
the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees;
and Other Transport Workers stated that they, _
would recommend acceptance of a compromise
settlement, but this offer was. subsequently with
drawn, and on July 6 a public announcement was _
made that members of the Brothehood would ~
also strike on July 15 unless a settlement was
reached.” ee ae
That is the truth that no amount of ted-
baiting can _ hide.
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—OCTOBER 22, 1948—PAGE

~