As bombs drop

on VIETNAM ... ... Shares go up

on WALL STREET

By MARK FORDHAM (London Morning Star) -

T one time, American spokes- men would go into long and involved arguments to

prove that their planes were only after “military targets,” when they bombed Vietnam.

We don’t hear so much of these arguments these days. And one reason is that reports show the type of weapons used can serve only one purpose—that of mass terror against anyone who happens to be beneath the raid- ing planes. :

Such a .weapon is the anti- personnel -bomb, which has figured more and more in raids on North Vietnam.

Let Life magazine describe it: ;

The CBUS’s, or Cluster Bomb Units, are “canisters which burst in the air, scattering 300 base- ball-sized explosive which deto- nate on impact, each spraying hundreds of pea-sized pellets at high velocity over a wide area.

“The pellets are coated with napalm and stick when they hit.” - We know such weapons are used. And we know that some- ‘one in America must be making them.

Opponents of Johnson’s war have been increasingly active in

America picketing the firms.

which make these diabolical weapons, to such a degree that the Pentagon has tried to keep

secret the names of firms given such contracts.

Some firms have found the business tdo much to stomach.

The American journal, Metal-

working News, speaking of the anti-personnel-bomb production, says: . ; ’ “Reportedly: some diecasters have shied away from the pro- ject. If the air force knows the reasons, they are not being dis- cussed.”

But some firms have taken the job on. After all, it pays them well. The Honeywell Corpora- tion of Minneapolis is in on the project. :

This firm has marked up.a 50 percent increase in business in three years. Last year, its after- tax profit was $45 million.

There are equally good profits to be made from the aircraft which drop the bombs. Remem- ber that a plane which is shot down is good business too.

The Grumman Aircraft Com- pany which makes the A6A In- truder plane flying from Ameri- can aircraft carriers in the Paci- fic, is one of the companies re- commended by Wall Street ex- perts to shareholders who want a good, guaranteed return for their investments. ;

Estimated profits this year are likely to be over 15 percent up on 1966 and 60 percent up on 1965.

In May 1966, the New York Times reported that out of 516 industrial and other firms under review, 151 had profits higher than at any time in their history. The average was 10 percent up on 1965.

Significantly aircraft firms showed an increase of 55 percent and chemical firms an increase of 14 percent.

With the war in Vietnam cost- ing an estimated $22 billion to $25 billion a year, advancing by leaps and bounds while wel- fare programs at home are slashed, then clearly the possibi- lities for profits are immense.

Defense department experts suggest that it costs $400,000 to kill one guerilla fighter. No one has explained whether this really means a National Liberation Front fighter or just any Viet- namese.

But for American Big. Busi- ness, particularly in the field of arms manufacture, prospects are rosy. :

As a spokesman for Hayden Stone and Co. one of the oldest brokerage houses on Wall Street said in February:

“Whatever storm signals may be flying with respect to the market’s vulnerability for 1967, no basic earnings deterioration can be anticipated for the de- fense group.”

Wide range of topics at Stockholm parley

Support for the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam (July 6-9) is growing in many countries. The organizers of the confer- ence have announced that pre- parations for the world-wide as- sembly are well under way. The following -commissions wil be set up at the conference: (1) International law and_ the war in Vietnam

(2) The face of the war

(3) The struggle for indepen- dence and development in . Vietnam (4) Peace initiatives—real and deceptive

(5) The growing isolation of the USA in the world, due to their policies and actions in Vietnam

(5) Material aid for Vietnam

(6) Coordination of activities for peace and independence in Vietnam.

The following reports and pa- pers will be presented to the conference:

—An opening address by Pro- fessor D. F. Fleming on Ameri-

June 2

ean foreign policy in the Far East.

—Vietnam and _ international law, by Dr. William L. Standard, chairman of the Lawyers’ Com- mittee on American Policy to- wards Vietnam (USA).

—The use of napalm, poison- ous gases and other weapons of mass annihilation, by Dr. John Takman (Sweden).

—The escalation of the warin Vietnam, by John McDermott, co-editor of Viet-Report (USA).

—A brief account of the so- cio-economic, political, religious and ethnic composition of Viet- nam in relation to the present war in Vietnam, by Dr. Ivo Va- siljejev of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences (Czechoslovakia).

—A historical analysis of the struggle for independence Up to the signing of the 1954 Geneva Agreements, and from 1954 to 1965, by Professor Philippe Devillers, of the Institute of Po- litical Studies of the University of Paris (France).

—A report on attempts to

3, 1967—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—Page 10,

reach a political settlement in Vietnam from 1954 to date, by Mrs. Peggy Duff, secretary- general of the International Con- federation for Disarmament and Peace (Great Britain), assisted by Ajit Singh (India).

—The Vietnam war and the political and moral isolation of America, by Prof. Gunnar Myr- dal of the Institute for Interna- tional Economic Studies, Univer- sity of Stockholm (Sweden).

—Brief reports on changes in governmental policies, major op- position parties, important pub- lic bodies, the press and peace movements in:

(a) countries allied to the USA (collected by the Interna- tional Confederation for Disarmament and Peace)

(b) non-aligned and neutral countries (collected by the International Institute for Peace, Vienna).

—A factual report on the ex- tent of aid, to the Vietnamese people, compiled by the Interna- tional Institute for Peace, Vien- na.

THE ONTARIO LEGISLAT ‘IN. SESSION

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

By BRUCE MAGNUSON Ontario Leader, Communist Party

conference has been set for sometime in lal ber—a fact which may push the next elect! to sometime early next year—it is instructive to re legislative debate dealing with the motion to con a conference. _ Particularly instructive in this regar tion to the debate by Attorney-General A. A. +0) contribution was singled out for: universal opposit! much abuse in the capitalist press. Here is 4 part contribution: ith Wishart: “What are the problems? They af “i provinces. The great problems are with the provin _ Donald MacDonald (NDP Leader): “And the © palities.”. “vil Wishart: “That is one of the problems of the i Who builds the means of communications, the M¥cy The provinces. We have, and I acknowledge, 4 trans highway in which a large share of assistance was oa the federal government. But that is completed highways now are built by the provinces. rovl “Who develops the natural resources? The P eve the lands and forests the mines, the economlt. ., 0)” ment. Who builds the public buildings? The Pf" nd cept the post office, customs. Health, educatiO™ ine creatures of the provinces, the municipalities, 4" and ponsibility of the provinces. They are a problem | cell great problems of today are not the problems th government, but the problems of the provinces: Tom? “When we sit down in the Confederation or {4 mind: tem? : etl

into 4

0 thére and frame fiscal arrangements. B rs that conference on Confederation, perhaps J overshadowing, but shedding a light upon that cussion, there will be the awareness, and in © mind there will be the knowledge, that the money» é to be achieved, as we usually get them in govern taxes, must be in large part funds available to the which in truth have the problems which require resources for their solution. We cannot get ® this fact, and we must face it.

“So in considering our relatonship, in C° Confederation, whether or not we write a new Cw I think we must amend it by some means OF other. relate it to the realities of this day and as t tinue to be. And I say that we could sta British North America Act has stood us in g00 had its faults, its defects and we must have change it as best we could. at

“Certainly we should bring home the right, af change it. We are mature, we are capable, We 2 rly, up nation. The provinces are capable. We are think, to sit down*as provinces and say, this We will reach agreement, we will fram thus we may start entirely fresh. And I W n

oint: the federal government, the central 80) ongs to the provinces. The provinces do not bé central government. That is essential to provinces— in!

Elmer Sopha (Lib. Sudbury): “Cartier di with that.” cont?

Wishart: “The provinces originally created gail tion. It is the provinces who must come toget er ave say, ‘This is the type of federation we Sh@) . ies changed powers to meet the changed responsib! exist today.’

“I say the problems of today are c of 100 years ago. Let us open our eyes 4 Our neighbors to the South perhaps set US They, as sovereign states, sat down together an 0 are soverign entities, we are sovereign states a io!

J. B. Trotter (Lib. Parkdale): “We are 'Y"° opposite.” 5

Wishart: “And they still call themselve., they say, ‘We will delegate to the central gove f tain of our powers, but we retain our sovereign a did. I am fully aware that through the amendment certain of those powers which me the state were taken and allocated to the a ment of the United States. But perhaps—at out this thought—perhaps we have to take possibly somewhat similar, that we 10 prov! da, come to the Confederation of Tomor