se

WORLD

Reserves to play PR role

Continued from page 1

The paper outlines a strategy for the complete militarization of the Arctic. In addition to the subs, new Arctic airstrips and bases will be established and existing ones modernized. A training base will go into operation during the 15 year span the paper covers.

The U.S. and other NATO members are given a free rein to test equipment and train their troops. The Pentagon is also per- mitted . to use Canada as a for- ward base “‘in times of nuclear conflict”.

The hefty price tag the paper brings with it is justified by the economic benefits. No other

Canadian government has so boldly promoted defence spend- ing as a major plank in its eco- nomic strategy. “‘Defence spend- ing is of benefit to all sectors of society”’, it reads, emphasizing the 294,000 jobs generated by the $12-billion dished out during 1985-86.

The paper’s economic argu- ments are littered with the jargon of the neo-conservative age. Canadians are assured that de- fence spending is good for them. The program will contribute to the ‘“‘development of new tech- nical skills’’, the “‘growth of small business”’ and ‘‘the education and training of highly skilled work-

”

ers’. “Canadian international competitiveness’’ will be en- hanced, international trade will expand and regional ‘‘economic disparities’’ will be overcome.

Public Relations Hype

There is a heavy public rela- tions component to the docu- ment. It acknowledges that Canadians find the prospect of war “‘abhorrent’’. ‘‘Public atti- tudes toward defence have been affected by ... some of the un- pleasant realities of international security’’, it notes. The report also concedes that some do ques- tion whether arms spending is the best use of social resources.

Peace activists, women, poor critical of defence paper

Special to the Tribune

TORONTO — _— Repre- sentatives of the peace, labor, environmental, anti-poverty and women’s movements called a press conference June 6 in Toron- to to respond to Perrin Beatty’s White Paper on Defence.

Warning that the proposals contained in the White Paper will “draw Canada further into the United States’ plan for nuclear war-fighting’”’ David Kraft, co- ordinator of the Toronto Dis- armament Network, called for an open and critical review of Cana- dian defence policy.

Lashing out at the proposed purchase of 10 nuclear-powered submarines at a cost of more than $7.5-billion, Kraft said the sub- marines had a purpose far more sinister than simply asserting Arc- tic sovereignty, they are the final touch to drawing Canada into a continental military policy with the U.S.

‘‘Star Wars is the roof, the North Warning system and the Air Defence system are the walls and the nuclear submarines are to be the floor of the U.S. nuclear war-fighting policy’’, he said.

Anne Swarbick, executive assistant of the Toronto Labor Council, asked how Canada can be taken seriously when it calls

’ for an end to the arms race while

at the same time fueling it by doubling its military expendi- tures.

The economic consequences of —

the White Paper are also an issue. The increases tabled in the de- fence paper will cost every Cana- dian one thousand dollars, said Rick Myers of STOP 103, an anti-poverty organization. ‘‘How can single parents and those living at a minimum wage level be ex- pected to pay such costs?’” he asked.

“Budgets are generally bal- anced On the backs of the people who can afford them least,” Myers Said. “‘So far it’s been in human Services and monies allo- cated to provinces for provincial sharing. It’s been at the expense of science, an area in which Canada used to excel. Now again, it seems human services are going to be cut at the expense of a mili- tary-industrial complex that may be taking over Canada.”

Sue Colley, of the National Committee on the. Status of Women, voiced concern that the Mulroney government’s military spending will put serious road- blocks in the way of future social spending in Canada. ~

Pointing to the crisis facing child care in Canada, Colley que- ried how the government could buy nuclear submarines at a time when so many Canadian children lack accessible child care.

‘‘With this money the Mul- roney government could double the number of day care spaces in Canada. Half the cost to make it affordable and carry it out for 10 whole years,’’ Colley said.

‘**Secondly, they could con-:

struct and provide the capital costs for 20,000 day care centres, providing one million day care spaces in Canada and also create 50,000 new jobs.”’

The contravention of Canada’s nuclear policies and the environ- mental impact of the nuclear submarines on the fragile Arctic eco-system were the focal point of a presentation by John Willet, a

researcher with Greenpeace.

Canada. Noting that each of the nuclear reactors on the new sub- marines will carry, at the very least, two to three tons of fuel. This fuel is highly enriched ura- nium, enriched to a level above that needed to make nuclear weapons.

Yiiowkate fy,

4

Ratna inet i,

This ‘‘estrangement’’ between Canadians and their fighting forces is attributed to the dwind- ling Reserve force. Beatty prom- ised the House he would boost the Reserves from their present 25,000 to 90,000 by the turn of the century.

“The government’s decision to put greater emphasis on the Re- serves will build a more effective bridge between the Forces and society’, Beatty said. In addition the Rangers — mainly Inuit and Native civilians who are issued with an arm band and rifle and instructed to watch for Soviet ac- tivity in the North — will be boosted, better trained and out- fitted, the report says.

And lest groups such as ‘*‘Kids for Peace’’ become too influen- tial, the department promises to promote and expand training for the 60,000, 12 - 19-year-olds it has enrolled in cadet programs.

The department has also estab- lished a speakers bureau which lends out senior military com- manders for lectures at schools or for conferences or meetings of ‘‘business, community, labor and other interested groups’’.

Opposition response to the re- port was guarded. Although both the Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to the nuclear sub- marine fleet, neither party ex-

The militarization of the North

pressed substantial differences with the paper’s thrust.

In fact, Liberal defence critic Douglas Frith, began his com- ments by criticizing the Conser- vatives for failing to live up to their 1984 election commitment to increase defence spending six per cent annually above the inflation rate. He took great pains to re- mind the House that many of the programs outlined in the report had been initiated under the for- mer Liberal government.

New Democratic critic, Derek Blackburn launched into the ‘*16 years of Liberal neglect’? when “equipment degenerated (and) the navy virtually rusted away’’.

While Blackburn reiterated NDP opposition to membership in NATO; warned against in- volvement in Star Wars and cal- led for an end to U.S. cruise mis- sile testing, there was a decidely hawkish tone to his speech which called for a wholesale revamping and refitting and beefing up of a conventional armed forces.

While both parties noted that threats to Canadian sovereignty have emanated from U.S., not Soviet subs, neither challenged — the main premise of the White Paper which justifies $200-billion to protect Canada from a non- — existent threat from our northern — neighbor. :

Policies would militarize economy

By WILLIAM KASHTAN

The Perrin Beatty White Paper on de- fence policy for Canada shows that the Mulroney government has taken the road

~ of militarization of the economy on a mas-

sive: scale.

The government claims it is a made-in- Canada defence policy directed to uphold Canada’s sovereignty.

The White Paper is not calculated to uphold Canada’s sovereignty. It is put to- gether as part of the cold war and first strike military aims of the Reagan adminis- tration. It is part of a continental policy laid out by the U.S. administration. It is part of the military integration of Canada into the U.S. Star Wars program and the U.S. strategy of attacking Soviet submar- ines in their northern home ports.

What is defence about this White Pa-

r?

PM Mulroney promised the U.S. administration he would stand by its side and is living up to this promise in spades. Free trade marks the economic integration of Canada with the USA. The White Paper marks the increased military integration of Canada with the dangerous foreign poli- cies of the U.S. administration.

This re-orientation of Canada is masked by the false claim of a Soviet military threat. Where?

_In the Arctic it is U.S. imperialism which refuses to recognize Canada’s sov- ereignty. In Central America it is the U.S. administration which interferes in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, Nica- ragua. In the Middle East it is U.S. im-

perialism which uses its military naval power to intimidate other peoples and countries.

Canadians should ask themselves: why now, when the world-wide demand for arms control grows, when the possibilities exist for eliminating intermediate and short range missiles does the Mulroney government move in an opposite direction — towards the militarization of the econ- omy, towards cold war against a non- existent Soviet threat?

It is time for the Canadian people to tell the government to stop this nonsense. The

alleged Soviet threat has been used to -

good advantage by U.S. imperialism to interfere with the independence and sovy- ereignty of its allies. It is now using this so-called threat to undertake a military adventure in the Persian Gulf and is out to suck its allies, Canada included, into this military adventure.

The dangerous course taken by the White Paper is covered up by the claim it will create jobs and facilitate regional development. If jobs are the real aim, why militarize the Canadian economy? Why build nuclear powered submarines for a non-existing Soviet military threat? There are more jobs created in civilian produc- tion than in military production.

Would it not have been better to under- -

take a program to end poverty and home- lessness, the crisis in the countryside, the creation of a child care program? Would it not be better to build homes, undertake road construction, public transport, and education and health care? These meas- ures would satisfy people’s needs. The

construction of submarines and other mili- tary equipment only satisfies the profits of the military industrial complex.

The militarization program will distort the Canadian economy as it is distorting the U.S. economy and transforming the USA from a creditor into a debtor nation at the same time as it is a factor in the looming crisis in the capitalist world.

There is no security in militarizing the economy. No matter what measures the government may take in pursuit of se- curity it will continue to remain vulnerable to nuclear attack and thus ultimately inse- cure. There is no security in being tied to U.S. imperialism. The contrary is the case.

The real threat today is not the Soviet |

Union but the nuclear arms race: It is time for the government to turn its attention to this basic fact rather than proffering words of peace while lining up with U.S. im- perialism and its dangerous military strat- egy.

The labor and democratic movement,

- the peace movements throughout the

country, and the parliamentary opposition have a great responsibility, to unite their efforts in rejecting the White paper and demanding the government adopt a gen- uinely made-in-Canada foreign policy.

The way to start is by pressing for the U.S. and its NATO allies to agree with the Soviet Union’s proposals for the elimina- tion of INF’s and short range missiles; ending U.S. Cruise missile testing on Canadian soil, preventing militarization of the Arctic, and declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.

Recess

6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 17, 1987