Who’s the aggressor in Ogaden?

_.. By VLADIMIR SIMONOV Novosti Political Correspondent The Ogaden Desert is still the scene of the biggest war in Afri- ca’s history. The setting was changed, however, for it is

Ethiopia that is counterattacking. —

Somalia’s regular troops, which Posed as the ‘‘liberation’ front”’, are backtracking, leaving their NATO arms behind.

This news from Ogaden has Caused the Western capitals to Teverse their assessment of the Conflict. So long as the Somalian forces were biting off, piece by Plece, one-fifth of Ethiopia’s ter- Titory, the West confined itself to an ostentatious display of anxiety with an easily detectable gloating behind it. Those who were out to nip the Ethiopian revolution in the bud were already preparing the Strategic bridgeheads in the horn of Africa to be leased to NATO,

while diverting the attention of the progressive forces of the reg- ion from the two major problems, the struggle against South African racism and the quest for a Middle East peace.

It has now suddenly come to light that if there was somebody who could not sleep because of the roar of battle in Ogaden, it was the West. It has chosen to call an immediate halt to the hostilities, but has addressed this undoub- tedly reasonable, if somewhat be- lated, appeal to the Soviet Union! The West labels Moscow and Havana as the chief trouble- shooters and even as good as ag- gressors.

In Washington Cyrus Vance has detected an ‘‘entirely new situation’ in the horn of Africa. He threatened that the U.S. would reconsider its position in

World peace leaders — meet in Washington

WASHINGTON — USS. and world peace leaders met here Jan. 25-28 for a Dialogue on Disarma- ment and Detente sponsored by the World Peace Council. Among the WPC delegates were rep- Tesentatives from 40 countries and all continents, including

many members of parliaments

and governments.

The three-day Dialogue was opened by Abe Feinglass vice- president of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen and vice-president. of the WPC representing the United States.

‘‘This is an appropriate place for you to meet,”’’ said Feinglass. “If anyone needs to be talked to about peace it is we . .. There are Many changes that need to be made to make the dream of Mar- tin Luther King, Jr., come true.”

Romesh Chandra, president of the WPC, said it was of “‘historic”’ Importance that the WPC was

ROMESH CHANDRA meetingin the U.S. ‘‘We meet ata moment of crucial significance for the future, when we can turn the tide, reach out, achieve dis- armament and consolidate de- tente,”’ he said.

This was the first time in years that the WPC was able to hold its bureau meeting in the U.S. Over 150 peace leaders from around the U.S. attended the Dialogue and shared their views on peace with the international leaders.

supplying arms to Somalia if Ethiopian troops crossed the Somalian border. The secretary of state did not specify whether he meant direct military supplies to Somalia since the delivery of American arms through go- betweens is no news.

In Rome, Foreign Minister For- lani has discovered what seems to him to be the main cause behind the conflict in Ogaden — “‘major and gross interference by the Soviet Union.” The minister did not say, however, whether the Italian Augusta firm had shipped 43 combat Cobra helicopters to Somalia and how the Somalians had come to have Italian-made mortars at their disposal.

The stir in NATO’s capitalists grew after Somalian president Siad Barre explained the retreat of his troops quite simply by ‘“‘un- disguised aggression of the Rus- sians.””

Cahill’s Secret Mission

The obvious purpose behind this stream of strange pro- nouncements is to make the in- ternational community forget all about the main issue the events in Ogaden have brought up. Who is the aggressor, who has, after all, moved his troops into Ethiopian territory to a depth of from 700 to

-300 kilometres west of the

Somalian-Ethiopian border? Who has since been occupying a por- tion of Ethiopian territory?

Not .one of the numerous statements produced by the Western capitals about the situa- tion in the horn of Africa has re- ferred to Somalia’s action as -a case of aggression, a term quite neatly defined in the UN docu- ments,

Before attacking the neighbor- ing staté,. President Siad Barre sent his personal doctor and ad- viser Kevin Cahill to the U.S. At the state department this Ameri- can was reassured that the United States had no objection to a “build-up of pressure’ in Oga- den.

To cap it all, Washington ag-

OPIA

Sudan

AD Kenya 2s Gumi reed to back up Somalia’s aggres-

sion, as it was prepared, with its arms supplies. An admission of this basic fact is to be found in an official statement made by the de- partment of state Jan. 17. True, at a later date the United States went back on its promise, but that changed nothing, the aggression was on.

“‘Had it not been for such hints from Washington, which were withdrawn afterwards,”’ a notori- ously anti-Soviet British jour- nalist wrote in the International Herald Tribune, ‘‘Somalia might never have moved against Ethiopia.”

It’s Others Who Pay

The West cannot bring itself to call Somalia’s actions by their real name also because this would re- move all questions. regarding as- sistance to Ethiopia from the Soviet Union and Cuba. A victim of aggression has a perfect right to turn to friendly nations for help to

defend its sovereignty. At the same time both Moscow and Addis Ababa.-are still trying all diplomatic and political means to induce the Somalian leaders to accept a peaceful settlement.

But Mogadishu does not appear to relish a peaceful prospect. It has announced in a public state- ment the dispatch of more regular troops into the area of military operations and declared a total call-up. The secret and, obvious- ly, productive negotiations with NATO about arms supplies are whetting the Somalian leader- ship’s appetite for internationaliz- ing the conflict.

Those supposed to be fighting “in an honorable way’’ are the 13-year-old Somalians drafted ina total call-up. This act of folly has been estimated to cost Somalia $2-million a day. To the aggres- sor’s delight, it is the Western capitals and their oil bankers who foot the bill.

This is the second of a 3-part Series on foreign penetration of Canada’s economy, prepared by Gerry van Houten, researcher for the Communist Party of Canada.

* * *

By GERRY VAN HOUTEN

PART 1 vernment response to the accelerated takeover of the Canadian economy has been Weak and ineffectual.

In its weak-kneed attempt to defend the interests of a section of

Canadian monopolies who are Competing with the foreign, par- Ucularly American, monopolies M Canada, the federal govern- Ment passed the Foreign Invest- Ment Review Act (FIRA) in the Spring of 1974. -

FIRA acknowledged that some Sort of control was needed over bids by foreigners to take over

_ ©Ompanies in-Canada. A number Of factors, including the effect ofa

Over on the level and nature

Foreign penetration of | our economy accelerating

of economic activity, its effect on employment, resource proces- sing, etc., the degree of Canadian participation, the effect on pro- ductivity, technological development, etc., was to be taken into account in assessing whether or not a foreign corpora- tion could acquire a company al- ready in operation in Canada or set up a new business. Acquisi- tions and new businesses were to be assessed according to whether or not they were, or were likely to be, ‘‘of. significant benefit to Canada...” ‘

However, FIRA’s effective- ness was precluded well ahead of time. It has no authority over ex- pansions of foreign subsidiaries in Canada which raise-their funds from domestic sources, chiefly through loans from Canadian banks, undistributed profits and capital consumption allowances. It thereby excludes a substantial proportion of foreign direct_in- vestment from the scrutiny of the federal government.

If FIRA has had any effect, it is

this: The amount of foreign direct

investment from foreign sources has declined steadily since 1972, while the export of capital from Canada has increased just as

‘steadily. In 1973 — the last year

before FIRA came into effect — $750-million more in direct investment flowed into Canada than flowed out of Canada. In 1976, $395-million more flowed out of Canada than entered Cana- da.-In short, FIRA has encour- aged foreign monopolies in Canada to rely even more on Canadian sources for the takeover of the Canadian economy.

The only significant benefit of FIRA’s regulations to ‘‘Cana- dians’’ has been to Canada’s big banking monopolies who are cal- led upon to provide greater funds for the takeover of the economy. Canada’s Canadian controlled banks are obtaining a little extra profit from the interest on their loans to foreign-owned corpora-

~ tions:

FIRA has had no effect on the

continuing takeover of the Cana- dian economy by foreign, chiefly American,’ capital. Although figures for 1976 and 1977 are available, the fact that foreign di- rect investments continued to climb in 1974 (when FIRA was in effect for nine months) and 1975 (FIRA’s first full year of opera- tion) is proof that this so-called “*screening’’ agency has not done a very effective job in controlling foreign direct investment.

Furthermore, even where FIRA had the opportunity to stop

‘foreign direct investment, it did

very little. In its first two years of operation (1974-75 and 1975-76), it allowed the acquisitionof 177 companies, both Canadian and foreign-owned. In 1976-77, FIRA allowed 319 acquisitions. In 1976-77 alone, there were 70 ap- plications by foreign corporations to take over Canadian-owned or controlled companies and most of these were allowed.

In its first three years of opera- tion, FIRA has allowed a total of 326 acquisitions and 170 new businesses in Canada. On the other hand, it has disallowed 54 acquisitions and 14 new busines- ses in the same period.

Most acquisitions allowed by FIRA have been in the branches of the economy which provide the most jobs. In 1976-77, 58.2% of acquisitions were in manufactur- ing (followed by wholesale and re- tail trade with 22.9%). Although FIRA has the -power to “‘Canadianize”’ enterprises which are put up for sale, it has failed to exert that power.

Instead, it legitimizes increased foreign control of Canadian indus- try, particularly manufacturing, and thereby becomes an ac- complice to a situation where de- cisions .are made outside of Canada by the parent companies of the multi-nationals with all its dire economic and_ social consequences.

. PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FEBRUARY 24, 1978—Page 5