EDITORIAL

Reject Nicaragua boycott

What guarantees has the government of Can- ada that the U.S. will not step into this country and order what trade may be conducted with Nicaragua?

There are no guarantees.

The External Affairs Minister Joe Clark says adamantly that while the U.S. is “monitoring” what companies do in Canada, there will be Can- adian “monitoring” of what the U.S. does in this country.

Reagan’s trade embargo in Nicaragua is in line with a century-long imperialist brutality in the interests of the U.S. transnationals.

Canada has gone through this insulting pro- cess before. Last time it was over Cuba. The U.S. ordered Canada not to sell locomotives to Cuba. The federal government of the time, to its credit, with the backing of an outraged Canadian public, stood up to mighty U.S. imperialism and won.

No U‘S. ruler, least of all one who pays hom- age to Nazis, can tell Canada what trade arran- gements it may or may not make. If the govern- ment of Brian Mulroney thinks differently it will answer to the people of this country whose jobs are at stake, but whose internationalism and patriotism are also at stake.

The fact and the truth is that Reagan has every intention of invading Nicaragua, and nothing, he believes, will deter him from the outcome. But the

Canadian people and hundreds of other peoples are prepared to stop him with every means possi- ble, in the first place by compelling their own governments.to break with Reagan’s aggressive plans.

Reagan’s terrorists ought to recall Vietnam; they ought to recall the Bay of Pigs when they tried to destroy independent Cuba. If they want to know who are the enemies of US. imperialism — the answer is the whole world.

Reagan’s envoy to Canada, Paul Robinson, has a habit of sticking his nose and his destabiliza- tion methods into Canadian affairs. He tells Can- adians: ‘We're not going to let another Cuba in this hemisphere. That’s it, the end, finished.”

- For that imperialist extremist it may be the

end, but Canadians aren’t likely to jump to his,

commands. A campaign for his rapid removal from Canada is long overdue. We don’t need U.S. imperialism’s provacateurs here.

Since the Mulroney government, ever-tuned to the commands of the White House and Pen- tagon, has no time for the demands of the Cana- dian people, the people must take matters into their own hands. Canadian independence, Cana- dian sovereignty, terms Mulroney has forgotten, shall continue to be fought for, as they were in World War II — by the working class and not least, the young generation.

A secret Star Wars deal

If, as New Democratic Party leader Ed Broad- bent says, on the authority of a scientist formerly employed by the federal government, the government of Canada has already decided to join in research for the U.S. Star Wars program,

then the under-informed Canadian public should demand an explanation.

“The National Research Council has already been informed that Canada will participate in the American program of research into Star Wars and that the NRC will act as the point of contact in Canada for co-operation between the two countries,” the scientist revealed.

It is becoming a habit, it seems, for the prime minister to deny what has taken place.

We have said in these pages that Reagan’s Star Wars program not only offers nothing to Canada other than being dragged into U.S. imperialism’s

global strategy, but vastly increases the danger of a war to end all life.

This country is not at war. It’s no time for secret military pacts, especially pacts that com- promise Canada’s sovereignty, and its credibility in the world. There is valid suspicion and valid criticism that the North Warning System, the renewed air defence agreement and under-the-

table Star Wars deals all go together to make -

Canada a U.S. powder monkey.

Earlier this month the London-based Institute of Strategic Studies called Star Wars a route likely to lead to an expensive and destabilizing arms race in space. The people of Europe are massively opposed to Star Wars. Even Reagan’s allies in European governments are disturbed and wary over this program. Shouldn’t Mulroney get a message from all that even if he is deaf to what the Canadian people say?

4.

‘

bros

“Sure, | know what! wanna‘be when | grow up. Man, | just wanna be

alive!”

Ree Te Pel aurea e) |

Steinberg Inc., Montreal, had to sell a lot of Cheez Whiz to do it, but they came up with an after-tax $52,568,000 profit for the 36 weeks ended April 6, compared with $7,336,000 in that period 4 — year earlier. They also run Miracle Mart, Lantic Sugar, Steinberg

Realty, etc.

Profiteer of the week

IRIBUNE

Subscription Rate: Canada —

Editor — SEAN GRIFFIN Assistant Editor — DAN KEETON Business & Circulation Manager — PAT O'CONNOR Graphics — ANGELA KENYON

Published weekly at 2681 East Hastings Street

Vancouver, B.C. V5K 1Z5 Phone (604) 251-1186

$14 one year; $8 six months Foreign — $20 one year;

Second class mail registration number 1560

ver the years, the movement for_

economic action against repressive regimes in South Africa and Chile has grown impressively, with the initial demand for a boycott of products expand- ing , particularly in the case of South Africa, to a demand for disinvestment in

People and Issues

South African-owned companies. As readers will have noted in Harry Rankin’s column last week, the city of Edinburgh in Scotland has taken up the cause, calling for the withdrawal of city funds from any companies and banks on the UN blacklist of South African companies. Seattle has done likewise and the COPE aldermen want to see similar action taken by Van- couver city council as well.

Now we note that the city council of Berkeley, California has voted to support a boycott of Chilean produce and to declare “Chilean agricultural products are not welcome in Berkeley.”

The motion, adopted unanimously by the eight members of council present as well as Berkeley mayor Eugene “Gus” Newport, called the Pinochet regime “‘one of the most repressive tyrannies in the world” and noted that foreign currency earned from exports “does not reach the vast majority of the people” and goes instead to “prop up Chile’s sagging econ- omy.”

It called on the people of Berkeley to “refuse to purchase such products” and urged merchants to “decline to offer Chi- lean agricultural products for sale.”

More important, perhaps, the council directed city staff to “contact the public and sellers of Chilean produce in order to inform them that this boycott is in effect and to request their co-operation and par- ticipation.”

There, of course, the Berkeley council has to contend with the Reagan adminis- tration which supports expanded trade and financial dealings with both Chile and South Africa — just as the Socred government does in this province.

Inevitably they reject support for such city-led boycotts on the phony pretext that consumers “must have a free choice” to decide whether or not they’ll buy such products.

Of course there were no such free choi- ces for consumers when they looked for Chilean wine in the years between 1970

and 1972 (when the tenure of the Socred government overlapped with that of the Allende government in Chile) although wines from Pinochet’s Chile now literally flood the liquor store shelves.

As for the U.S., how much free choice did consumers have in the trade embargo imposed on Nicaragua?

And there’s the fundamental difference: the boycott actions by Edinburgh, Berke-

ley, Seattle — and, we hope, Vancouver.

— are the expression of popular support as evidenced by the votes. The action of the Reagan administration in imposing the embargo on Nicaragua was imposed in defiance of public opinion — and without any elected body having an Opportunity to vote on it. Free choice, when it involves profits from cheap labor, is worth about as much to the Socreds and Reagan as it is in Chile or South Africa.

* * &

A; we were preparing our May Day issue last month we showed photo-

graphs of May Day, 1935 to several of our readers who were around at the time in the hope of identifying at least some of those who appear. But it was understandably difficult since the passage of half a century dims memories and changes people a lot. So we had to simply print the photos without naming any of the faces.

No sooner had the issue appeared, however, than Tribune mailer Stan Lowe told us that he himself is the man in the top photograph carrying the lead banner which reads “United Front of Youth, May Day 1935.” (Ironically, we had shown him other photos which he didn’t recognize but had somehow passed over that one.) Unfortunately, he couldn’t recall the name of the woman carrying the banner with him.

We appeal to readers now — if you can positively identify that woman or any 0

the other people who appeared in the his- —

torical photographs in that issue, pleas¢

drop us a note. If possible, send along the |

photo and circle those you can name along with their names. If you wanted to save the issue, let us know and we’ll send you a new one.

Considering the proud tradition that we’ve kept up for 50 years, we'd like to do everything possible to see it’s preserved.

_ 4e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MAY 15, 1985